Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 August 21

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

Media Organisations Biography Society Web Games Science Arts Places Indiscern. Not-Sorted

< August 20	August 22 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:41, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Shireen Matthews[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Subject does not meet WP:GNG and is a case of WP:BLP1E as a failed judicial nominee. Let'srun (talk) 23:55, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Women, Law, and California. Let'srun (talk) 23:55, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Rather straightfoward as per nom, current position is not notable and simply running for a district judge position does not confer notability. There may be some exceptions for particularly notable candidates - but that does not seem to be the case here. A MINOTAUR (talk) 03:25, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: ROTM failed district judge nominee. CLYDE ^{TALK TO ME}/_{STUFF DONE} 04:53, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Clearly not a notable; arguments already provided above! Ekdalian (talk) 08:24, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No notable, no significant or notable positions were held nor unique deep coverage on the person available. Mozzcircuit (talk) 14:13, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete lacks significant coverage fails WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 09:49, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non Notable and not have reliable sources Worldiswide (talk) 04:02, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Notability falls below the bottom. The subject may probably become notable with career progression in future. Noneate (talk) 17:09, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:24, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

East Nashville Crips[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG. Lacks reliable sources. Much of the article appears to be a weak synthesis of published articles which do not support the main thrust of the article. Geoff | ^{Who, me?} 15:47, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Tennessee. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:57, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Shaolin Punk (talk) 23:38, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:36, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Cannot find any SIRS sources. CLYDE ^{TALK TO ME}/_{STUFF DONE} 04:55, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:25, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Braepark, Edinburgh[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is not a suburb just a small neighbourhood in Edinburgh fails to meet WP:GNG 1keyhole (talk) 13:10, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Scotland. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:13, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep unlike Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Westfield, Edinburgh this is an OS settlement[1] and is in the Gazetteer for Scotland. Crouch, Swale (talk) 16:56, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
delete we don't just keep every name on an official map in the US and I see no reason not to do the same in the UK. Searches give no indication of any notability; almost everything is a real estate listing or routine governmental material. Mangoe (talk) 03:39, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:34, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Don't think WP:GEOLAND applies as although populated there is lack of evidence of it being legally recognised. Did consider a redirect/merge to Cramond as it was ~~/(is?)~~ in that parish; however that article concentrates on the coastal Cramond village and looks fairly self-contained. Braepark to the south of Cramond village appears to be the name now in use for the area of an historic estate called Braehead. The article could be expanded with detail on the Braehead Estate [2], the Cramond Old Bridge [3] and the Braehead Mains statue [4]. The article would also be a good reciprocal link to William Houison Craufurd of Braehead. In summary, there's definite potential for this article from a historical angle so I believe a Keep opinion is justified. (If there was nothing to expand the article with and Braepark was merely a modern housing estate on former agricultural land, I would have !voted delete.) Rupples (talk) 23:31, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Taken a further look at this and decided to withdraw Keep !vote. AFAICS Edinburgh Council do not refer to Braepark as a separate neighbourhood. The historical interest features I referred to above are included within a part of Cramond Conservation Area named Cramond Brig. The name "Braepark" only seems to be referenced in property sales. GNG is not satisfied for the name "Braepark". May be best to add the historical detail to Cramond after all. Not sure even a redirect for "Braepark" is required. Rupples (talk) 03:45, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:35, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Not legally recognized so fails WP:GEOLAND, cannot find SIRS sources so fails WP:GNG. CLYDE ^{TALK TO ME}/_{STUFF DONE} 05:02, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No coverage in any news or reliable source except for real estate listing. Fails WP:GNG. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CaribbeanKing (talk • contribs) 15:04, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge‎ to Parques Reunidos. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:16, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Palace Entertainment[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I suggest merging Palace Entertainment into Parques Reunidos, as Palace Entertainment always was or has become an unncessary spinoff. 90% of the source is already rehashed at the target. The question here is NOT NOTABILITY so there is no need to delete Palace Entertainment or to look for sources! RATHER, the question is that of information governance. Thank you all for considering how each one of our articles could become sensible to carry so articles won't overlap and insult the intelligence of the reader! gidonb (talk) 16:44, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Adding that Palace Entertainment, while probably still operational as an intermediate holding company, has been fully integrated into Parques Reunidos. For example, there is no longer separate web presence for Palace Entertainment. gidonb (talk) 17:04, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business, Companies, Spain, and United States of America. gidonb (talk) 16:44, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Amusement parks-related deletion discussions. gidonb (talk) 16:54, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This really ought to be a proposed merge as described at WP:MERGEPROP rather than a deletion proposal Garuda3 (talk) 23:39, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the Palace Entertainment page's notability is justified due to its historical value and long list of property ownership with dozens of tourist properties having their own Wikipedia pages. The issue with multiple reliable citations is still there and the continent is not easily verifiable. However, the chance is that some books, magazines, etc contain the necessary information. If merging, much information should be removed due to lack of sufficient reliable citations. Old-AgedKid (talk) 08:50, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, I saw this on the WP:APARKS tab. It may be more appropriate to start a discussion via WP:MERGEPROP rather than WP:AFD per the nomination. AFD's are usually for deleting articles not meeting our notability criteria. If there is a belief the subject has notability but possibly a lack of information it should either be improved or merged if indeed the subject is the same as the target article. I would suggest closing the AFD and starting a discussion on the talk page if that was the intention. Adog (Talk・Cont) 04:03, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:35, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge: per nom. This should have been proc closed and taken to PAM, but we're here, so... CLYDE ^{TALK TO ME}/_{STUFF DONE} 05:07, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom per ATD. HighKing⁺⁺ 14:50, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:25, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

King Biscuit Flower Hour Presents - Humble Pie In Concert[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Live album which does not appear to pass WP:NALBUM. Based on a before search it does not appear to have charted, won an award, or received enough significant coverage for a stand alone article. Nominating to be redirected to Humble Pie, the band who recorded the album. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:40, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs and England. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:40, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:34, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails NALBUM per nom. CLYDE ^{TALK TO ME}/_{STUFF DONE} 05:23, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:17, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen Yohay[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable person. Page is written like an advertisement, which is surmountable, but there doesn't appear to be sufficient sourcing to warrant keeping the page even once it's properly rewritten. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 18:13, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 18:13, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: may or may not be notable but he's working on it.
- "Acting Manhattan U.S. Attorney Announces Settlement With Substance Abuse Treatment Center And Its Owner For Enrolling Patients Through Kickbacks And Using Falsified Patient Admissions Forms (announcement)". Southern District of New York. United States Department of Justice. 21 December 2020. Retrieved 7 August 2023.
- Bryant, Bailey (6 January 2021). "SUD Treatment Provider, Former CEO to Pay $6M for Medicaid Fraud". Behavioral Health Business.
- Hasday, Jill Elaine (18 July 2019). Intimate Lies and the Law (PDF). Oxford University Press. pp. 73–74. ISBN 9780190930233. Retrieved 7 August 2023.
  - 190-word description of a privacy-lawsuit arising from his divorce. He won.

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 19:11, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:27, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:12, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the subject appears to be mostly known for defrauding Medicaid per what A. B. found. There is another "Stephen Yohay" who specializes in OSHA law who might be more notable. - Indefensible (talk) 23:32, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:34, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Cannot find any SIRS. CLYDE ^{TALK TO ME}/_{STUFF DONE} 05:32, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nom. This article 1 mentions him in a Medicaid fraud.CarribeanKing (talk) 19:20, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect‎ to Confessions of a Teenage Jesus Jerk. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:27, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sasha Feldman[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NACTOR for only making one important role in a notable work, Confessions of a Teenage Jesus Jerk. This is not enough to satisfy NACTOR. Paul Vaurie (talk) 23:38, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Azerbaijan, and United States of America. Paul Vaurie (talk) 23:38, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:25, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless an editor can provide references to significant coverage of this actor in independent, reliable sources. Cullen328 (talk) 23:34, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Confessions of a Teenage Jesus Jerk: BLP1E. Redirection is an ATD. CLYDE ^{TALK TO ME}/_{STUFF DONE} 05:35, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Draftify‎. If more reliable sources are found or the content is improved and passes AFC review, a move to main space can be considered. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:49, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Serpent (2021 film)[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Poorly written article about a film, not properly referenced as having any serious claim to passing WP:NFILM. As always, films are not "inherently" notable just because they exist, and have to show evidence of their significance (notable awards, WP:GNG-worthy critical analysis in reliable source media, etc.) -- but existence is about the only notability claim being made here, and the referencing is parked entirely on blogs, directory entries (Letterboxd, IMDb), YouTube videos and user-generated "anybody can submit any self-created 'news' they want to" platforms, with not a whit of GNG-worthy coverage in legitimate media shown at all.
In addition it warrants note that this was created in userspace, then moved by its creator into mainspace, then draftified by an established editor for the same reasons as I'm listing it now, but then got moved back into mainspace by the creator without any substantive improvement — but that's not the appropriate process, and I don't see much point in redraftifying it again if the creator is going to just keep remainspacing it himself.
Nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt this film from having to have better referencing than this. Bearcat (talk) 14:12, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and United States of America. Bearcat (talk) 14:12, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment While I was digging up more notability-indicating sources for this article (a review by RogerEbert.com), I found something important. This movie isn't The Serpent (2020). It's The Serpent (2021). It's got the wrong year. That might be why attempts at finding sourcing for articles about this movie have come up dry. Darkfrog24 (talk) 17:20, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Review at RogerEbert; the articles at GirlsWithGuns, Shockya, PopGeeks seem acceptable as signed by their authors. There is also this (Roger Moore's Movienation) and this, or this at least.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 19:50, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Perhaps merge/redirect to Gia Skova. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:27, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:21, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Additional: other reviews here and here for example. The page needs improvements but the film seems clearly notable.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 21:55, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I am agree the film its notable.

Its possible erase the notation of delete?

Only need add more information. GEORGEB1989 (talk) 15:47, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Those aren't WP:GNG-worthy reliable or notability-building sources. Films aren't notable just because it's possible to find information about them in a Google search — they have to have coverage in a certain specific tier of high-calibre media sources, like daily newspapers and/or books, which neither Bluray.com nor AIPT are. Bearcat (talk) 16:14, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

hello@Bearcat

The film its notable and are more information and another source

it possible eliminate the template

Best regards

George Barahona GEORGEB1989 (talk) 15:49, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ArcAngel (talk) 23:46, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Given the path it took to get here and the fact that the article creator is here, I'll suggest draftify to incubate, but otherwise keep per sourcing by Mushy Yank —siro χ o 03:31, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist to see if there is more support for Draftification or Redirection.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:20, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify - It's not hanging on by much, but it does seem to have enough coverage at least regarding it's "cult" / "so bad it's good" appeal to qualify. It definitely needs improvement though, and I would be happy to assist should the page still need repairs in a few days. I do feel that the article should stand on it's own as it is a full length film very much with it's own "presence" outside of it's creator (compared to say, a short film created by a major celebrity, where the main 'hook' of said film would be it's creator's name attached to it). A MINOTAUR (talk) 03:43, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I have not decided on a vote yet, and agree that Roger ebert.com is RS, but I respectfully disagree that the above sources are acceptable as signed by their authors:

-Roger Moore is the only other source close to a RS. It is Wordpress blog with no editorial policies, but the author is a former film critic to several publications per about us. So this might meet an expert SPS and acceptable for non-highly contentious claims, and I would put it as situational to reliable.

-Blue ray.com has no about us page demonstrating editorial control and USEBYOTHERS does not appear to be widespread. Noteworthily, the author is Tomatometer-approved but not a "top critic". Still, Rotten Tomatoes's RSP entry makes it clear that Reviewers tracked by Rotten Tomatoes are not automatically reliable for their reviews, while there is no consensus on whether their "Top Critics" are generally reliable.

-AIPT has no editorial policies, detailed about us, or staff expertise listed, and would be generally unreliable. There is a single USEBYOTHERS- it's on Rotten Tomatoes, but this does not confer reliability, so I would put it unreliable to situational.

-Girls with Guns and Popgeek are Wordpress blogs (see bottom of pages) with again no editorial policies, about us, staff expertise, and very limited USEBYOTHERS. Both are obviously non-RS. Shockya is another Wordpress blog, there is a staff page with no indication of expertise, I searched the editors and were unable to find anything, so this is IMO unreliable.

-We are the Movie Geeks's about us page seems very fanlike, but there is a couple of contributors that are film journalists. But the piece's author (Tom Brookman) lacks subject-matter-expertise, and there is no clear editorial process that would reassure that his contribution is properly reviewed. Overall, I think this is between situational and unreliable.

My BEFORE did not unravel further sources, so I am currently leaning (re)draftify or merge. Thanks. VickKiang (talk) 07:31, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect‎ to Adrienne Bailon-Houghton. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:50, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

New Tradiciones[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I could not find evidence of significant coverage from third-party, reliable sources. The Billboard source currently used in the article is solid, but one source does not justify a separate article, and I could not find evidence of further coverage outside of that single source. Aoba47 (talk) 23:25, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Aoba47 (talk) 23:25, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:15, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to artist, Adrienne Bailon-Houghton. -- asilvering (talk) 21:02, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:11, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Big Wheel Recreation[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Notability criteria failure. Lots of one sentence trivial mention in numerous CMJ magazines, and other mentions elsewhere like "Many emo bands of the late 90s signed to indie labels including Jade Tree Records, Saddle Creek, and Big Wheel Recreation." but sources that satisfy ORGDEPTH not found. Graywalls (talk) 22:42, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Entertainment, Organizations, Companies, and Massachusetts. Graywalls (talk) 22:42, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - There are a lot of mentions but they are all associated with the musicians and/or music, not in-depth about the label itself. I cannot find anything meeting WP:ORGCRIT in Google Search, News, Books, or Newspapers.com. --CNMall41 (talk) 18:23, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Probably the most significant label yet to be AfD'ed in the recent bumper crop of NCORP-motivated deletions (at least as far as I've been made aware), this label had literally dozens of noteworthy signees and its output was routinely reviewed in independent music rags for more or less the label's entire run. This is a perfect object lesson for why NCORP is a Procrustean bed for labels, and is actively harming depth of coverage in music; without this article providing a node for hyperlinking, how do we note the connective tissue between these bands (which meet WP:MUSIC on their own without relying on the notability of the label itself)? I can note a little coverage in depth of the label itself, but this is missing the wider issue of what we are trying to accomplish in having articles about independent labels at all; this is a label that made significant and lasting impacts on musical culture, and that is the proper subject of an encyclopedia article. This isn't a functioning label and so there aren't promotional concerns; there are no verifiability concerns; why is the encyclopedia better by losing the article? If the rules say we have to, we still don't have to. Chubbles (talk) 00:50, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment this is a label that made significant and lasting impacts on musical culture then prove it. Provide widely circulated mainstream citation that corroborates the supposed significant and lasting impact on culture. As an example, PBS states in their own voice about Thomas Edison: Edison invented or refined devices that made a profound impact on how people lived^[1]. Now, let's see something of equal caliber crediting Big Wheel Recreation for making a profound impact on music culture. Graywalls (talk) 00:57, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You yourself noted that BWR's output received routine coverage in CMJ; as one can find in Google Books, there is issue after issue after issue, year after year, covering their releases. That's a strong indicator of significance, and we should not turn a blind eye to its existence. Of course, there is no such PBS article, and this label does not meet NCORP; aside from major labels, I doubt more than a handful of the thousands of labels with articles do, because they were never made to and because people who edit in music never had the thought to apply it to them, any more than they would have applied it to bands (which, I have noted before, absolutely are corporations). Chubbles (talk) 01:05, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Existence doesn't mean notability unfortunately. While there are many mentions, it is about the releases or the musicians, not about the label. A "strong indicator of significance" is also not "significance." --CNMall41 (talk) 01:09, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

One can assert importance of their own family and claim their clan is profoundly important to modern civilization and the author may sincerely hold this belief. However, personally held belief that something is important when there's no general consensus as being an improvement is not a good situation to invoke WP:IAR. Graywalls (talk) 01:16, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is degenerating into straw-man territory. I've had this conversation with the nominator several times already and am well aware that his WP:HEY standard is beyond what 99% of the articles on independent labels can provide. So I'll just say that the criterion he claims is necessary for inclusion is neither required nor helpful to encyclopedically covering music on the site. Chubbles (talk) 06:25, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome to propose a modification of notability policy over at Village Pump or other recognized forum to formally gather consensus and get the notability requirements change for record labels. For now, can you drop three sources that raises this company to meet NCORP? Notability requires verifiable evidence. Graywalls (talk) 06:26, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:16, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ "Who Made America? | Innovators | Thomas Edison". www.pbs.org. Retrieved 2023-08-09.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:14, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless an editor can provide references to significant coverage of this record label in independent, reliable sources. Record labels are not exempt from WP:NCORP and shouldn't be. Cullen328 (talk) 23:30, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can only find something in the Athletic of all places [5], but that's not enough for notability. Oaktree b (talk) 02:17, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
And this in the Harvard newspaper [6]. That isn't usually used for notability purposes. We have like one and a half sources. Oaktree b (talk) 02:19, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:29, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Brahmondi Kamini Kishore Moulik Government High School[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NSCHOOL as it meets neither WP:GNG nor WP:ORG. Searches in English and Bengali found nothing but passing mentions and indiscriminate directory listings. Without significant coverage in multiple, independent, reliable, secondary sources, should not be a stand alone article. Worldbruce (talk) 21:52, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and Bangladesh. Worldbruce (talk) 21:52, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti ^{*Let's talk!*} 22:34, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Found some refs: https://sangbadsangrah.com/?p=2842, https://www.narsingdipratidin.com/2023/01/01/%E0%A6%A8%E0%A6%B0%E0%A6%B8%E0%A6%BF%E0%A6%82%E0%A6%A6%E0%A7%80%E0%A6%A4%E0%A7%87-%E0%A6%AC%E0%A6%87-%E0%A6%AC%E0%A6%BF%E0%A6%A4%E0%A6%B0%E0%A6%A3-%E0%A6%89%E0%A7%8E%E0%A6%B8%E0%A6%AC/print/, https://old.bartabazar.com/archives/390567 - Indefensible (talk) 04:14, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Kudos on a diligent search. In all my years editing Bangladeshi topics, I've never come across those three websites, but those are what I mean by passing mentions: 1) "The 18th annual sports competition of Narsingdi Sunbeam School ... was held on Saturday at the Brahmandi Kamini Kishore Maulik Government High School ground ..." 2) "Later he distributed books to ... and Brahmandi Kamini Kishore Primary School in the city". 3) "In the pre-award discussion held under the chairmanship of Masudur Rahman, the head teacher of Brahmandi Kamini Kishore Maulik Government High School, ..." --Worldbruce (talk) 04:27, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  Yes, I probably agree (with some regret) that subject does not seem to meet currently, however listing for others to review and there might be other sources out there. - Indefensible (talk) 04:40, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:14, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relisting.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:14, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless an editor can provide references to significant coverage of this high school in independent, reliable sources. Cullen328 (talk) 23:39, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:51, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

2013 Albanian demonstrations in Macedonia[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

As per WP:NOTNEWS and WP:EVENT. All the sources are from March 2013 when the event happened. LibStar (talk) 23:08, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Albania, and North Macedonia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:14, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom, and fails GNG due to lack of SIGCOV. One good thing is that it points to 2014 Albanian demonstrations in the Republic of Macedonia which is ripe for an AfD for the same reasons if anyone wants to nominate it. Cheers, Last1in (talk) 03:12, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've nominated it at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2014 Albanian demonstrations in the Republic of Macedonia. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 07:00, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable news story, no secondary coverage. I made an attempt to see if sources might exist in Albanian or Macedonian, but I didn't see anything after 2013. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 06:57, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails to meet GNG. Ping me if non English sources may be available Vergilreader (talk) 19:53, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:30, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Erica Iverson[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Subject fails WP:GNG. Could not find reliable, secondary source significant coverage. Only source cited on article that offers this is a primary source from UMass. Paul Vaurie (talk) 17:57, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and United States of America. Paul Vaurie (talk) 17:57, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Paul Vaurie (talk) 18:06, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:58, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Has multiple third person sources to demonstrate notability. Dwanyewest (talk) 00:37, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Sources in the article are not covering her directly and in depth. #1 is stats N. #2 is non-independent N. #3 is a hyper-local interview of her and her husband and covers them as a couple, not her specifically in detail N. #4 is non-independent N. #5 is hyper-local news with <1 sentence of passing mentions of her N. #6 is a contributed piece (so of unclear independence or editorial status) published in the same outlet as #3 and containing little more than quotes from her/her husband N. JoelleJay (talk) 05:04, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets WP Football Notability by playing for a fully professional team in a nation league. Better sourcing would enhance the article. Demt1298 (talk) 20:58, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Demt1298, NFOOTY was deprecated last year and does not carry any weight. JoelleJay (talk) 00:37, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@JoelleJay Is there a discussion I can read on this? Demt1298 (talk) 01:30, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Click on the WP Football Notability, then go back a level to Project Football and scroll down to notability; that essay has been replaced with GNG. Here's the link [7]. Oaktree b (talk) 02:24, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Or just go to WP:NSPORT. NFOOTY is no longer listed there (and never superseded lack of GNG coverage even when it was). JoelleJay (talk) 02:29, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 22:30, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: This subject does not meet any notability guidelines, merely being mentioned in match reports which do not meet WP:SIGCOV. WP Football Player Notability is an essay, and is not a substitute for the subject lacking third party sources. The keep votes have so far not provided any sources to show notability. User:Let'srun 23:11, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge‎ to Mossad. The previous AFD was closed as No consensus but there was a solid contingent of editors asking for a Merge/Redirect so I'm willing to close this discussion now even though there has been low participation. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:00, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kidon[edit]

AfDs for this article:

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Propose redirect and merge into Mossad. If you take out all the unsourced pop culture references, there are really only 3 sentences of well-sourced and additive content in this article. Would be better suited in the main Mossad article. AfD discussion was no consensus, with strong support for merging. Since then, the article has been winnowed down. Longhornsg (talk) 21:49, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Israel. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:16, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Mossad, selectively and without prejudice, as an unjustified WP:SPINOFF. gidonb (talk) 00:16, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete‎ per criterion G4. Page was an exact copy of an article that was G4-deleted just two days ago. I've also deleted the two draft pages which were also exact copies. Creator is blocked along with their sock, Ncircle Entertainment (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), and the title will be blacklisted. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 21:57, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

NCircle Entertainment[edit]

AfDs for this article:

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NCORP. Repeatedly created in the exact same manner with zero improvement. First AFD ended up in a merge to another article be this user that has been deleted because it also failed WP:NCORP. Has been moved to AFC and declined several times. I will also nominate this title be salted. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 21:31, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Business, and United States of America. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 21:31, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt per nom. I don’t understand why this subject is so persistently pushed into mainspace. Mccapra (talk) 21:52, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:13, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Tim Abell[edit]

AfDs for this article:

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Deleted in both 2015 and 2020 before being recreated in 2021. I don't see any significant role or significant coverage since previous deletions. Roles are minor and the references are interviews, routine coverage, or unreliable sources. Would recommend salting if deleted. CNMall41 (talk) 20:39, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CNMall41 (talk) 20:39, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:58, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Social News (dot) xyz (2021/07/01/happy-birthday-tim-abell-here-is-some-popular-films-of-him/) is about the best site I could find: spam blacklist so you can't even post the link. It's not a RS in any sense of the word. Delete delete delete. Oaktree b (talk) 21:37, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Still not notable. Time to delete this for the third time. Go4thProsper (talk) 10:55, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:04, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. And I support the WP:SALT suggestion to prevent wasting time for us all in the future. Suitskvarts (talk) 12:58, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge‎ to Qatif conflict#Arab Spring protests 2011–12. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:03, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

2011 Qatif uprising[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is a WP:CFORK or perhaps a spinout of 2011–2012 Saudi Arabian protests. That page covers the subject, but the spinout is not required and the events in Qatif are not independently notable. The sources in the article are WP:PRIMARY being news reports, and descriptions of the events. There was indeed a series of clashes in Qatif, but these were all part of the 2011-2012 Saudi protests and there is no evidence in sources that the Qatif clashes were given exception coverage nor particular analysis outside of that. Secondary sources do not cover this subject outside of the larger Saudi Arabian protests subject. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 20:41, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Politics. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 20:41, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Saudi Arabia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:24, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Qatif conflict#Arab Spring protests 2011–12 2601:204:C901:B740:D8FD:8ADF:C0DB:A03A (talk) 15:09, 8 August 2023 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE --Blablubbs (talk) 22:39, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to see if there is additional support for a Merge and, if so, to which target article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:31, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep has had a lot of news reports. Newspaper articles are secondary sources. It had a WP:Lasting effect as a start of a war. 109.37.150.153 (talk) 20:40, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What articles are we talking about? Newspaper reports are, in fact, generally primary. See WP:PRIMARY and especially note d. There is no evidence here of any secondary sources, and certainly not of an lasting effects. If there were, there would be secondary sources. None have been shown to exist. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 22:17, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Newspaper articles are secondary sources. They are not directly involved. And see also that Mainstream newspapers are listed under Reliable sources. 109.37.150.153 (talk) 07:06, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Please read the link I provided. If a newspaper article is an account of an event, it is primary. Articles may be secondary in some cases where they are not merely recounting an event, and are not close to the event, but to demonstrate that, you would need to present the article you think is secondary so that the source can be reviewed and discussed. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:17, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don’t see in your link that newspapers are primary sources. I think you mean the sentence An account of a traffic incident written by a witness is a primary source of information about the event. So yes, an eye witness report is a primary source. But a newspaper report is a secondary source. 109.37.150.153 (talk) 17:36, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I specifically directed you to noted d. Primary sources may include newspaper articles, letters, diaries, interviews, laws, reports of government commissions, and many other types of documents." A contemporary newspaper report of an event is a primary source. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 18:03, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Wel you are not referring to the Wikipedia guidance, but to the note section with a definition of a Universitey and didn’t add the first sentence. The first sentence is green (so an eyewitness report of a journalist or other person or the opinion of en expert.) Yes, these can indeed be found in newspapers, but that is not the main aim of a newspaper articles. Read for instance at Primary source: green. Still note that what I stated above that in the main guideline of Wikipedia newspapers are listed under secondary sources. 109.37.150.153 (talk) 07:13, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No, the main body says that newspapers are generally reliable sources. It does not claim they are secondary. If a newspaper article is written about an event immediately after that event it is a primary source. If you don't know that, then you have some reading to do. As I stated, an article might be a secondary source if it is not just a contemporary account. At this point no such sources have been shown to exist. So we have no secondary sources at all. If you want to discuss a particular article, we can but simply asserting that there are newspaper articles is not evidence of meeting GNG, because the accounts, as per the nom. statement, are WP:PRIMARY and thus do not count. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:05, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It might be better to simply link to WP:PRIMARYNEWS: most news stories are considered primary sources. There are cases where they can be secondary, but they involve historical perspective or later synthesis of other sources (often news articles themselves). An example is an article about a battle that has just happened (primary) versus a war retrospective years later that uses that frontline reporting as a source (secondary). Your average news article, such as those linked here, are clearly of the primary variety. Cheers, Last1in (talk) 16:14, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - As a note to the closer, it is regrettable that participation here is low, and for that reason I would suggest that a redirect to Qatif conflict#Arab Spring protests 2011–12 might be a suitable WP:ATD. The !vote for a merge to that point has been struck as a sock, but that article is the relevant one with the orimary topic. A redirect would preserve page history, despite there being no evidence of independent notability here. Should it become notable in the future, the redirect could then be expanded to an article. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 06:19, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - Fails GNG but could add value to Qatif conflict#Arab Spring protests 2011–12. Cheers, Last1in (talk) 16:15, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:25, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Qatif_conflict#Arab_Spring_protests_2011–12. There is not enough coverage, or data, for an article. The relevant information fits nicely under Qatif conflict without distorting the article. The resultant redirect adequately insures access. --Bejnar (talk) 14:12, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. If an editor wants to work on this article in Draft space, contact me or ask at WP:REFUND. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:05, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Malachi Sharpe[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG, WP:TOOSOON. Draftify for now. Paul Vaurie (talk) 19:31, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, England, and Scotland. Paul Vaurie (talk) 19:31, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 20:54, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:42, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, coverage on page is already significant.--Ortizesp (talk) 20:44, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails GNG with a lack of significant coverage. Unitedinfocus.com and thepeoplesperson.com lack reliability. Dougal18 (talk) 14:45, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - For now. Possibly a case of WP:TOOSOON. He may well go on to have a notable career, possibly in the near future, but at the moment he has not achieved notability. An article can be created if and when he has made first team appearances and gained more coverage. Dunarc (talk) 22:58, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I agree that the article is WP:TOOSOON, but for other reasons I don't accept it. The article has now become significant. Apart from that, I think the sources are reliable, for example Unitedinfocus.com has several experienced authors. Bayu Oktarino (talk) 07:06, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Incubate - Draftify this article for now. It doesn't meet WP Football notability but appears to be a player that will become part of a fully professional team. Demt1298 (talk) 18:59, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relist to see if there is additional support for Draftifying from those advocating Delete.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:49, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify: This subject does not meet any notability guidelines now, but may in the future. Per nom, draftify as to save the info until the subject meets GNG. User:Let'srun 23:16, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. AFAICT he signed with United's U18 team, which is too far removed from actually playing for the senior team to justify draftification. He does not meet GNG.

JoelleJay (talk) 00:47, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Per Ortizesp and Bayu Oktarino. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 15:26, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. While there are a few sources whose primary subject is him, I hesitate with the reliability of United in Focus. SWinxy (talk) 23:31, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Just noting that heading into drafts isn't the best solution when WP:TOOSOON, as a few months rarely solves anything. Suitskvarts (talk) 13:03, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:05, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Moreblessing Bwende[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The subject has earned at least one cap for the Zimbabwe women's national football team. I am unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage from third-party sources, failing WP:GNG. JTtheOG (talk) 19:39, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and Zimbabwe. JTtheOG (talk) 19:39, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:19, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:40, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - All I found were trivial mentions. Suitskvarts (talk) 13:05, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:08, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Barbara Roymans[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Since a PROD was removed without any reason given by an IP, we need to follow the AfD process. The biography covers a non-notable contestant in a non-notable pageant, Miss Exclusive. The article's single source is not a RS; see WP:WikiProject Beauty Pageants/Sources which indicates world360news.com, which dubiously titles itself "Chhattisgarh News" aka chhattisgarh.news, is probably SPS. ☆ Bri (talk) 18:34, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Women, Beauty pageants, and Belgium. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:20, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Plenty of coverage in Belgian sources, in the Dutch language, but I'm not qualified to judge which are RS. They seem to cover her win. Oaktree b (talk) 21:56, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Here's the link for Belgian sources: [8]. The headline news one looks promising, but it's a simple annoucement. Oaktree b (talk) 21:59, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lacks in-depth coverage to meet WP:NBASIC. Bri, it seems that Miss Exclusive might be an alternative name for Miss Earth Belgium, not that this makes a significant difference to the AFD discussion. MrsSnoozyTurtle 02:39, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already PROD'd so not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:30, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete based on lack of extensive coverage for this person, beyond confirmation of the win, which is trivial. Oaktree b (talk) 20:08, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:22, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Beth Zotter[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG. Secondary source significant coverage not found. Only sigcov is from the Harvard Crimson, a primary source as it's the school's official student newspaper. This is also primary. Paul Vaurie (talk) 18:04, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and Massachusetts. Paul Vaurie (talk) 18:04, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Paul Vaurie (talk) 18:06, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:58, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Businesspeople. pburka (talk) 20:08, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - her involvement in Shark Tank does not add to her notability, as it is not what she is known for. Her notability as footballer is being tested; she is not notable for being a Shark Tank contestant. Paul Vaurie (talk) 03:52, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's incorrect. The notability of the biography is being tested. If she's notable as a scientist, or an entrepreneur, or just as a person, then the page should be kept. pburka (talk) 04:03, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
She’s not notable for being a player, and she is not notable for being on Shark Tank. If you add the two together that doesn’t magically make her more notable. She is non-notable for both. It’s barely even known that the two names are the same person, as I could only find confirmation of that on her LinkedIn profile, which says she played as a professional athlete. Paul Vaurie (talk) 07:02, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think she has a better claim to notability as an entrepreneur and scientist (via WP:GNG) than as an athlete. Her business is, I believe, what she's best known for. I'm not convinced there's enough significant coverage, though. Maybe if we had an article about her company this could be a redirect to that. pburka (talk) 20:23, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

She was covered by both FastCompany and TechCrunch as an entrepreneur - these are now added as sources. 23.93.98.68 (talk) 20:16, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
And Wired Magazine 23.93.98.68 (talk) 20:26, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Article has been greatly expanded since its AFD nomination, looking for editors to assess whether changes are enough to establish notability.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:29, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. She is not notable for her football career, and the coverage of her company is exactly that--coverage of her company (and usually just her talking about it). Sources 1–3 & 6 (Daily Pennsylvanian, Soccer America, NYT, WaPo): passing mentions N. 4 (CNBC): just repeats what she says N. 5 (StatsCrew): stats N. 7–9 (Harvard Crimson x2, Harvard Magazine): non-independent N. 10, 11 (TechCrunch and Fast Company): biog content almost entirely quotes from her N. 12 (Wired): passing mention + quote N. 13 (SF Chron): can't access. JoelleJay (talk) 00:00, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect‎ to List of Luxembourg women's international footballers. (non-admin closure) WJ94 (talk) 19:42, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Aldina Dervisevic[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Redirect to List of Luxembourg women's international footballers. The subject has earned three caps for the Luxembourg women's national football team. I am unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage from third-party sources, failing WP:GNG. JTtheOG (talk) 19:28, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and Luxembourg. JTtheOG (talk) 19:28, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:19, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as above. Giant Snowman 18:40, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as non-notable. Suitskvarts (talk) 13:07, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect‎ to List of Luxembourg women's international footballers. (non-admin closure) WJ94 (talk) 19:41, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Rachel Kirps[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Redirect to List of Luxembourg women's international footballers. The subject has earned at least three caps for the Luxembourg women's national football team. I am unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage from third-party sources, failing WP:GNG. JTtheOG (talk) 19:26, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and Luxembourg. JTtheOG (talk) 19:26, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:19, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as above. Giant Snowman 18:40, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - agree with nom Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:53, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as non-notable. Suitskvarts (talk) 13:09, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus‎. leaning Keep. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:07, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hyperconnectivity[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Tagged for notability since 2010. Neologistic expanded WP:DICTDEF. Fails WP:GNG. - UtherSRG (talk) 13:35, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Social science, Technology, and Canada. UtherSRG (talk) 13:35, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: article started 15 years ago so it's not even a neologism anymore, just a "logism" and an old article. Already exists in Wiktionary: wikt:hyperconnectivity, a better place for it, regardless of notability.

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 18:09, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The sources are valid, the topic exists, and the article is neither misleading nor damaging. It's even interesting and (within its field) passes notability with cites from 2001 to 2012 and a number of years between. There is no real reason to delete it. Cheers, Last1in (talk) 18:47, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:40, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Inclined to agree that Wikitonary is likely the better place for this. If the phrase were much more notable it may carve out an exception, but aside from the original paper coining the term it seems to be only used in passing - and it seems that many uses of "Hyperconnected" (and it's variations) are used somewhat independently of any definition set by the individuals mentioned in this page. While there are several citations, most of them seem to be showing evidence of things things like internet-connected refrigerators rather than conferring notability to this phrase. A MINOTAUR (talk) 17:34, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - this subject is more than just a word to be listed in a dictionary. There are nearly 23k results on Google Scholar and 11k+ on ProQuest. Think we should be able to find more than enough references to support this article. - Indefensible (talk) 19:38, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Then if you have references, post them up per best practice WP:THREE instead of stating they're might be stuff, which is virtually useless. Search quanity result are ignored by admin's as you cant drawn any conclusions from them. scope_creep^Talk 10:25, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If Roy's WP:THREE worked, we wouldn't be having this conversation. There are fifteen high-quality sources already cited -- I'd pick Quan-Haase/Wellman (2006) to establish the concept, BBC (2007) to show expanse of relevence, and Spitzer, et al (2004) to show wider use and its critical use in neurophysiology. Indefensible's legitimate point (that there is a lot more out there in addition to the existing sources) simply shows that the article has a lot of room to grow. It's no longer official policy, but wasn't that the whole point of the debate back in 2001 when Larry & Jimbo wrote Rules to Consider point two? Cheers, Last1in (talk) 11:37, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Leaning keep, as a reasonable broad concept article. BD2412 T 03:53, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:26, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A quick WP:BEFORE search shows multiple reliable secondary sources available that would support a broad concept article. In neuroscience and neurology, there are reviews such as Injured Brains and Adaptive Networks: The Benefits and Costs of Hyperconnectivity and The rises and falls of disconnection syndromes that cover the concept in some depth. In human computer interaction, there is chapter 1 of the book Hyperconnectivity and the review From facilitating interactivity to managing hyperconnectivity: 50 years of human–computer studies. The article has some problems; there is some synthesis. But given sources like those above and those pointed out by Last1in, a reasonable broad-concept article could be written summarizing the concept in each of these two different fields. A notable concept in multiple fields and and article with surmountable problems suggests a keep. --{{u|Mark viking}} {Talk} 10:56, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:32, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Haynes Aero Skyblazer[edit]

AfDs for this article:

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Tagged for notability since 2010. Category indicates it is an abandoned project so doesn't have any expectation of gaining any notability. Fails WP:GNG. Additionally, article was created by the creator of the topic. Perhaps a merger into another article to fulfill WP:ATD. - UtherSRG (talk) 11:51, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Technology and Transportation. UtherSRG (talk) 11:51, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:30, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete Wikipedia is not a host for individual project's pages. It junk at best. Fails WP:SIGCOV. scope_creep^Talk 08:10, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:19, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Zero coverage of any sort, only some hit on a Russian website, which looks sketchy to begin with. Nothing in Gnews or newspapers. Oaktree b (talk) 02:28, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The CNN Money piece used for sourcing is literally an image caption; the second deletion discussion proposes that there were sources that exited at the time in 2013 (the first one was for a Gsearch which now gives a 404, the second links to the Deseret News site, but the article in question is gone). I'd revisit if we had something more than the Deseret News source (assuming it's even extensive coverage), but I can't find anything. Oaktree b (talk) 02:32, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:36, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Frank Melloul[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Frank Melloul

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article has been created on both the French and Arabic Wikipedia by the same user (Cross-wiki), who appears to have a potential conflict of interest as they may be affiliated with the company or have a vested interest. They have uploaded a high-resolution picture of the journalist, the article itself seems to lack objective and comprehensive content about the journalist. Instead, the focus appears to be primarily on their nomination as the head of the channel, rather than providing a well-rounded sources about their career or accomplishments. Riad Salih (talk) 14:20, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ as mentioned below. Riad Salih (talk) 14:26, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 August 14. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 14:42, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, News media, Politics, France, and Switzerland. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:44, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete no enough sources.
Panam2014 (talk) 18:22, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. I generally don't challenge opinions in an AFD discussion, but I don't think "no enough sources" is valid here. The sources might be passing mentions and not sufficient to establish GNG but there are quite a few present in this article. Relisting in hope of a more serious review of sources present in the article and others that might be present online.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:11, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Liz The sources in the article are duplicated, featuring the same articles multiple times for his nomination in I24. Additionally, the picture added has been directly taken from the channel and the same user upload it, Furthermore, in the French Wikipedia, he deliberately avoids disclosing whether he receives payment for these contributions or works there. It should be noted that the user has been creating articles about all the staff of I24 News. Riad Salih (talk) 00:38, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

These are sources that do not constitute sources focused/centered on his biography. These are either unfocused information or simple press dispatches Panam2014 (talk) 00:43, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:24, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mahmood Rasooli[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails notability. He never played for the senior national team. only played for the youth level teams. yes he played for some pro clubs but that's not enough to makes him notable. also you rarely can find anything about him in English or even Persian sources. Sports2021 (talk) 14:11, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Iran. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:41, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I never said that he played for the senior national team.

it is clear in the article what i said .

His name is also mentioned in English sources.[9][10][11][12][13][14]

Even his name is ready on the FIBA website[15]

The name of Mahmoud Rasouli in the Wikipedia article

The name of Mahmoud Rasouli in the famous Iranian media and websites in Persian language.[16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23]

Profile of Mahmood Rasooli on worldofvolley

Profile of Mahmood Rasooli on volleybox Hosseinhessari9833 (talk) 12:01, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's about being notable enough and just being on a roster and his name being mentioned once in a while doesn't make it. There is no clear guideline about notability in volleyball therefore WP:SPORTCRIT should be applied and this guy never achieved anything special to be notable. playing for the national team is a sign of being notable. (not enough but still) but he was never in the national team. never even close. Sports2021 (talk) 23:58, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I never said that he played for the senior national team.

His name and photo can be seen on the FIBA website. Hosseinhessari9833 (talk) 17:40, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Since I assume you are just doing a job without really knowing the person or maybe the sport, you probably forgot that FIBA is for basketball. this guy plays volleyball. and FIVB covers all youth level competitions. playing in one of them won't make you notable enough. Sports2021 (talk) 01:44, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If the "volleyball player" is listed on the basketball federation website, this could be a fake article, as that makes no sense whatsoever. More reason to be deleted. Oaktree b (talk) 02:37, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. As we have all learned over the past year and a half, participation on a team isn't enough for a stand alone article on Wikipedia but coverage by secondary, independent sources that is required. If that doesn't exist, is there an appropriate Redirect target article?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:05, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fars News (used in the article) is yellow per sourcebot, so iffy, notability-wise. I can't find mentions of this fellow. Playing for the junior national team is fine, but we need discussions in RS that are extensive coverage of the subject. I can't find any, should be deleted. Oaktree b (talk) 02:36, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Creation of a redirect to an appropriate target is at editorial discretion. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 01:23, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Digital Law Asia[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not really sure how to class this, a blog? An academic journal (as suggested by the infobox)? In any case, this is not indexed in any selective databases, no independent sources. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG. Hence: delete. Randykitty (talk) 13:39, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academic journals-related deletion discussions. Randykitty (talk) 13:39, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to National Yang Ming Chiao Tung University School of Law.--Gen. Quon_[Talk] 14:00, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Digital Law Asia platform serves as an academic and journalistic open-access forum dedicated to fostering debate on current and relevant events and developments related to digital law. The open access nature promotes accessibility and inclusivity in the legal discourse. It appears that the platform is part of a growing movement of platforms that are both open access and designed to have faster turnaround times. This trend reflects the dynamic nature of digital law, where swift responses and analyses are often required. The Digital Law Asia platform fills a specialized niche in providing insights and analyses related to digital law in a region that is a major player in the digital world. This regional focus contributes to its uniqueness.

The editorial team of and contributors to Digital Law Asia consist of scholars, further enhancing the platform's credibility. The scholars' participation adds an additional layer of noteworthiness to Digital Law Asia, demonstrating a commitment to academic excellence and reflecting a scholarly approach to the subject matter. This collaboration with academic professionals helps position the platform as a reliable source of information and analysis, potentially reinforcing the case for inclusion in Wikipedia.

Its unique blend of features may make it challenging to place Digital Law Asia within a single existing category. Reviewers may find platforms like Verfassungsblog helpful as comparison to understand the type of platform that Digital Law Asia may be similar to.

The characteristics mentioned above justify its inclusion in a reference work like Wikipedia, where information about innovative and significant platforms is preserved and shared with a broader audience. While inclusion would depend on Wikipedia's specific notability guidelines, the aforementioned attributes make a compelling case for considering Digital Law Asia as a valuable addition to Wikipedia. Hence: keep. Roclawfan (talk) 14:31, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Taiwan-related deletion discussions. Randykitty (talk) 14:35, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect/merge to National Yang Ming Chiao Tung University School of Law. 07:49, 15 August 2023 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Headbomb (talk • contribs)

Comment: I am not sure that merging/redirecting to the Law School is a good idea, given that this publication is not mention on its website (not even in the page dedicated to Law Journals... --Randykitty (talk) 12:18, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding proposals to merge/redirect: The proposals to merge the Wikipedia pages for Digital Law Asia and the National Yang Ming Chiao Tung University School of Law requires careful consideration of the distinctiveness and individual merits of each entity. Below are key reasons that argue against merging the two pages.

The Digital Law Asia platform's editorial team[24] and contributors[25] include scholars from various institutions, not limited to the National Yang Ming Chiao Tung University School of Law. This diverse collaboration enhances the platform's credibility, inclusivity, and academic rigor. The fact that Digital Law Asia draws from a wide array of scholars and experts across different institutions emphasizes its independent standing as an academic and journalistic forum. It's not confined to the perspectives and expertise of a single institution, such as the National Yang Ming Chiao Tung University School of Law. Indeed, merging the pages could overshadow the unique contributions of scholars from other institutions who contribute to Digital Law Asia. It may also inadvertently align the platform solely with the National Yang Ming Chiao Tung University School of Law, ignoring the diverse intellectual input from other sources.

The diversity of editors and contributors to Digital Law Asia ensures a multifaceted and balanced approach to digital law topics, and a merger with a specific university's page might create a perception of bias or restricted scope, potentially undermining the platform's reputation for academic integrity.

In short, the distinctiveness of Digital Law Asia, particularly the diversity of its editors and contributors from various institutions, further supports the argument against merging its Wikipedia page with the National Yang Ming Chiao Tung University School of Law page. Maintaining separate Wikipedia pages will preserve the identity, recognition, and integrity of Digital Law Asia while acknowledging the unique contributions of scholars from different institutions. It ensures that the platform's inclusive and multifaceted nature is accurately represented, reflecting its essence and impact in the field of digital law.

While collaboration and association between the two entities exists, the distinct characteristics and purposes of each warrant individual representation on Wikipedia. Merging the pages could lead to confusion, dilute the unique contributions of each entity, and hinder the ability of readers to find specific information related to either Digital Law Asia or the National Yang Ming Chiao Tung University School of Law. Therefore, it is recommended to maintain separate Wikipedia pages for both entities, ensuring clear and focused representation of their respective missions, contributions, and impacts. Roclawfan (talk) 12:56, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as there is No consensus now on what should become of this article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:01, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well, my relisting decision has been challenged which is perfectly okay with me. I'm not perfect and I review a lot of AFDs on a daily basis. It's a good thing that we have plenty of other administrators here who are perfectly capable of reviewing this AFD discussion and closing it. I encourage another admin to assess this discussion and close it appropriately. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:41, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Liz, I'm sorry, I didn't mean this as a critique of your relist (and most certainly not anything inappropriate), just noting a different opinion. While I think there's consensus that this doesn't warrant an article, there also is clearly no consensus on what to do with it (i.e., merge or delete). I have no problem at all with your relist anda see no problem with you closing/relisting this again. --Randykitty (talk) 13:32, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the user Liz that there is no consensus. I respectfully disagree with the user Randykitty's assertion that "there's consensus that this doesn't warrant an article." This is not the case. There are cogent arguments in favor of keeping the article in this discussion. I respectfully renew the arguments made in this page in favor of keeping the Digital Law Asia article on Wikipedia and respectfully ask that the deletion notice be removed. Roclawfan (talk) 03:31, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Well; there does seem to be consensus that a stand-alone article is not warranted at this point, the sole "keep" !vote (ny the article creator) not really being policy-based. --Randykitty (talk) 22:51, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This editor respectfully disagrees with the assertion that "there does seem to be consensus that a stand-alone article is not warranted." Readers should refer to the above comments, including one which argues to keep the entry, and further refer to the specific arguments below on why the Digital Law Asia entry meets both WP:NJournals and WP:GNG. To be clear, this editor argues to keep the Digital Law Asia entry.

Reasons under WP:NJournals

The criteria here states, "If a journal meets any of the following criteria, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources, it qualifies for a stand-alone article." These criteria are:

Criterion 1: The journal is considered by reliable sources to be influential in its subject area.

Criterion 2: The journal is frequently cited by other reliable sources.

Criterion 3: The journal is historically important in its subject area.

Under the general remarks, "Journals dedicated to legitimate scholarship will often meet at least one of C1, C2, or C3." The Digital Law Asia platform is dedicated to legitimate scholarship. Therefore, arguments will be made to demonstrate compliance under each C1, C2, and C3.

Criterion 1

Digital Law Asia can be considered influential in its subject area, focusing on digital law, especially within the Asian context. Involvement of scholars as editors and contributors ensures academic rigor and credibility, contributing to its influence and suggesting that it holds a significant position within the field. For example, the editors of Digital Law Asia come from three notable universities in Taiwan. Its contributors come from various scholarly backgrounds both in Taiwan and abroad. Although inclusion in selective citation indices and being assigned an impact factor is one way to fulfill C1, it is not conclusive. The fact that Digital Law Asia includes editors and contributors of various scholarly backgrounds indicates its influence and reliability.

Criterion 2

Although difficult to obtain specifically detailed citation information for Digital Law Asia, its concise format and the inclusion of multimedia content can make it a valuable resource for scholars, practitioners, and researchers. Measuring citations for journals and media in nontraditional formats (such as the Digital Law Asia platform) is a complex and challenging task. The lack of standardization, limited database coverage, difficulty in attribution, challenges with multimedia content, rapid evolution of digital media, and potential biases towards traditional journals contribute to this complexity. These challenges call for innovative approaches that can adapt to the unique characteristics of nontraditional formats. Recognizing and addressing these challenges is essential to ensure that nontraditional scholarly works are accurately assessed and valued within the broader Wikipedia community. It also emphasizes the need for a more inclusive understanding of scholarly impact that goes beyond traditional citation metrics, embracing the diverse ways in which knowledge is shared and engaged with in the modern academic landscape.

Criterion 3

Digital Law Asia contributes to the historical importance in its subject area by being part of a growing movement of open access platforms and by addressing the rapidly changing landscape of digital law. Its focus on shorter blog posts and multimedia content may reflect a shift in how legal discourse is conducted in the digital age. Additionally, its specific focus on Asia might make it an important contributor to the understanding and development of digital law within a region that plays a significant role in the global digital landscape. To be clear, note that the criterion states, "Journal age is not a consideration here." Finally, the criterion notes that "It should be noted that journals that pass C3 will almost always pass WP:GNG directly."

In summary, Digital Law Asia meets the criteria under WP:NJournals for inclusion as a stand-alone article based on its influence in the field of digital law, its academic rigor, and importance within its subject area. Its innovative approach to content, scholarly editorial team, and regional focus contribute to its noteworthiness and it should be allowed to stay as a stand-alone article.

Reasons under WP:GNG

If reviewers do not agree that Digital Law Asia fulfills the criteria under WP:NJournals, it nonetheless fulfills the requirements under WP:GNG. To repeat, Digital Law Asia offers a unique approach to legal discourse by publishing shorter blog posts, podcasts, and videos on digital law, especially within the Asian context. The involvement of scholars as editors and contributors and alignment with open access platforms suggest editorial integrity and academic rigor. The platform's alignment with reliable academic practices allows for verifiable evaluation of its notability. In short, the platform's multifaceted approach and commitment to academic excellence make it suitable for a stand-alone article. Hence: keep

As a final note, under Wikipedia:Deletion process, a deletion notice's "presence over several weeks can become disheartening for potential editors." Therefore, I respectfully ask that this article be kept and the deletion notice be removed so editors can feel free to edit the article and further explore Digital Law Asia as a legitimate Wikipedia article. Roclawfan (talk) 04:27, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You say it meets WP:GNG, but I don't see an argument for that anywhere...? -- asilvering (talk) 21:28, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No evidence of significant coverage in IRS, which is required for an article such as this to meet GNG. NJOURNALS is an essay and is irrelevant here. JoelleJay (talk) 17:37, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect‎ to Shippo (company). Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:12, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Laura Behrens Wu[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Company she founded already has an article on Wikipedia, but the references cited for the material in this article doesn’t show any significant coverage in her name, forbes 30-30 mentioned only, entrepreneur (an interview), BBC just another mention she probably passes General Notability but there’s no independent sources maybe too soon? Autograph (talk) 12:12, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Women, and Germany. Autograph (talk) 12:12, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Shippo (company).--Gen. Quon_[Talk] 14:03, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I added high quality independent sources in response to this nomination. The added sources, as the ones initially included refer to the subject specifically not to the company she founded. There is a diversity of sources that refer to the subject and her life and experience rather than her role as founder alone. Queenofboston (talk) 16:24, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to assess changes in the article since it was nominated.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:59, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Shippo (company). LibStar (talk) 23:10, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:13, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mabbly[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not sure if this one passes WP:NORG. The article is completely promotional and really says very little. Checking for secondary sources finds some fluff PR pieces. Qcne (talk) 18:39, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Qcne (talk) 18:39, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Advertising and Illinois. Skynxnex (talk) 19:04, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as it seems promotional, especially in the second paragraph. 2NumForIce (^speak|_edits) 23:02, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - self-promotional and not notable enough. I couldn't find any significant coverage. Sgubaldo (talk) 21:17, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I see some references, but not independent ones. Suitskvarts (talk) 13:12, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:13, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Philodoppides[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

As Poimenlaon suggests on the talk page, this article appears to be a well-crafted hoax: Gerber, who is repeatedly cited, does not even mention a poet named Philodoppides. Neither do Callimachus frr. 439-40 or Maciver. The two important modern reference works (Oxford Classical Dictionary and Brill's New Pauly) carry no hint of this supposed poet. Everything points to this article's being a hoax and as such it should be deleted. Modussiccandi (talk) 18:29, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Literature, Poetry, and History. Modussiccandi (talk) 18:29, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per @Poimenlaon and @Modussiccandi. Jahaza (talk) 19:56, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:03, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Why do people do these things?★Trekker (talk) 22:14, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Should we ask @LegesRomanorum: why they decided to do this?★Trekker (talk) 09:03, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: aside from the reasons already given, it is suspicious that this poet should be from Messenia, which during this period was controlled by Sparta and its inhabitants effectively enslaved. (And, for completion's sake I checked Laura Swift's recent Companion to Greek Lyric, in which he inevitably does not feature) Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 22:23, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
(ec)Delete per talk page comment; non-existent in the most comprehensive reference works. Somewhat cleverly put together, unfortunate the effort was not put into creating an actual page. – Michael Aurel (talk) 22:25, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It's a fake. No corresponding article in RE either. Ifly6 (talk) 02:59, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment For purposes of listing at Wikipedia:List of hoaxes on Wikipedia, this page was created at 16:38, 11 May 2020. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 04:57, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Found absolutely nothing on him in Greek language. ǁǁǁ ǁ Chalk19 (talk) 13:41, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and indef the creator. Srnec (talk) 20:07, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I rechecked five of the references: they are well chosen, but all are false, including the Callimachus. The quoted Greek and Latin is nearly all grammatical but without any spark of life: I selected several phrases from these quotations, searched on Google, and found that none of them occurs anywhere on the Web except in this article and in a few Wikipedia mirrors. Agree with @Michael Aurel:. Andrew Dalby 13:00, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Question: the list of hoaxes linked above suggests that we save some well-crafted ones, and this one seems to have slipped under the radar for a while—it's definitely well-crafted. But I could be misinterpreting what I saw. If they can be saved, it obviously shouldn't be in article mainspace, as I understand the terminology (which is barely). What exactly are the criteria, or procedures involved, to the extent that there's at least an informal process? Or is it so informal that there really isn't a "process" per se? P Aculeius (talk) 12:48, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@P Aculeius I don't understand what you're trying to ask. This right now is the process. You're in it. -- asilvering (talk) 21:30, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:15, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Corey Rozzoni[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Former member of the hard rock band Burden Brothers but individually fails WP:NMUSIC and is not notable enough to have his own article. References all mention him a single time as a former member of said band and I could find no other sigcov. Sgubaldo (talk) 16:48, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Sgubaldo (talk) 16:48, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Illinois and Wisconsin. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:04, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm not finding sigcov either. -- asilvering (talk) 21:32, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep‎. SK1, withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Alpha3031 (t • c) 12:28, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Eric T. Olson (philosopher)[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not appear to pass notability guidelines for academics - professional career is rather standard for any professor in the field. He does have a few books, though data on them is (to my cursory look) limited. Happy to be corrected by someone with more expertise in the field, but seemingly apt for deletion. A MINOTAUR (talk) 15:44, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Philosophy, England, and United States of America. Skynxnex (talk) 19:14, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, both of his single-authored books have multiple reviews (in good journals), so he meets WP:Author. --Jahaza (talk) 19:41, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Passes WP:Prof#C1 on exceptionally high GS citations for philosophy. Nominator is advised to carry out WP:Before before making further nominations in this area. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:11, 21 August 2023 (UTC).[reply]
Keep. Exceptionally high is right - google scholar lists 1330 for The Human Animal. fyi for the nom: "full professors" like this one in book-writing fields tend to get kept at AfD, on WP:NPROF grounds or WP:NAUTHOR ones. Their careers may be "standard" in the normative sense, but that's not the same as "standard" as in typical. We don't tend to have articles on the latter group, but remember that that group includes teaching profs (rather than research ones), lecturers, adjuncts, etc etc. -- asilvering (talk) 00:52, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, passes NPROF-C1 / NAUTHOR. --Mvqr (talk) 12:41, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the above. I've added a few of the reviews as references in the article (there's more out there for anyone who wants to look). WJ94 (talk) 13:51, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the above. Clearly passes WP:NPROF and WP:AUTHOR. Sal2100 (talk) 20:24, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep both per WP:PROF#C1 and WP:AUTHOR. I added more reviews and another book (too new to have been reviewed). —David Eppstein (talk) 13:06, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn Thanks for the clarification A MINOTAUR (talk) 03:25, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:17, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Beijing Arbitration Commission[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Tagged for notability since 2010. Large number of non-IS sources. WP:TNT candidate, though likely fails WP:GNG. - UtherSRG (talk) 15:29, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law, Organizations, and China. UtherSRG (talk) 15:29, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep No valid rationale for deletion. The existence of primary sources is not grounds for deletion. Nor is an old notability tag. Nor is the absence of cites where sources exist.
The nominator doesn't even claim that it fails GNG (should probably be WP:NORG) but a quick bit of research shows many sources exist which are entirely about the BAC or its rules. The article currently cites 3 journal articles entirely devoted to the BAC. Here are two more, again, entirely about the BAC:
- Wang, H. (2011). The Successful Practice of the Concepts and Principles of Modern Commercial Arbitration in China-Take the Amendments of Arbitration Rules of Beijing Arbitration Commission for Example. Transnational Dispute Management (TDM), 8(1).
- Song Lianbin, Strides towards arbitral justice: a comment on the 2004 arbitration rules of the Beijing Arbitration Commission, Journal of international arbitration, 2004, Vol.21 (5), p.473 (note that Song is a law professor; he's on the arbitrator list of BAC and many other arbitration institutions, but that doesn't make him an employee).
There are over 600 hits for "Beijing Arbitration Commission" on Google Scholar alone. I suggest a proper WP:BEFORE search would have prevented the nomination of this article about a well-known arbitral institution. Oblivy (talk) 05:43, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The notability tag was added by an IP editor[26] with just 16 edits (stopped editing after 20) just after the article was created when it only had 3 cites. I removed it - if the article is kept, that would suggest this tag isn't warranted. Oblivy (talk) 09:50, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. Chen, Fuyong (January 2009). "Striving for Independence, Competence, and Fairness: A Case Study of the Beijing Arbitration Commission". American Review of International Arbitration. 18 (3). Retrieved 2023-08-27.
2. Wang, Hongsong (2011). "The Successful Practice of the Concepts and Principles of Modern Commercial Arbitration in China - Take the Amendments of Arbitration Rules of Beijing Arbitration Commission for Example". Transnational Dispute Management. Retrieved 2023-08-27.
3. Liu, Jian; Zhang, Yulin (2004). "Asian Dispute Review". Asian Dispute Review. 6 (2). Retrieved 2023-08-27 – via Kluwer Law International.
4. Song, Lianbin 宋连斌 (2006). "中国仲裁的国际化、本土化与民间化——基于2004年《北京仲裁委员会仲裁规则》的个案研究" [The Internationalization, Localization and Civilization of Chinese Arbitration——A Case Study Based on the 2004 "Beijing Arbitration Commission Arbitration Rules"]. 暨南学报：哲学社会科学版 [Jinan Journal (Philosophy & Social Science Edition)] (in Chinese). No. 5. Retrieved 2023-08-27 – via CQVIP [zh].
5. Guo, Xiaowen 郭晓文 (2001). "体现仲裁的效率原则一现代仲裁规则的重要特点——兼谈北京仲裁委员会2001年仲裁规则" [Embodying the Efficiency Principle of Arbitration—an Important Feature of Modern Arbitration Rules——Also Talking about the Arbitration Rules of Beijing Arbitration Commission in 2001]. 仲裁与法律 [Arbitration and Law] (in Chinese) (6). Retrieved 2023-08-27 – via CQVIP [zh].
6. Song, Lianbin 宋连斌 (2004). "迈向仲裁正义——2004年《北京仲裁委员会仲裁规则》评介" [Towards Arbitration Justice——Comment on the 2004 "Beijing Arbitration Commission Arbitration Rules"]. 中国工程咨询 [Chinese Consulting Engineers] (in Chinese) (6). Translated by Wang, Qianlin. Retrieved 2023-08-27 – via CQVIP [zh].
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow the Beijing Arbitration Commission (simplified Chinese: 北京仲裁委员会; traditional Chinese: 北京仲裁委員會) to pass Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Primary criteria, which requires "significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 10:32, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, obviously notable, and I don't see the TNT argument. But I'd advise the closing admin to check this article against the About pages on the website (https://www.bjac.org.cn/english/index.jsp) to see if anything is directly copied. It's not loading properly for me right now, so I can't. -- asilvering (talk) 21:40, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:37, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mansour Al-Baloushi[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not notable, never won a medal. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 15:28, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Olympics and Oman. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 15:28, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Skynxnex (talk) 19:40, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support per nom. Not notable enough according to WP:NATH and WP:GNG. --WellThisIs TheReaper ^Grim 00:32, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:21, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Baajaa Gaajaa[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Tagged for notability since 2010. Fails WP:NEVENT and WP:GNG. - UtherSRG (talk) 15:05, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Events, and India. UtherSRG (talk) 15:05, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maharashtra-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:01, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 01:43, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Darwood[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:BLP of a minor political fringe candidate, not properly sourced as having any strong claim to permanent notability. As always, candidates do not get Wikipedia articles on that basis per se -- the notability test at WP:NPOL is holding a notable office, not just running for one, while candidates must either (a) have a valid claim of preexisting notability for other reasons independent of their candidacies (the Cynthia Nixon test), or (b) show a credible reason why they should be seen as special cases of significantly greater and more enduring notability than other candidates (the Christine O'Donnell test).
But the only real claim of significance on offer here is the quirkiness of his platform, which is not of enduring importance in and of itself (a lot of "oddball" candidates run on platforms that could be seen as weird), and the referencing isn't really cutting it in terms of getting him over WP:GNG: four of the seven footnotes are just raw tables of election results (which aren't support for the notability of losing candidates at all), and two more are Q&A interviews in which he's talking about himself in the first person (which are acceptable as supplementary sourcing for stray facts after GNG has already been covered off by third-party coverage, but are not in and of themselves bringers of the GNG as they aren't independent of the subject.) So there's only one footnote that represents a journalist writing about him in the third person, which isn't enough coverage to get him over the bar all by itself. Bearcat (talk) 13:25, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and United Kingdom. Bearcat (talk) 13:25, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as meeting WP:GNG. If you take a look at the cited references, four of them are recent articles exclusively about him, namely the Vice, EssexLive and two BBC articles. One of the BBC articles is indeed solely a first person interview, but the remaining three contain substantial content referring to him in the third person. The remaining tabular articles are used solely to support numbers for election results, and do not count for notability. So that leaves three articles that count toward WP:GNG. — The Anome (talk) 15:45, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Vice is also an interview. Of the four BBC citations in the article, three of them are merely tabular results, and the first-person interview is the only BBC hit that's anything else. EssexLive is the only thing that actually constitutes independent third-party coverage about Thomas Darwood, and that's not enough. Bearcat (talk) 21:41, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete failed political candidates will always generally get a spat of coverage for being candidates, and while repeatedly failed candidates might be notable, there's nothing here demonstrating he's made any sort of a major impact as a continually losing candidate. I also agree with Bearcat's source analysis on GNG that the currently presented articles are not independent enough of the subject. (There is one that is not an interview with him, but it's routine campaign coverage.) Easy delete. SportingFlyer T·C 18:32, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:07, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I am not seeeing significant coverage of the subject. As a perrenial candidate, there is not an obvious redirect target. --Enos733 (talk) 00:21, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Deleted by ComplexRational after moving back to its original title, Chandni FC, in moving without leaving a redirect. Procedurally closing this AfD, as the article is deleted. (non-admin closure) TartarTorte 19:33, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Al Madeena Cherpulassery[edit]

AfDs for this article:

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I was going to tag this for WP:G4, but at this point it seems a bit controversial to do so as this page was already deleted via WP:G4 in July by ComplexRational after a nomination per myself, the deletion log is here. This page was located at Chandni FC until 20 August 2023, which would have at certain points made either Al Madeena Cherpulassery in its previous form from July or Chandni FC (but unsure which of the two) eligible for deletion due to WP:A10; however, there are no specific speedy deletion criteria here. There is a Draft:Al Madeena Cherpulassery which appears to be about the same topic as this article which was dratified right after the page was deleted via G4 in July. With all of that information out of the way, it seems that the issues about this article from the AfD back in 2022 are still an issue. This team does not appear to pass WP:GNG. It seems that given some of the issues with indeffed/socked participants in the previous AfD pointed out by others since the close of the previous AfD to regain consensus on this article. TartarTorte 13:27, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football, India, and Kerala. TartarTorte 13:29, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 14:07, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Karsten Längerich[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Mayor of a small municipality in Denmark with a population of ~26,000. Does not appear to meet WP:NPOL or WP:GNG. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:21, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Denmark. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:21, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Mayors are not "inherently" notable just for existing, but this is nowhere near substantial enough, and is not referenced to nearly enough reliable source coverage about him, to get him over WP:NPOL #2. Bearcat (talk) 19:46, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. This realistically should have been a speedy keep under criterion #1, as "I am losing a content dispute" is not a rationale for deletion. But certainly as it stands, the result here is clearly that this subject is notable. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 01:56, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Vishwananda[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article is often being used as an attack page on "Vishwananda", which a disrespectful way to address Paramahamsa Vishwananda. Many of the citations are linked to tabloid-like websites and websites that have a personal bias towards a Hindu Guru (e.g. Evangelical Church in Germany). I have been trying to edit this article by being objective, hence I have not removed the sexual allegations about "Vishwananda", but I have tried added factual events, such as him being the first person born outside of India to be initiated as a "Mahamandaleshwar" and have linked to the news article about this. The other editors, namely Hanumandas, have undone all the objective facts about this due to their own motive of attack. The tone of the article is also very questionable, specifically, those of Hanumandas. I can add more clarification if necessary and more information to state my case if needed. Shiva is Love (talk) 12:51, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am the original author of the article, I think it should not be deleted, I have given my reasons here Talk: Vishwananda#AfD Hanumandas (talk) 15:21, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE

This article appears to be in violation of Wikipedia's Biographies of Living Persons (BLP) Policy due to the presence of libelous statements and unsubstantiated claims about the individual discussed. In March 2022, the Hamburg District Court ruled against certain media allegations related to sexual misconduct. It's essential to highlight that someone's sexual orientation and consensual relationships should not be misrepresented or falsely equated with predatory behavior. This kind of misrepresentation is not suitable for a platform like Wikipedia, which holds significant influence on public perception.

The BLP policy emphasizes that biographies of living persons should be approached with caution and respect for the individual's privacy. Potential harm from inaccurate claims can have far-reaching effects on the subject's reputation.

Additionally, the article's heavy reliance on primary sources, including personal blogs and social media, is concerning. While primary sources can occasionally be relevant, their use should be judicious and clearly attribute the original source's statements.

Examples of potentially biased writing in the article include:

DELETE

@Hanumandas has indicated that the article is unbiased. However, here are some lines from the article that may suggest otherwise, along with revisions and editing history records:

"According to other reports, he became a disciple of the controversial Sathya Sai Baba."

The assertion that he became a disciple of Sathya Sai Baba lacks any concrete sources or reports. Labeling Sai Baba as controversial reflects the author's personal bias and doesn't consider that, while disputed by some, Sai Baba remains a revered figure for many.

"Yet Babaji is a mythical religious figure, therefore there is no evidence of him belonging to a particular swami tradition."

Babaji, as a spiritual figure, is often referred to in revered, mystical terms within the Hindu tradition. However, his association with specific spiritual lineages, such as Kriya Yoga tradition, has been documented in notable spiritual texts like Paramahansa Yogananda's "Autobiography of a Yogi". These sources offer the needed evidence of his capacity of association with a particular tradition, like the one of vishwananda.

"Like Sai Baba, he is also a 'miracle-worker'."

Associating the term 'miracle-worker' solely with Sai Baba appears biased. Miracle-working has been attributed to spiritual leaders and saints across various religions and traditions, including Christian saints, Sufi Saints, Hindu saints, etc.

"Critics claim that he bought the title (mahamandaleshwar) for 30,000 dollars."

The referenced sources (2 and 6) do not contain any evidence to support the assertion that the title was purchased. The title is conferred by an Akhara in India, a highly respected institution. It's akin to claim a Nobel Prize was bought by the subject without any reliable references, just to understand this title belongs to a different tradition and culture and cannot be simply bought. This is clearly "self knowledge" and 100% biased statments

"Vishwananda claims to be a master of kriya yoga in the tradition of Mahavatar Babaji..."

Vishwananda has developed a yoga technique: Atma Kriya Yoga, citing its origins from Mahavatar Babaji. There aren't normally certificates for spiritual knowledge transmitted from guru to disciple. Lahiri Mahasaya, a revered yoga master, similarly claimed to have received Kriya Yoga techniques from Babaji, as stated in the wikipedia article about him, and without any controversial argument against that.

"The movement claims to have between 30 and 50 centres or temples worldwide , some of them rather small”

The terms "small" and "large" are subjective and vary across different contexts. How can you claim a "non biased" comment? Why does not say "some of them really big?" Regardless of size, each center or temple contributes with a public place of worship for thousand of followers around the world.

The Bhakti Marga movement, by the end of 2022, officially reported the establishment of 76 temples, ashrams, and centers located in 37 countries spanning 5 continents. This includes 12 ashrams, of which 5 span an area greater than 20 hectares, 55 temples (comprising both Bhakti Marga public and private temples), and 22 centers. Each of these locations, irrespective of its size, serves as a significant place of worship, catering to thousands of followers globally.

"On March 17, 2018, Bhakti Marga carried out a group chanting at the Buchenwald concentration camp..." "Critics accused Bhakti Marga of exploitation and relativization of the holocaust."

Bhakti Marga's "Om chanting" at various concentration camp locations was performed with due permissions from the respective authorities. According to the news articles, it was an attempt to transform negative energies and promote healing, not to exploit or trivialize the Holocaust's horrors. Critics indeed exist, but the initiative also received positive feedback, contributing to a balanced perspective. The goal was not to 'clean' the concentration camps but to spiritually contribute towards acknowledging, understanding, and healing the wounds of history.

Some key messages about the OM chanting in the concentration camps from the directors of the place:

“The Jewish community in Thuringia sees this as a means of fighting racism.

The spokesman for the memorial, Rikolau-Gunnar Lüttgenau, explains that religious events on the Ettersberg near Weimar are not uncommon and are usually approved if they do not serve the mission and do not question the crimes of the past.

He says: “We actually have Buddhist meditations, too, alongside Catholic and Protestant services. Because: Religious references to these sites of former concentration camps are almost constitutive for their history as a memorial. Because this story, which irritates you so much, throws you back on your faith. And we take the position that we do not interfere in the beliefs of the respective group. And there has to be some form of confrontation with the place.”

“Nevertheless, the group also booked a guided tour in Buchenwald and invited representatives of the Thuringian Jewish community. Its chairman, Reinhard Schramm, will come and tell about his family history, about extermination in German concentration camps.”

"These are my partners"

Reinhard Schramm says: "If someone consciously wants to go to a memorial site where 56,000 people were murdered and if they work to ensure that something like this shouldn't happen again, then that's enough basis for me to talk to them. These are people fighting racism and xenophobia – these are my partners!”

https://www.deutschlandfunk.de/kz-gedenkstaette-buchenwald-chanting-wider-die-schuld-100.html

The Article Picture, why is it in black and white? is clearly giving to the article a different tone

"Vishwananda also pretended to be the bishop of the Russian Orthodox Church"

Unsourced - broken link

The current portrayal of the article is far from neutral.

Any discerning editor who reviews the content can immediately recognize the negative undertone throughout. The narrative suggests that those who have contributed might harbor biases against Vishwananda, which raises concerns about whether Wikipedia's guidelines and legal standards have been respected. This representation is detrimentally affecting both the Bhakti Marga organization and Vishwananda.

Online, in social media, in youtube, hundreds can attest to the positive influence and aid they have received from Vishwananda. However, a reader of this article might be left with an unjust impression, inferring that Vishwananda's intent is malicious. I urge for a reconsideration of this content.

BROKEN LINKS and non reliable sources

The presence of broken links both in the Wikipedia article on Vishwananda and within the cited "reliable sources" is a significant issue, (especially the article https://www.ezw-berlin.de/publikationen/artikel/bhakti-marga-in-der-kritik/)

These "reliable sources" appear to be primary sources, which is not in line with Wikipedia's guidelines that emphasize the use of secondary or tertiary sources. And the website belongs to an organization who is publicly against the faith of vishwananda:

[23] - Broken Link: https://www.ardmediathek.de/video/doku-und-reportage/just-love-sektenaussteiger-packen-aus/hr-fernsehen/Y3JpZDovL2hyLW9ubGluZS8xNjAzNDU
[28] BROKEN LINK: https://www.spiegel.de/kultur/hr-doku-ueber-missbrauch-ein-us-amerikaner-wird-zum-opfer-erklaert-doch-der-sender-hat-nie-mit-ihm-gesprochen-a-880b2009-1999-430e-b190-7bfdd1d52094/
Broken link: Youtube video removed https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4nsAdD63ZSU
BROKEN LINK: http://jagadanandadas.blogspot.com/2015/03/swami-vishwanandasbhakti-marga-and.html (They removed the article)
BROKEN LINK: Youtube video removed https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SY6RSHA3lfY&t=14s
BROKEN LINK: Youtube video removed - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6ylnHGlDOHU Video unavailable
BROKEN LINK: Youtube video removed - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hw7m97DL3NA&t=29s
BROKEN LINK: Youtube video removed -https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mKlcMfnUpi0
BROKEN LINK: http://www.gurumindcontrol.blogspot.com/
BROKEN LINK:: https://tellthetruth123.wordpress.com/2009/04/16/hello-world

Non reliable Sources, anyone can just create a blog and write against vishwananda and the author took them as reliable sources:

Blog primary source: https://bhaktimargacritics.wordpress.com/
https://falsevishwananda.wordpress.com/2018/07/09/deutsche-ubersetzung-von-vishwananda/
BLOG primary source: https://www.religiousforums.com/threads/hindus-swami-vishwananda-criticism-and-controversy.201071
BLOG primary source http://vishwanandawarning.blogspot.com/

These broken links and primary sources do not meet Wikipedia's standards for reliable sourcing, and their use in the article undermines its credibility and neutrality.

Impact and Implications:

Wikipedia is a widely recognized platform, and it's crucial that any article, especially those about living persons, adhere to the highest standards of neutrality and accuracy. The potential harm to an individual’s reputation from misrepresentative information is considerable.

Upon reviewing the conversation, AryKun's comment demonstrates a potential bias and emotional attachment to the subject matter. His choice of language suggests a predetermined conclusion about the subject, which calls into question his ability to approach the topic with an open mind and objectivity. Neutrality is paramount, especially on platforms like Wikipedia where accuracy and impartiality are highly valued.

"SNOW Keep per above. Very misguided nom, we can't help the fact that the subject, like most other gurus, is a dirtbag and we cover him as such. AryKun (talk) 14:28, 23 August 2023 (UTC)" Giro 194 (talk) 20:38, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If you think that the article is very biased, rewrite the biased material in a neutral manner, and we’ll revdel the offending revisions. Most of what you pointed out is reported in reliable sources, and so including the fact that he thought that chanting om in a concentration camp was a good idea is definitely within the bounds of NPOV. I have a bias regarding the whole topic area of religion and especially concerning godmen, which is why I’m not editing the article. My !vote, however, is completely unaffected by bias: any way you look at it, this is not the kind of unambiguous attack page that can be speedy deleted. At worst, it is a somewhat impartial article about a clearly notable subject that should be improved through regular editing. AryKun (talk) 02:29, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Giro 194 There were just 4 links broken out of 32, which I fixed. All other links, and most of the inappropriate links you mentioned, are from another website. Hanumandas (talk) 08:03, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep

The only ones taking offense here are obviously "followers" of said subject with no history

of writing or editing articles on Wikipedia. If there is a bias to be found - look no further. 3fiddy (talk) 23:01, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Religion, Hinduism, Mauritius, Germany, and Switzerland. Skynxnex (talk) 15:32, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Hanumandas (talk) 18:30, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
(Note: @Shiva is Love left a message on my talk page asking me to look at this article; iirc we haven't interacted before and I'm not sure where they found me.) Keep, an article being potentially biased or disrespectful is not a reason to delete. If there are specific concerns about content those should be addressed directly, no via deletion. Plenty of sources, I haven't done a detailed analysis but it looks like reputable papers are covering at minimum his various controversies. Rusalkii (talk) 19:00, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Please look here Talk:Vishwananda at the last two submissions by [[User:Hanumandas]] and myself. The reason I put in the discussion for deletion is due to the undo-ing of my additions to the article (for example, Vishwananda becoming the first Hindu born outside of India to receive the title "Mahamandaleshwar" which I cited). I have attempted to add in content that makes the article neutral and balanced, as per the Biography of living persons policy. I am not trying to delete the information about the controversies, I simply believe the article is "one-sided" and thus my hopes is that it becomes objective as it should be on Wikipedia. I have been very confused in the process of trying to get this sorted out on Wikipedia/find the proper course of action and am not sure how I found your contact. Shiva is Love (talk) 19:10, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If you've both talked about it and can't come to an agreement, I suggest Wikipedia:Third opinion - asking an uninvolved editor for help who is interested in moderating similar disputes. I know nothing about this area and don't have time to sort through the sources right now, so I'm not a great person to ask for help here. Rusalkii (talk) 22:08, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

He probably found you at my talk page. Hanumandas (talk) 12:32, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

SNOW Keep per above. Very misguided nom, we can't help the fact that the subject, like most other gurus, is a dirtbag and we cover him as such. AryKun (talk) 14:28, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Subject is clearly notable. The only reason we would delete the article is if he were not. This is a content dispute, which should not be taken to AfD for resolution. Consider dispute resolution. Skyerise (talk) 12:11, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This was never a great article (despite some of my attempts to improve it) but it's headed in a right direction now, especially after Skyerise's edits. Not an attack page.—Alalch E. 15:47, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Skyerise, @Rusalkii

Commendable effort in refining the article. However, presently, the narrative hints that Vishwananda moved from Mauritius to Europe primarily for controversy. But the facts shows also that Vishwananda's organization keeps growing rapidly, so maybe there is more to the story.

Kindly review the following links for inclusion to maintain a more neutral point of view/narrative:

Vishwananda belongs to the Bharadwaraj Gothra Lineage

His parents belonged to the Bharadwaj-gotra, a noteworthy brahmana family lineage that dates back thousands of years from Bihar (India).

https://www.apnnews.com/paramahamsa-vishwanandas-enlightenment-and-his-early-years/

Vishwananda has more than 10.000 disciples (devotees) worldwide

https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/nashik/swami-vishwananda-becomes-first-mahamandaleshwar-from-outside-the-country/articleshow/49006144.cms

https://www.nyoooz.com/news/nashik/202688/swami-vishwananda-becomes-first-mahamandaleshwar-from-outside-the-country/

Vishwananda loved to spend time singing religious songs, which inspired his childhood friends to participate in religious worship. At the age of 14, he first experienced samadhi, a deep meditative yogic-state of total immersion. In 1994, at the age of 16, he dropped out of school and began traveling in India and Kenya

https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/nashik/swami-vishwananda-becomes-first-mahamandaleshwar-from-outside-the-country/articleshow/49006144.cms

https://www.apnnews.com/paramahamsa-vishwanandas-enlightenment-and-his-early-years/

https://blossomingoftheheart.wordpress.com/2010/10/02/sri-swami-vishwananda/

https://www.speakingtree.in/article/we-take-simplicity-for-granted?CMP=share_btn_wa

https://paramahamsavishwananda.com/biography/#early-years

Interview to Vishwananda’s sister https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D-kUQgiJe5w

Interview with his father https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lK1EPU1ZjiI

According to his travel agent since 2001, Vishwananda began giving blessings (darshan), which he continues to give to this day. As of 2022, Vishwananda has conducted 331 Darshans in 46 countries and 220 cities, during which approximately 133,000 people have received his blessings.

From 2020 to 2022, 385 online Darshans were held, with more than 288,000 participants

https://pages.bhaktimarga.org/statistics

Interview to his travel agent, Yamunashree Heike with the Frankfurt Magazine Lebens|t|räume https://www.lebens-t-raeume.de/produkt/2023-07/

(I can provide the PDF)

In 2004, at the age of 26, he opened his first ashram in Germany, in the small village of Steffenshof.

https://www.lifepositive.com/from-springen-to-vrindavan/

In 2014, he opened a new ashram in honor of the god Rama in Riga, Latvia, headed by Swami Sharada and he named the temple, Satchitananda Vigraha Ramachandra.

https://bhaktimarga.lv/about/temple/?lang=en

https://www.flickr.com/photos/bhaktimarga/48723699792

In 2015, he founded the Just Love Festival, an international festival of Hindu music and vegan food dedicated to promoting vegetarianism, worship, love and positivity in society.

https://bharatgaurav.in/bharat-gaurav-paramhamsa-sri-swami-vishwananda-effortlessly-connecting-principles-of-eastern-spirituality/

https://justlovefestival.org/

More about MAHAMANDAELSHWAR

In 2015, Vishwananda received the title of Mahamandaleshwar during the Kumbha-Mela in Nasik. Literally, it translates as "abbott of great and/or numerous monasteries or "abbott of a religious district or province" (maha - "great", mandala - "district", Ishwara - "head", "ruler"). Nirmohi Akkhara, a spiritual governmental institution based in Ayodhya and composed of several Hindu leaders and monks, conferred this title on Vishwananda. The title is conferred on those who have shown "outstanding leadership and maintain the Hindu way of life."

https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/nashik/swami-vishwananda-becomes-first-mahamandaleshwar-from-outside-the-country/articleshow/49006144.cms

https://bharatgaurav.in/bharat-gaurav-paramhamsa-sri-swami-vishwananda-effortlessly-connecting-principles-of-eastern-spirituality/

https://www.nyoooz.com/news/nashik/202688/swami-vishwananda-becomes-first-mahamandaleshwar-from-outside-the-country/

On July 11 2015, Vishwananda was awarded the "Peace Pole" by The World Peace Prayer Society "for his “outstanding achievements in world peace over the past 20 years."

https://www.worldpeace.org/2015/10/peace-pole-gifted-to-swami-vishwananda-at-bhakti-marga-in-frankfurt-germany/

In July 2016, Paramahamsa Vishwananda received the Bharat Gaurav Award "for outstanding achievement" from the British House of Parliament

https://bharatgaurav.in/bharat-gaurav-paramhamsa-sri-swami-vishwananda-effortlessly-connecting-principles-of-eastern-spirituality/

https://www.ibtimes.sg/paramahamsa-vishwananda-says-india-feels-like-home-me-69872

In December 2016, experiencing rapid growth in his mission, he traveled to India with a group of swamis and swaminis to inaugurate his new ashram, Shree Giridhar Dham in Vrindavan, India. The ashram is dedicated to Goddess Yamuna Maharani and God Krishna Giridhari

https://bhaktimarga.in/shree-giridhar-dham/

https://www.lifepositive.com/from-springen-to-vrindavan/

In April 2020, Vishwananda introduced the new mula mantra of his sampradaya for his followers and devotees: "sri vitthala giridhari parabrahmane namaha". The mantra calls for protection and love. Prior to 2020, the main mantra for his followers was “om namo narayanaya”.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C5Goai3YU6E

https://www.religiousforums.com/threads/new-mantra-of-bhakti-marga-sect.238061/

From 2020 to 2023 he opened many other ashrams such as Vitthala Panduranga (Argentina, 2020), Vitthala-Kshetra (Italy, 2022), Srinivasa Ashram (UK, 2022), Vitthala Devalaaya (France, 2023), Sri Sri Radha Giridhari (Brazil, 2019), Paranitya Narasimha Ashram (USA, 2023).

https://bhaktimarga.com.ar/ashram/

https://www.facebook.com/ashrambhaktimargaitalia/

https://bhaktimarga.co.uk/srinivasa-temple-essex/

https://www.facebook.com/bhaktimargafrance/?

https://bhaktimarga.org.br/ashram/

https://ashram.bhaktimarga.us/

https://www.mytwintiers.com/news-cat/top-stories/germany-based-spiritual-group-buys-former-catholic-church-in-west-elmira/

In 2022, Vishwananda was honored with Start Up India magazine's "Revolutionary Guru 2022" award, along with other prominent personalities

https://www.ibtimes.sg/paramahamsa-vishwananda-says-india-feels-like-home-me-69872

https://www.timebulletin.com/bhavas-refer-to-the-spiritual-emotions-we-experience-in-our-relationship-with-god-paramahamsa-vishwananda/

There are many other books to consider:

Talks 2005. - 2008. - P. 120. - ISBN 978-3940381033.

Just Love: Questions & Answers (English). - 2012. - Vol. 1. - P. 230. - ISBN 978-3940381316.

Just Love: Questions & Answers. - 2012. - Vol. 2. - P. 200. - ISBN 978-3963430381.

Just Love: Questions & Answers. - 2012. - Vol. 3. - P. 204. - ISBN 978-3963430435.

Just Love: The Essence of Everything. - 2012. - Vol. 1. - P. 340. - ISBN 9783940381194.

Just Love: The Essence of Everything. - 2012. - Vol. 2. - P. 344. - ISBN 9783940381200.

Just Love: The Essence of Everything. - 2012. - Vol. 3. - P. 416. - ISBN 9783940381224.

Inspiration:Timeless Stories of Divine Love. - 2015. - Vol. 1. - ISBN 978-396343030206.

Sri Guru Gita: Commentary on the great mysteries of the Guru-disciple relationship (English). - 2015. - P. 324. - ISBN 978-3940381439.

Sri Gopi Gita (English). - 2016.

The Essence of Shreemad Bhagavatam (English). - 2016. - ISBN 978-3940381521.

Shreemad Bhagavad Gita: The Song of Love (English). - 2016. - P. 988. - ISBN 9783963430008.

Giridhari: The Uplifter of Hearts (English). - 2016. - P. 112. - ISBN 978-3940381606.

Divine Mother: The Way Back to Divinity (English). - 2017. - P. 172. - ISBN 978-3940381620.

Guru: The Rarest Life Treasure (English). - 2017. - P. 168. - ISBN 978-3940381613.

Sri Hanuman Chalisa: Commentary on the Praises to the Eternal Servant (English). - 2018. - P. 124. - ISBN 9793963430152.

Maha Lakshmi: The Secret of Prosperity (English). - 2019. - ISBN 978-396343030343.

Just Love: A Journey into the Heart of God (English). - 2021. - P. 424. - ISBN 978-396343030770.

Mukunda-mālā-stotram: Commentary on Kulaśekhara Alvar's Offering of Love and Surrender (English). - 2021. - P. 163.

Bhagavad Gita: Essentials. - 2021. - P. 308. - ISBN 978-3963430831. VarahaDas (talk) 00:27, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not my problem. I clean up articles of this type; but I don't write them. Skyerise (talk) 00:30, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Also, of the sources you list, pretty much the only usable ones are Times of India and AP News. Most of the rest wouldn't be acceptable. We are not here to promote the subject. If any of his books are mentioned in those news stories, they could be added to the selection of books. That's about it. Skyerise (talk) 00:36, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 14:07, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Arvinger[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Tagged for notability since 2010. Fails WP:NBAND and WP:GNG. - UtherSRG (talk) 13:11, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Bands and musicians, and Norway. UtherSRG (talk) 13:11, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I couldn't find any coverage at all beyond typical music databases and their own social media. Sgubaldo (talk) 21:20, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. (non-admin closure) WJ94 (talk) 19:40, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Al-Nabarawi[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Tagged for notability since 2010. Fails WP:GNG. - UtherSRG (talk) 13:10, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Science, and Iraq. UtherSRG (talk) 13:10, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 02:32, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Actually quite notable. There is an English translation of his book. He's got an Iranica article and an EI2 article. The only source in the article actually gives his death date as 1193. I can't fault the nominator for failing to connect the dots, however. They are very hard to connect. But they illustrate the difficulty of approaching topics where there is no definitive English spelling. First, Google distinguishes "al-Nabarawi" from the form with the macrons, "al-Nabarāwī". The latter will be more common in academic writing. Also, the Arabic may be spelled "al-Nibrawi" (again, with our without macrons). In addition, it is only one part (nisba) of a full Arabic name and in this case the primary sources are not consistent. Both of the two reference works I cited prefer the nisba al-Shayzarī. Note that Iranica drops the Arabic al- (as Persian does). They would do the same with Nabarawi. Sources that use "al-Nabarawi" may ultimately rely on Brockelmann, who strings together all the nisbas, putting al-Nabarawi last. Srnec (talk) 20:11, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the sources uncovered by Srnec. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 03:59, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Appears to be notable from the sources found by Srnec. Mgp28 (talk) 09:19, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 14:05, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Air Force School, Kanpur[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Tagged for notability since 2010. Fails WP:NSCHOOL and WP:GNG. - UtherSRG (talk) 13:08, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools and India. UtherSRG (talk) 13:08, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:51, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education and Uttar Pradesh. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:00, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete after a pretty thorough search, failed to find any coverage that would push this past GNG. AryKun (talk) 14:31, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no significant sources or coverage. Salsakesh (talk) 22:03, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. (non-admin closure) WJ94 (talk) 19:40, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

À partir de maintenant[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Tagged for notability since 2010. Fails WP:NALBUM and WP:GNG. - UtherSRG (talk) 13:06, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs and France. UtherSRG (talk) 13:06, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep covered in a book and others, as referenced in the Fr wiki article. Oaktree b (talk) 13:51, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The French article has a couple of reliable sources, also [27], [28], [29]. Regards, Comte0 (talk) 14:18, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The album has been certified Gold for 100,000 units. Europe22 (talk) 18:49, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:09, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Portello (Swedish soft drink)[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

non-notable soft drink from sweden, cannot find sources that is unrelated to the british version — Karnataka ^talk 12:46, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink and Sweden. — Karnataka ^talk 12:46, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Portello (soft drink) states it is unrelated, anyway criticism is welcome.-- Carnby (talk) 12:53, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What I was trying to say is that the sources I found were of the British version and not the Swedish drink, sorry for the confusion. @Carnby — Karnataka ^talk 09:25, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect‎ to Eugene Tssui#Proposals and city planning projects. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:54, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ultima Tower[edit]

AfDs for this article:

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Tagged for sources since 2010, and still relies on a single blog post and one SPS page; does not satisfy WP:GNG. François Robere (talk) 12:34, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. François Robere (talk) 12:34, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Was also recreated after being previously deleted without anyone noticing. SportingFlyer T·C 12:53, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:59, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Eugene Tssui#Proposals and city planning projects. From a brief look at Google Scholar there's enough mentions to have it worth a few sentences, but certainly not enough for a separate article. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 20:08, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. Spartaz ^Humbug! 04:46, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Shenzhen Yucai High School[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Doesn't pass WP:GNG. Has been tagged for sources since 2017, and still unsourced. François Robere (talk) 12:27, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. François Robere (talk) 12:27, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 13:12, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There is a corresponding article in the Chinese Wikipedia, and I added some references and the infobox that I found there. I think the article is okay now. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 13:12, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
4/5 refs on the article are primary. Lavalizard101 (talk) 13:34, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:NORG. A search for sources only turned up primary sources or unreliable sources such as databases etc. Lavalizard101 (talk) 13:38, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:58, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:GNG. I'm seeing lots of Chinese-language sources – I found these with a quick search, and I'm sure a more thorough search would find more: [30][31][32][33][34][35][36]. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 03:24, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. The subject passes Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Schools, which says:
All universities, colleges and schools, including high schools, middle schools, primary (elementary) schools, and schools that only provide a support to mainstream education must either satisfy the notability guidelines for organizations, the general notability guideline, or both. For-profit educational organizations and institutions are considered commercial organizations and must satisfy those criteria. (See also WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES)
Sources
1. The sources found by Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) including the two I've quoted below.
2. "厉害了！育才中学这个省级示范校建设方案将向全省推广" [Incredible! The construction plan of Yucai High School, a provincial model school, will be promoted to the whole province]. Shenzhen Daily (in Chinese). 2022-03-18. Archived from the original on 2023-08-27. Retrieved 2023-08-27.
  The article notes from Google Translate: "In fact, Yucai High School has already established its status as a "famous school for curriculum reform" across the country. As early as 2004, Yucai became one of the two "National Curriculum Reform Model Schools of the Ministry of Education" in Shenzhen, and made a lot of explorations in curriculum reconstruction and classroom reform. For example, in 2004, the school proposed the education model of "three teachers in one" (the three teachers refer to the teacher, class teacher and tutor), and then continued to innovate, and successively implemented the off-campus brain bank plan, independent study plan, primary school teacher plan, "excellent teachers""
3. Li, Li 李丽 (2020-04-08). Liu, Guiyao 刘桂瑶 (ed.). "学子福利！深圳育才中学名师精品课亮相读特云课堂" [Student welfare! Shenzhen Yucai High School Famous Teachers' Excellent Class Appears in Duteyun Classroom]. 读特新闻 (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2023-08-27. Retrieved 2023-08-27.
  The article notes from Google Translate: "Yucai High School, it is one of the earliest schools in the special zone after the establishment of the Shenzhen special zone; it is a school that "dare to be the first" founded by Mr. Yuan Geng, a pioneer of reform and a pioneer of the special zone; The birthplace of "Flower Season and Rainy Season" and the filming location of the film of the same name; it is the first school in the country to offer mental health courses and adolescent sex education courses; the first school in the country to operate a literature club (Chunyun website) on the Internet; It is also the network base school of the National Chinese Campus Literature Alliance, the first overseas Chinese training base school for high schools; the first school in the country to introduce Hong Kong version of English textbooks into the classroom; the first school to introduce "Western Great Originals""
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Shenzhen Yucai High School (simplified Chinese: 深圳市育才中学; traditional Chinese: 深圳市育才中學) to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 09:51, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ^Complex/_Rational 15:33, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wolfgang Baer[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article about non-notable physicist created by an WP:SPA. Mostly expounds his crackpot theories and lists his fringe publications. Reference 5 looked at first sight to give him a sliver of notability, but it turns out its a newspaper column written by himself. Tercer (talk) 12:06, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Tercer (talk) 12:06, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:FRINGE researchers need in-depth mainstream sourcing on their fringe work to satisfy our requirement for a WP:NPOV. We have none in this case, and no evidence of notability for non-fringe work (which in any case would require refocusing the article on that work). —David Eppstein (talk) 13:21, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:58, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The existing text is unsuitable in just about every way, and there's no reason why this article should exist in the first place. XOR'easter (talk) 21:27, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Oof. I was skeptical about "unsuitable in just about every way", but no, that's about the right of it. -- asilvering (talk) 00:56, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment His "Conscious Action Theory" book can be found using Gscholar above, it appears to be published be Routledge, a reliable publisher. That said, there is nothing in Jstor or the NYT about him, Gscholar doesn't pull up much. Oaktree b (talk) 02:48, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep The book was reviewed here [37] and here [38], which seem to be a serious review of the work and the concepts it proposes and some discussion of the person behind them. This is not in my field of expertise, but it doesn't read like hokum to my untrained eyes. Oaktree b (talk) 02:55, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Neither of those links counts for anything. The first is in a fringe and unreliable journal and the second is not a review but rather a researchgate page on the book itself. In any case, even with better reviews, one book would be unlikely to be enough. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:16, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Journal of Consciousness Exploration & Research is hokum, pure and simple. And even if it weren't, one review of one book isn't going to pass WP:NAUTHOR. XOR'easter (talk) 21:06, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect‎ to List of Playboy Playmates of the Month. Spartaz ^Humbug! 04:48, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of people in Playboy 1960–1969[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This list has been unsourced for over 10 years, and I see no hope of it ever becoming appropriately-sourced without extensive original research. There is significant concern that this list violates WP:BLP as well; see WP:DEL-REASON 7 and 9.

Related lists for other decades have been redirected to List of Playboy Playmates of the Month, which seems like a good solution to me. The exception to that is List of people in Playboy 1970–1979, where the BLAR was reverted (just as it was here). Consider this a WP:BUNDLE nom, as the exact same concerns apply. Actualcpscm^{scrutinize, talk} 11:37, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:39, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people and Popular culture. Actualcpscm^{scrutinize, talk} 11:48, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature and Sexuality and gender. • Gene93k (talk) 17:43, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:46, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:44, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I think sourcing may be hard for this since no pornographic sites will be seen as good sources or will be allowed to be linked to.KatoKungLee (talk) 01:06, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect or delete'. Unreferenced semi-fork of List of Playboy Playmates of the Month. And realistically, while broader, this is just a selective list of contents of the magazine. This is about as encyclopedic as a list of topics of The Economist (1960–1969) or such. A form of fancruft, I fear, not encyclopedic material.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:39, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
While I disagree that the list requires OR or is unsourced (it's all implicitly cited to the publication). I agree that this is basically a WP:CONTENTFORK as well as violating WP:NOTDIRECTORY. It may be possible that the destination article could be further expanded in some way, but a full directory of everyone to appear in a publication isn't the way to do that. merge both to above suggestion. —siro χ o 02:45, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I’m not sure that the names of the models appear in the publications. Do they? As you mention, even if they do, there are plenty of issues with these articles. Actualcpscm^{scrutinize, talk} 07:38, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 12:49, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Elisabeth P. Montgomery[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Locally-known educator with no substantial publications or national awards; does not satisfy WP:NACADEMIC. François Robere (talk) 09:47, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. François Robere (talk) 09:47, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Authors, Women, China, and California. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:17, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No relevance under WP:NPROF as far as I can tell - Fire in the Lake is her thesis, and I can't find Thirty Years of China's Economic Reform in my (very extensive) library catalogue at all. I don't see significant independent coverage of her in the references either. Do ping me if I've missed something there, thanks. -- asilvering (talk) 00:07, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Please take care that we're referring to the correct article, so that we don't accidentally delete the star of Bewitched! :) Regards, MrsSnoozyTurtle 02:04, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the lack of significant coverage in reliable sources. I was unable to find significant coverage in my searches for sources. The subject does not pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline or Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Basic criteria. Cunard (talk) 05:19, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. Maybe next time check the sources before you nominate the article. Spartaz ^Humbug! 04:50, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Zymergen[edit]

AfDs for this article:

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NCORP, WP:ORGIND. Case of WP:PROMO /WP:ADMASQ. Reference are routine business news. scope_creep^Talk 09:32, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and California. Shellwood (talk) 09:59, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sources listed on the article. For disclosure, I created this article--claiming WP:PROMO and WP:ADMASQ is false, there is no WP:COI. After Scope creep accused me of following them around, I am curious how they found this article. - Indefensible (talk) 15:44, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The article fails WP:NCORP. It came up the watchlist I think, for some reason. I'll go through the first two blocks of references. scope_creep^Talk 15:49, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We can debate NCORP, but PROMO and ADMASQ are completely false in this case. Where is the watchlist you refer to, do you mean your personal watchlist? - Indefensible (talk) 15:52, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

keep I don't see that this article is promotional in style or substance. It suffers from the unfortunate funding-rounds-and-results style that a lot of poorly tended company articles do. But it's a mix of successes and failures. For notability, here are WP:THREE (only the Forbes and Motley Fool articles are cited at present):
The Forbes article, with substantial analysis and reportage sourced from outsiders [39]
Nusqe Spanton, Where Zymergen went wrong: a biomanufacturing perspective for synthetic biology, Manufacturing Chemist (2022). [40]
Motley Fool, This Is Why Zymergen's IPO Was a Huge Success, substantial journalistic analysis not attributable to the company [41]

This Business Journals article would be even better if I could access it, but it's heavily paywalled; based on the visible text its analysis and criticism of the company is based on internal and external sources[42] Oblivy (talk) 07:01, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ref 3 here, is non-rs. We will look at the references in detail later. scope_creep^Talk 11:12, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

May I ask why you say Motley Fool is non-rs? It’s not listed at WP:RSPSS. Did I miss something? Oblivy (talk) 11:28, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It seems to have enough coverage of its fall and internal issues to meet NCORP in my opinion, a lot of which I added during the last deletion discussion. I'm not sure how it can be considered WP:PROMO at this point, it's overwhelmingly negative because the press coverage over the past few years has more or less been "Why and how it failed". BuySomeApples (talk) 18:01, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I see there is a book reference there in the list of source.. Is there any book references available? Another two would sort it out. scope_creep^Talk 17:21, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus‎. WP:NPASR applies. ✗plicit 12:50, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Hill-Gibbins[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Tagged for notability since 2010. Fails WP:GNG. - UtherSRG (talk) 12:01, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Music, Theatre, United Kingdom, and England. UtherSRG (talk) 12:01, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:32, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Lots of passing mentions, Gbook stuff, reviews, news and interviews combined to meet WP:SIGCOV. Passes WP:BIO. Article needs work and i'll do it. scope_creep^Talk 10:18, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 𝙳𝚛𝚎𝚊𝚖𝚁𝚒𝚖𝚖𝚎𝚛 ^{𝚍𝚒𝚜𝚌𝚞𝚜𝚜} 08:57, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge‎ to Foreign relations of Gagauzia. Not wedded to merge target but there is consensus this isn't better off as a standalone article. Spartaz ^Humbug! 04:54, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Gagauzia–Turkey relations[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Relations articles between sovereign states and subnational regions are somewhat uncommon, but could be viable, given good references. This, however, seems like a WP:COATRACK WP:POV article for grievances about Moldovan policy towards Gagauzia, where the actual substance on relations with Turkey is razor thin. Geschichte (talk) 16:25, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations, Moldova, and Turkey. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:09, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Err, to be fair, unlike most of the Turkey—*Random African country* relations I'm seeing at AfD these days, the two sides are actually pretty close to each other, literally and figuratively. The two leaders, especially the Gagauz one, regulary speak positively about the other side, a Turkish search reveals: [43], [44], [45], [46], [47], [48]. There is this journal article on economic relations of Turkey—Moldova, which also covers Gagauzia. The Turkish WP article has some other sources as well. Someone who has the time could likely be able to improve the article. Styyx (talk) 12:10, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per my sources above and lack of any refutal. Styyx (talk) 09:29, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with all that, especially that Gagauzia and Turkey have a lot more reason to have relations than many of the Random 1 - Random 2 relation articles proposed for deletion, most of which are worthless. I'm not sure about keep, however: the information should certainly be kept, but better as a section of the Gagauzia article. So I'm tending more to Merge. Athel cb (talk) 12:08, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge (at best) into Foreign relations of Gagauzia and Foreign relations of Turkey. There is nothing uniquely notable about the intersection of the two. If a merge is not viable, I could easily be convinced by deletionist arguments. Cheers, Last1in (talk) 16:19, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:59, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 𝙳𝚛𝚎𝚊𝚖𝚁𝚒𝚖𝚖𝚎𝚛 ^{𝚍𝚒𝚜𝚌𝚞𝚜𝚜} 08:55, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. As noted by nom, the previous AFD was for a different subject, so soft deletion can be applied here. ✗plicit 12:52, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ben Gray[edit]

AfDs for this article:

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable rugby league player. Fails WP:GNG (previous AFD was for another Ben Gray). J Mo 101 (talk) 17:00, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Rugby league-related deletion discussions. J Mo 101 (talk) 17:00, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and England. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:03, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:00, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 𝙳𝚛𝚎𝚊𝚖𝚁𝚒𝚖𝚖𝚎𝚛 ^{𝚍𝚒𝚜𝚌𝚞𝚜𝚜} 08:53, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Can I please have a copy of the now deleted page.Fleets (talk) 16:26, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. Consensus is that the topic is notable, but that significant areas of the article in its current state fail WP:V and should be removed. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 01:30, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Duo Datz[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unsourced WP:BLP. Fails WP:SIGCOV. scope_creep^Talk 07:37, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep, lazy and disruptive nom, as noted here when deprodding the nominator's prod the Hebrew version of the page is plenty of RS, from established sources like Globes and Haaretz, and the page has an "Expand Hebrew" tag on the top of it. So it is not just a lack of WP:BEFORE, but also a case of consciously ignoring sources even when they are right in front of you. Cavarrone 07:47, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Cavarrone: Your a long established editor who well knows that WP:BLP must be sourced, if they are present in mainspace. The policy is particularly strict on this. There is no policy that states that the presence of an expand tag is a replacement policy for that core BLP policy, that somehow passes WP:V. scope_creep^Talk 07:51, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

First, I added a source even before your reply here. Second, once you knew there were dozens of sources you could have added one yourself, instead of rushing a pointy AfD in bad faith as you obviously knew that sourcing and notability were not a real problem. Or if you had difficulties in adding a ref, you could had asked for help in the talk page. Third, the rationale is totally BS (Fails WP:SIGCOV). Claiming this after you were indicated over a dozen sources a few seconds before (let alone doing a WP:BEFORE) is totally disruptive. A more truthful rationale would had been: A WP:BLP which has plenty of sources available but I'm too lazy to add one from the Hebrew version of the page so I'm starting an AfD, ignoring such sources in the rationale. --Cavarrone 08:18, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Cavarrone: They're has been a BLP refs tag needed tag since 2019 on the article. Is there a supposed special external clause that means it outside the process? It's well passed its the sell by date. If you weren't an established editor, I would have issued warning notices against you, for distruptive editing. It is enitrely unacceptable behaviour to remove a prod for an article that never been referenced as far I can see, particularly for a WP:BLP. It is not 2007 any longer. scope_creep^Talk 07:54, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

See my reply above. There was a "more citations" tag, which is not a free pass for deleting pages about notable subjects. The one who is disrupting the project here is you and this AfD speaks for itself. Cavarrone 08:18, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That ref you added isn't in-depth. Its more like clickbait. scope_creep^Talk 08:52, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yawn. Cavarrone 09:00, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Pointiness is bad. Could someone please add the references that appear in the Hebrew article to the English one, preferably including a translation of each title in the trans-title field? While not a reliable source, https://eurosong-contest.fandom.com/wiki/Duo_Datz has some additional information that could be added if you can verify it in a reliable source. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 10:35, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That is a blog and non-rs, per WP:NOT. It is a WP:SPS source. scope_creep^Talk 14:42, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I recognize that we don't use fandom.com pages as references, for the reasons you give. My point is that a fandom.com page may include relevant information that can then be confirmed using a reliable source. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 02:56, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That is certainly true. scope_creep^Talk 12:00, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There is confirmation of the singers having appeared in the Eurovision contest and one was on the Masked Singer, but I don't see extensive sourcing for either person. The discussion above supposes there is extensive coverage, but none has been shared that we can review. Oaktree b (talk) 13:55, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

With respect, this is not an accurate depiction of the discussion. Both mine and other editor's argument is an not different from yours here, i.e. we pointed at the Hebrew version of the page, which as far as I can see it's a C or B-Class article with 17+ references from established reliable sources, and with coverage spanning from the 1980s to the 2010s. If you want a specific example, this is a featured article which among other things mentions the success of their last album, the criticism and negative reviews they received, the fact that two of their singles entered the hit parade, and which in the lead describes them as "an established phenomenon in the entertainment industry". Side note, besides GNG they pass multiple criteria of WP:BAND (including #9 the mentioned third place at Eurovision, which is the definition of " major music competition"). Cavarrone 23:54, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
And I don't speak Hebrew so don't feel able to judge the quality of the sources. Can we discuss them here? Oaktree b (talk) 01:58, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Israel. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:57, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as an easy pass of WP:SIGCOV and WP:BAND. This nomination is a gigantic WP:BEFORE failure. Duo Datz, nicked Datz and Datza, was for 21 years a prominent Israeli music duo, in pop music for adult audiences and children. If nominator had bothered to open the linked article on Hewiki, this AfD disaster should not have happened. gidonb (talk) 00:24, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Even worse, this article has also been prodded by the nominator. UNBELIEVABLE!!! gidonb (talk) 00:27, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, and when I deprodded it I specifically advised him to look at the Hewiki page. This is just a bad faith nom, like I haven't seen in years. Cavarrone 00:41, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Is the average reader able to look at the Hewiki article and judge from the Hebrew sources that it is a singing duo and that its notable. I don't think so. Obviously, it not a WP:BLP, its covered by WP:MUSICBIO but that is your word, but where is the coverage to tell me that. I thought it was a BLP and reads like one. What is bad is editors who seem to be in the wrong side of history, acting and talking like its 2007 and seemingly not willing to update the article with salient references on an article that wasn't referenced since it was created, or present reference per WP:THREE best practice. So far I've seen a two dead keep !votes with no examination of references, that is not typical of the best practice, merely pointing to another WP as though that constitutes established practice, when it hasn't done since about 2008. If there is WP:SECONDARY sources available, post them up, we can examine them. scope_creep^Talk 11:57, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

So what would be next? You nominating The Beatles for deletion and demanding to come up with WP:THREE? You had bettered your behavior just slightly for a while, now are clearly sliding again with what you allow yourself at AfDs and demands that you make of other people! The previous AfD I saw from your end was a self-confessed WP:POINT. If you do not submit serious AfDs, you should not expect the debate to rise to high levels. It's a direct consequence of your behavior. People (any, not this one or another) are just going to say: Nah, that aint right! gidonb (talk) 12:45, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, a few messages above I linked a feature article from Kol Ha'ir and also summarized its contents. About the rest, it's an Israeli musical duo so it's normal that sources are in Hebrew, but with translators even "the average reader" can access to them; if you are unable to check such references before and during an AfD probably you don't have the necessary competence. And there are no "dead keep !votes with no examination of references" here, as every keep vote is actually based on references (I made a WP:BAND call as they clearly meet it, but it is really an ancillary point in such a case). How ironical talking of "best practice" when you ignored WP:BEFORE, ignored (and still ignore) the hewiki sources when pointed at them minutes before the AfD, ignored WP:MUSICBIO and rushed an AfD with a vague rationale which ignored all the points above. All this a few months after receiving an indefinite block (your second one), for a quite similar case of AfD disruption. Cavarrone 12:57, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Leaning delete. When I saw the PROD placed on this article, I thought it was a good idea given the lack of sources for many years and the fact that it appeared the artists were likely more notable standalone when compared to a duo. This article was created as a Eurovision-focused stub by fans (as were all of the other language versions except Hebrew) so I understand how their entire career has been minimalized on Wikipedia. It sounds like they might have had some sort of notable career within Israel and that's fine, but as others have pointed out, we cannot just keep an unsourced stub article with a banner begging folks to look to the Hebrew wiki to expand. Someone's got to do that, especially since "we've" been patiently waiting over four years for it. We still don't even know if the sources on the Hebrew wiki are reliable or if the information there is even notable or relevent. My !vote is delete this if it cannot be sufficiently expanded with reliable sources to establish its notability. If as part of this AfD someone wants to show that the article does have a realistic future with a reasonable amount of work, then of course I'd be open to keeping it. If kept, I would highly support merging Orna Datz to it given that her notability appears to be solely as part of the group. Grk1011 (talk) 14:35, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and I will work on translating the article from Hebrew to English so that it has information to add to what is currently there.

Ktkvtsh (talk) 08:58, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Ktkvtsh: thanks for expanding the article! This is pushing me towards 'keep' somewhat, but also remember that one of the issues remains a lack of reliable sources. There is a bit more to do than just translating the article. Many paragraphs remain without any evidence of where the information came from. Grk1011 (talk) 14:17, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is true. I am wondering how the Hebrew article can have such detail with a lack of sources. Is there a way past this? Do we delete the unsourced parts?

Ktkvtsh (talk) 14:21, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

'Comment 75% of the article is unsourced. I've just went through the process to delete an editors article, who was warring to keep a BLP that was mostly unsourced as well, just yesterday. This is similar to that condition. Its junk. We will examine the sources today. Its a good attempt though. scope_creep^Talk 15:03, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. As pointed out before, this nomination was opened and is being kept open under false pretenses, is disruptive, and is in stark comtempt of policies, guidelines, and essays such as WP:NEXIST and WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP. The fact that nominator is allowed to increase his levels of disruption again in the AfD sphere will chase away good editors from our community project. gidonb (talk) 18:20, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This one is indeed an easy pass of WP:SIGCOV and WP:BAND. established sources. Article looks ok now after major improvements after nominatiom.BabbaQ (talk) 13:14, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Its pretty decent attempt at the WP:HEYMANN standard, although there is several sections that are unsourced and will need to go. scope_creep^Talk 23:42, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect‎ to Motionless in White. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris ^talk! 07:56, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Motionless[edit]

AfDs for this article:

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable outside the band. Fails WP:SIGCOV. scope_creep^Talk 07:35, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Motionless in White, see WP:BANDMEMBER --FMSky (talk) 12:15, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Pennsylvania. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:20, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per FMSky. HorrorLover555 (talk) 02:08, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. ✗plicit 12:54, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Anderson baronets of St Ives (1629)[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A very short-lived title where neither the baronetcy nor the sole baronet seem to have done anything noteworthy, they just existed, and are noted as such in a few very exhaustive lists of British nobility. 90% of the article is not about the baronet or the baronetcy, but about their extended family. Perhaps a redirect to a list of 17th c. baronetcies or some such would be the best here, and if no good target is found then deletion. Fram (talk) 07:34, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Royalty and nobility and England. Fram (talk) 07:34, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The creation of the baronetcy in 1629 was an event early in the Personal Rule of Charles I. The content of the article is adequate to give an idea what was going on. There is nepotism: the Duke of Buckingham, who had just died at the Siege of La Rochelle, and was the most powerful person in the country after the king, was the great-uncle of John Anderson who was given the title. There is politics: Anderson's stepfather was a supporter in parliament of Charles and the Duke, and financially had backed the military expedition to La Rochelle. In return for the stepfather's support, and as a compliment to the Villiers family, Anderson was given a title (may have been paid for).

Talking about "in a few very exhaustive lists of British nobility" is not exactly a fair description of the major references given (Burke, Cokayne, Rietstap). These are substantial works in the 19th century style, much more than lists. The topic passes WP:GNG.

This article was put up for PROD deletion four minutes after its creation, by User:Fram. Fram is not always wrong, but I gave my reaction to that on my user talk. The fact is that Anderson was a college student around 1626, and died 1630. The major political context can be seen in https://www.historyofparliamentonline.org/volume/1604-1629/member/leigh-sir-francis-1598-1653-0. I see the topic as encyclopedic. Charles Matthews (talk) 08:00, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Rietstep is an extremely short entry[49], indicating just how notable (or not) this one is. And yes, all three (Rietstep, Burke, Cokayne) are "very exhaustive lists", their rule is "you get a title, you get an entry", without any further considerations. Being given a title out of nepotism doesn't make someone (or that title) notable though. Fram (talk) 08:17, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

OK, let's look at the guideline. Under WP:CONRED you are supposed under D3 to have considered the referencing, and concluded that the references are "insufficient", e.g. "just passing mention of the topic". That is not the case for Burke and Cokayne. For Rietstap, which is about heraldry, reference is to another (later) Anderson baronetcy just up the page, which shared the escutcheon. So I don't think the criticism is fair. By the way, I think the baronetcy is notable, because it is covered by relevant literature on titles of nobility. I have not said that Anderson is a notable person, and I don't think the title baronet confers notability. So could we stay on-topic? Charles Matthews (talk) 08:38, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I have concluded that the references are insufficient, otherwise I wouldn't propose to delete or redirect the article. Cokayne is nothing but he was born, created a baronet, died, baronetcy extinct. Burke is the same with slightly different words. If even these highly specialized and exhaustive works have so little to say about this, then I don't believe this baronetcy meets the GNG. Fram (talk) 09:09, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The works have a standard scope, and Wikipedia's scope is broader. The context is there in the article, but has to stop short of OR. What you are saying means you could tag the article with {{notability}}: as it is, 48 hours after its creation as part of a bigger project on Anderson baronets, you have twice invoked deletion processes. Where's the fire? Charles Matthews (talk) 09:43, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You have a week to present better sources which give us any non-routine information about the baronetcy, as that is all you have now; the most routine information. It's comparable to a register of companies, where you have the date of foundation and end date the year after, and the name of the founder. Okay, and? What did it do, what impact did it have on people, what happened during the existence? Apparently, absolutely nothing, but it existed, and its existence may, perhaps, somehow, be an example of something in this period in British history, but no historian at all has ever used this baronetcy as even an example of this apparently. Why should we wait longer? Do you want it draftified so you get six months to search for better sources? Fram (talk) 10:13, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, as predicted by the trajectory at WP:CHANCE (but I didn't remove the PROD), followed by the reasoning of WP:NIME. Charles Matthews (talk) 11:33, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Like long-forgotten skirmishes in provincial wars, the UK aristocracy is of enduring and encyclopaedic interest. Generally, the creation of a title has stood as GNG. In this case, I don't see a good argument against the article anyway. It's well-sourced and fairly well-written; the subject has enough meat on it for several paragraphs and enough sources to draw from; the subject is mentioned regularly in scholarly lists (thus establishing enduring coverage); and it's actually rather interesting. I have a problem with the plural in the title (there was only one and there is no prospect of a second), but that's not the issue of this AfD. Cheers, Last1in (talk) 13:47, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per keepers. Johnbod (talk) 21:55, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Burke and Cokayne both have entries specifically about this baronetcy. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 04:14, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. If the article creator wants to work on this article in Draft space, let me know or request this at WP:REFUND. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:40, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Noesis Capital Advisors[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not meet the notability requirements; WP:NCORP. Sources rely on press releases masquerading as legitimate sources. Nevertheless, I am willing to withdraw the nomination if any enhancements are made to the article per the guidelines outlined in WP:HEY. RPSkokie (talk) 06:42, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and India. Shellwood (talk) 08:41, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maharashtra-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:41, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:NEWSORGINDIA needs to be considered here, which is evident in this reference from the India Times and this reference in Businessworld. Reviewing WP:ORGCRIT, none of the references used on this page or any that I was able to find in search meet that guideline. --CNMall41 (talk) 19:18, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: It passes WP:GNG, WP:SIGCOV and have multiple references from reliable sources like Economic Times, LiveMint, Business Standard, DNA India, The Hindu to verify same, providing few reference ^[1]^[2]^[3]^[4]^[5]^[6] ^[7]^[8]^[9]^[10]^[11]^[12]^[13].^[14] The Article can be improved but does not require deletion. DSN18 (talk) 08:58, 15 August 2023 (UTC) DSN18 (talk) 08:58, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Also, Has court filing references of Delhi High Court and one supporting reference. ^[15]^[16]^[17]^[18] DSN18 (talk) 09:51, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As you are the creator of this page I am assuming you have done a thorough check of the references. Did you review WP:NEWSORGINDIA and compare the references? For instance, the Economic Times reference has no byline and written like a promotional piece, LiveMint is openly selling articles on Fiverr, etc. Can you show me which ones you cited specifically meet WP:SIRS? --CNMall41 (talk) 16:50, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @CNMall41, Yes. I have thoroughly checked the references, You can check few references like Economic Times Reference, Business World Reference, hotelierindia.com reference, Business Standard Reference(1) and Reference (2).

Also, reference for the Delhi high court case filing against OYO Rooms and Court filing Reference 2 ~~which can be said to meet WP:SIRS in itself~~. Also provided supporting Economic Times reference and Indian Kanoon reference for court filings. DSN18 (talk) 18:18, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I looked at the first two references you gave as examples and stopped because both of them are not written under editorial oversight. Also, if you are stating that a court filing meets WP:SIRS, then you missed the example provided which states, "The court filing is significant and reliable (in that the court record is a verified account of a legal action being taken) – but not secondary (court filings are primary sources) or independent (they are written by the parties to the legal action, which have a vested interest in the outcome)." --CNMall41 (talk) 06:28, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @CNMall41, what about the Business Standard Reference 1 and Refernece 2. Also, do check The Hindubusinessline reference and livemint reference and This Economic Times Reference. Yes, i agree to your reply and checked that, Gave court reference as "The court filing is significant and reliable". DSN18 (talk) 09:15, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify, you agree that court cases cannot be used to establish notability under WP:ORGCRIT correct?

The other references you provided are what we consider routine announcements (funding, lawsuit, expansion, etc.). --CNMall41 (talk) 17:25, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@CNMall41, i agree that court case cannot be used as the only reference for notability, but it is considered significant and reliable. All the other references provided are from reliable sources and proves notability, may be you can consider few as routine announcements but mentions in multiple reliable sources has some importance right. References provided are all from reliable sources and verifies notability. consider this reference too. DSN18 (talk) 19:06, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I feel like we are going in circles. This reference you just provided falls under those listed at WP:NEWSORGINDIA. The byline is "Online Desk" which indicates it was not staff written and has no editorial oversight. For the other comment, routine announcements and mentions do not add up to significant coverage. We can use mentions and routine announcements for content on the page, but not to establish notability. --CNMall41 (talk) 19:18, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@CNMall41, Consider following references which might clear your doubts regarding notability. Reference 1 (Editor:Sakshi Singh, ET), Reference 2 (by Staff Writer of Hotelierindia), Reference 3 (by Shally Seth Mohile, rediff.com) ,Reference 4 (by Bond, Hotelierindia) and Reference 5 (by Forlin Mendez, voyagersworld.in). DSN18 (talk) 20:08, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you understand NCORP and especially the requirement for "Independent Content" as per ORGIND. Ref1 is based on an announcement by the topic company, it is not "Independent Content" and fails ORGIND. It is PR. I can find other regurgitated articles on the same topic which contain the same information such as this in Travel Trends, this in hospibuz, this in Todays Traveller, etc. Ref 2 is also PR. Here's another version of the same announcement, fails ORGIND. Ref 3 relies entirely on information provided by the topic company and their partners, is not "Independent Content", is not even about the topic company, fails ORGIND and CORPDEPTH. Ref 4 is more PR - here's another copy of the same announcement, fails ORGIND. Ref 5 yes another announcement - again here's another copy of the same thing, fails ORGIND. HighKing⁺⁺ 14:43, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ "Noesis Capital Advisors Satyadeo Hospitality Announce the Acquisition of Golden Tulip". Economic Times.
^ "Noesis Hotel in 2032 report summarises trends in the hospitality sector". Economic Times.
^ "Noesis propels hospitality sector in MMR region with 10 hotel tie-ups". Economic Times.
^ "NOESIS revolutionises hospitality infrastructure in Mumbai Metropolitan Region with unprecedented hotel tie-ups". Business World.
^ "NOESIS hospitality consulting firm dominates mid-market hotel space in India". www.hotelierindia.com.
^ "Mid-sized hotels on aggressive expansion drive as occupancy, rates zoom". Business Standard.
^ "Red carpet for leisure travellers: Hotels look to add 20,000 rooms". Business Standard.
^ "Distressed deals in hospitality biz on the rise". Livemint.
^ "Mozambique's Masa group to buy Mumbai hotel project from Aristo Realty Developers". Livemint.
^ "Wyndham's India partner picks majority stake in Kolkata hotel". DNA India.
^ "Lemon Tree takes long lease route to enter Banjara Hills". DNA India.
^ "NOESIS hospitality consulting firm dominating mid-market hotel space in India". hospitalitybizindia.com.
^ "Advisory firm Noesis drags OYO Rooms to court over Rs 1.5 crore payment failure". Economic Times.
^ "Hospitality industry players remain resilient amid lukewarm investor interest". The Hindu BusinessLine. 24 April 2023.
^ NOESIS CAPITAL ADVISORS v. ORAVEL STAYS PRIVATE LIMITED & ORS. (Delhi High Court), Text.
^ NOESIS CAPITAL ADVISORS v. ORAVEL STAYS PRIVATE LIMITED & ORS. (Delhi High Court), Text.
^ "Noesis Capital Advisors vs Oravel Stays Private Limited & Ors on 12 April, 2022". indiankanoon.org.
^ "Advisory firm Noesis drags OYO Rooms to court over Rs 1.5 crore payment failure". Economic Times.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:47, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per WP:NORG, with a careful consideration of WP:NEWSORGINDIA. In my review of the sources provided above, only one (voyagers) passed WP:SIRS, and even that is only reporting of a routine business transaction. Longhornsg (talk) 07:17, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Longhornsg, notability is notability wether its in one or two resources. you agreed that it passes WP:SIRS in above but still you voted it as Delete?, Let me clarify and help you reconsider. I agree, You can consider few references to come under WP:NEWSORGINDIA but not all right. Mentions in many notable sources has no importance? and Please recheck this Reference 1 and Reference 2 which also passes notability. These references don't come under WP:NEWSORGINDIA as they are not additional supplements or so, Please check examples of WP:NEWSORGINDIA before considering anything. I agree the article may need improvement but does not require deletion. DSN18 (talk) 09:10, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ref 1 isn't about the company, but mentions them. Ref 2 is in a trade journal, which we don't consider as notable; we could use these sources if there were other, strong sourcing available, but there isn't. We can't hang our hat on those references, without a stronger base. Oaktree b (talk) 14:00, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Most of the sources are about routine business dealings, the only green sources per sourcebot are about a hotel being sold, seems related, but isn't specifically about this business enterprise. Oaktree b (talk) 13:58, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is a company therefore GNG/WP:NCORP requires at least two deep or significant sources with *each* source containing "Independent Content" showing in-depth information *on the company*. "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. I'm unable to identify any references that meet the criteria for establishing notability. These sources are routine business announcements and PR. HighKing⁺⁺ 14:43, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge‎ to Adams political family#Members. ✗plicit 06:54, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Elihu Adams[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Notability isn't inherited. Probably best to just redirect to Adams political family#Members. Clarityfiend (talk) 06:19, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Massachusetts. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:21, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nom. The cited sources don't amount to substantial coverage. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 17:13, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. Fails the GNG, and per WP:NOTMEMORIAL; this is an unremarkable person. Ravenswing 19:40, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:56, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge he fails WP:GNG, just being related to famous people doesn't confer notability. Mztourist (talk) 03:21, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:47, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mitchell Amundsen[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A lot of databases come up to clutter results, so it is hard to tell if I missed anything, but only one article seems to exist about him, which is just a short interview. Seems non-notable. DemonDays64 (talk•contribs) 06:03, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. DemonDays64 (talk•contribs) 06:03, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:44, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. Fairly meets criterion#3 for Creative professionals:"The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews, or of an independent and notable work (for example, a book, film, or television series, but usually not a single episode of a television series);" listed as one of the Cinematrographers to Watch by Variety ( https://variety.com/2008/scene/markets-festivals/mitch-amundsen-1117994914/) -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 20:17, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:03, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Mushy Yank. Keep per WP:CREATIVE.3. This subject has director of photography (i.e cinematographer) credits on several films which would qualify for the critera (eg. The Country Bears, Transporter 2, Transformers (film), etc). The director of photography is an important creative credit on a film. —siro χ o 06:28, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Mushy Yank. Rusted AutoParts 07:01, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect‎ to Tally Hall. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:43, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Horowitz[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

"Andrew Horowitz" musician and Andrew Horowitz Tally Hall both have very few results on Google search. There is only one profile specifically about him [50]. Nothing else appears to come up focusing on him. Definitely fails WP:GNG and WP:NMUSICIAN imo. DemonDays64 (talk•contribs) 05:42, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. DemonDays64 (talk•contribs) 05:42, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:44, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Tangential connections to notable artists fails under NOTINHERITED. Delete based on a lack of RS recognition. Largely written and maintained by 2 SPA accounts and unregistered IP addresses, it seems suspiciously self-promotional by the subject himself.

On second thought, Redirect to Tally Hall seems a better option. ShelbyMarion (talk) 18:08, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:49, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Tally Hall. There's also [51] a short bio here. SWinxy (talk) 21:29, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirecting now would be most sensible here. Bringtar (talk) 18:45, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 05:49, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Felicia Frick[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The subject has earned at least three caps for the Liechtenstein women's national football team. I am unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage from third-party sources, failing WP:GNG. JTtheOG (talk) 05:37, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and Europe. JTtheOG (talk) 05:37, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, lacks significant coverage. Liechtenstein has a population of under 40,000 so it's not like you'd expect significant coverage. --Mvqr (talk) 11:16, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:19, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:39, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 05:50, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Isabelle Wiebach[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The subject has earned at least four caps for the Liechtenstein women's national football team. I am unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage from third-party sources, failing WP:GNG. JTtheOG (talk) 05:32, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and Europe. JTtheOG (talk) 05:32, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, lacks significant coverage. Liechtenstein has a population of under 40,000 so it's not like you'd expect significant coverage. Her club career is also not significant, she's in the 4th-5th tier league Swiss clubs. --Mvqr (talk) 11:18, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:14, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:39, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 05:50, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

War crimes by unconventional weapons[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

a WP:BIASed selection of purported war crimes conducted largely by the West. The "war crimes" were either not War crimes at the relevant time or were conducted by countries that were not signatories to the relevant international convention(s). This selective retrospective application is non-encyclopaedic and does not belong here. We already have a detailed page on War crimes and specific pages for various events and countries, where all relevant events should be listed. Mztourist (talk) 04:40, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Mztourist (talk) 04:45, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as WP:POVFORK. Quite an effort really, not one actual war crime in the whole article. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 07:20, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Reads like list of military operations I dislike. There seems to be no evidence that the vast majority of incidents were actually war crimes. Googleguy007 (talk) 15:31, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as both POVFORK and BIAS. Intothat darkness 17:08, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per pretty much all of the above. There is really no way I can see to salvage anything here. Cheers, Last1in (talk) 21:11, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
keep 1- According to Wikipedia:Guide to deletion: “A failure to conform to a neutral point of view is usually remedied through editing for neutrality” So, with respect, if there is a POV, it is not a reason to delete the article.

2- I agree that events have a specific page and specific pages and I tried to list all of these on one page. We can change the name of the article to The list of uses of unconventional weapons.M1nhm (talk) 11:08, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Its not just your POV, its the fact that these events are/were not war crimes. Mztourist (talk) 03:38, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

These events have happened in history and This list tries to collect them. even if this not be war crime, we can change the name of the article to fix the problem, I did not understand why the article should be deleted. M1nhm (talk) 07:00, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Just WP:SYNTH/WP:OR. Jacona (talk) 17:54, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 06:12, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Southern Min Wikipedia[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unnotable wiki citing only primary sources. That is to say Wikipedia/other Wikimedia projects.

Perhaps this is also considered circular referencing? QuickQuokka ^{[⁠talk • contribs]} 04:00, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language, Internet, Websites, Asia, China, and Taiwan. QuickQuokka ^{[⁠talk • contribs]} 04:00, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
keep per sources below. Redirect to List of Wikipedias per WP:ATD-R —siro χ o 06:50, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. Wong, Yaping 王雅萍 (2009-12-15). "期待族語版的維基百科" [Looking forward to the indigenous Taiwanese language version of Wikipedia]. Lihpao [zh] (in Chinese).
  The article notes: "你看過Wikipedia(維基百科)嗎? 12月14日下午政大原民中心邀請到清大物理學系陳柏中副教授、大漢技術學院資訊管理學系楊允言助理教授和台東大學華語文學系張學謙副教授, 分享Wikipedia (維基百科) 台語版本的建置與經營經過, 這是第一次從資訊科學、語言社會學、資訊管理學跨領 ... 陳柏中首先提到，2003年他在美國唸書就參與維基百科的繁體中文與簡體中文之爭，到最後自力更 ... 生成立「Holopedia」的過程，他們從三人創始元老團隊草創爭取Wikipedia中Holo話成為獨立語言的故事。除了努力寫詞條叩關,還面臨技術面的問題與挑戰,最後是還有來自懂網路但不懂母語的寫手，以及其他台語運動低度結合等社群動員面的問題，但是在Holo話以白話字首先扣關維基百科成功後，目前維基百科漢語系下已有粵語、贛語、吳語、文言、客家話、閩東語和潮洲話等8個版本。"
  From Google Translate: "Have you read Wikipedia (Wikipedia)? On the afternoon of December 14, the Indigenous Peoples Center of National Chengchi University invited Associate Professor Chen Baizhong, Department of Physics, Tsinghua University, Assistant Professor Yang Yunyan, Department of Information Management, Dahan Institute of Technology, and Associate Professor Zhang Xueqian, Department of Chinese Language and Literature, Taitung University to share about Wikipedia, the establishment and operation of the Taiwanese version [Holopedia]. This is the first time that information science, linguistic sociology, and information management have crossed fields... Chen Baizhong first mentioned that he participated in Wikipedia in 2003 when he was studying in the United States. The struggle between Traditional Chinese and Simplified Chinese, and finally the process of establishing "Holopedia" by self-reliance. They started from the three-person founding veteran team to strive for the Holo language in Wikipedia to become an independent language. In addition to working hard to write entries, there are also technical problems and challenges. Finally, there are writers who understand the Internet but do not understand their mother tongue, and other community mobilization problems such as low integration of Taiwanese language movements, but after the Holo dialect was first linked to Wikipedia with vernacular characters, Wikipedia currently has 8 versions under the Chinese department, including Cantonese, Gan, Wu, Classical, Hakka, Hokkien and Teochew."
2. Klöter, Henning (2020). "Writing Taiwanese: Then and now, how, why and who?". In Fell, Dafydd; Hsiao, Hsin-Huang Michael (eds.). Taiwanese Studies Revisited. London: Routledge. ISBN 978-0-367-20171-5. Retrieved 2023-08-21 – via Google Books.
  The book notes: "Significantly, the second strongest Sinitic language, comprising more than 200,000 articles, is identified as Bân-lâm-gú/Hō-ló-oē, which includes Taiwanese. Even more importantly, since the overwhelming majority of articles are written entirely in the Roman alphabet, the Bân-lâm-gú Wikipedia (also known as Holopedia) is the only Sinitic Wikipedia with virtually no Chinese characters. Obviously, this seems to confirm my previous impression that advocates of an alphabetic Taiwanese orthography have been most active in spreading their aspired standard. Figure 12.1 shows the beginning of the entry ‘Republic of China’ on Holopedia. ... If we take the Holopedia not only as a sign of the vitality of alphabetically written Taiwanese, it turns out that today, like 20 years ago, governmental and non-governmental language planners still do not pull together, in terms of both intensity and substance. It has to be emphasised that individual non-governmental agency in language planning cannot be limited to the Holopedia community."
3. Yang, Yunyan 楊允言; Zhang, Xueqian 張學謙; Lu, Meiqin 呂美親, eds. (2008). 台語文運動訪談暨史料彙編 [Interview and compilation of historical materials on Taiwanese language movement] (in Chinese). Taipei: Academia Historica [zh]. p. 572. ISBN 978-986-01-3294-6. Retrieved 2023-08-21 – via Google Books.
  The book notes: "台文人士在網路商業公司未大量開設類似服務之前，就開始試驗 blog 跟 wiki。在2003 年「暗光鳥ê厝」開始試寫個人 blog(http://lomaji.com/oldblog)。同時，陳柏中試驗經營「台語文 Weblog 中心」(http://weblog.holopedia.org)，軟體則使用時興的 Movable Type。這提供免費的blog 帳號空間給有興趣寫台語文的人士書寫用，最熱鬧之時會吸引數十人。同 (2003) 年，戴凱序跟陳柏中兩人規劃、設立 Holopedia.net。Holopedia 是一個用wiki技術編寫百科全書的數位事工,試驗一年後遷移到相同性質的 Wikipedia，變成其台文版(http:// nan.wikipedia.org)，到2008年2月已累計有兩千九百多篇文章。"
  From Google Translate: "Taiwanese people began to experiment with blogs and wikis before Internet business companies opened a large number of similar services. In 2003, "Dark Light Bird ê Cuo" began to try to write a personal blog (http://lomaji.com/oldblog). At the same time, Chen Bozhong tried to operate the "Taiwanese Weblog Center" (http://weblog.holopedia.org), and the software used the fashionable Movable Type. This provides free blog account space for those who are interested in writing Taiwanese language, and it will attract dozens of people at the most lively time. In the same year (2003), Dai Kaixu and Chen Baizhong planned and established Holopedia.net. Holopedia is a digital ministry that uses wiki technology to write encyclopedias. After a year of experimentation, it migrated to Wikipedia of the same nature and became its Taiwanese version (http://nan.wikipedia.org). By February 2008, it had accumulated There are more than 2,900 articles."
4. Lun, Un-gian 楊允言 (2014). 臺語文語料處理kah線頂資源研究 [Research on Corpus Processing and Online Resource for Written Taiwanese] (in Chinese). Tainan: Asian A-tsiu International 亞細亞國際傳播. p. 138. ISBN 978-986-85418-9-4. Retrieved 2023-08-21 – via Google Books.
  The book notes: "二、台語維基百科: 台語線頂百科全書是2003 年設立，叫做 Holopedia ， 2004 年加入維基百科 (Wikipedia) ，到 2013 年 12 月,已經有 11,000 外篇詞條，是用 POJ 寫。當初用POJ 用漢字寫，是經過真濟討論得著結果，主要是若用漢字寫，寫法可能會真無一致。網址 "http://zh-min-nan.wikipedia.org/wiki/"。因為是維基百科一部分若是所看這个詞條有其它語言版本，詞條頁面倒爿有選項，會使直接連結去語言版本。"
  From Google Translate: "2. Taiwanese Wikipedia: The Taiwanese online top encyclopedia was established in 2003, called Holopedia, and joined Wikipedia in 2004. By December 2013, there were already 11,000 foreign entries written in POJ. At the beginning, POJ was written in Chinese characters, which was the result of Zhenji's discussion. The main reason is that if it is written in Chinese characters, the writing method may not be consistent. URL "http://zh-min-nan.wikipedia.org/wiki/". Because it is part of Wikipedia, if the entry you are looking at has other language versions, there is an option on the entry page, which will directly link to the language version."
5. Iûnn, Ún-gián 楊允言 (January 2009). 台語文處理技術:以變調及詞性標記為例 [Processing Techniques for Written Taiwanese -- Tone Sandhi and POS Tagging] (in Chinese). National Taiwan University. p. 2. Retrieved 2023-08-21.
  The doctoral dissertation notes: "(b) Taiwanese Wikipedia: Taiwanese Wikipedia (aka Holopedia), which was established in 2003 and included in Wikipedia in 2004, could also be considered as a POJ corpus. There are more than 4,000 articles so far (Wikimedia Foundation, 2004)."
6. "Humanity Magazine article". Humanity Magazine 人生雜誌 (in Chinese). 2006. Retrieved 2023-08-21 – via Google Books.
  The article notes: "例如: 中文維基百科全書 http://zh.wikipedia.org/、閩南語維基百科 http://zh-min-nan.wikipedia.org/。中文維基百科可做線上繁簡體轉換,解決了兩岸華人輸入和閱讀的問題。除了中文之外，還有使用拼音的閩南語維基百科哦!除了維基百科全書以外， ..."
  From Google Translate: "For example: Chinese Wikipedia http://zh.wikipedia.org/, Hokkien Wikipedia http://zh-min-nan.wikipedia.org/. Chinese Wikipedia can do online traditional and simplified conversion, which solves the input and reading problems of Chinese on both sides of the strait. In addition to Chinese, there is also a Hokkien Wikipedia that uses pinyin! In addition to Wikipedia, ..."
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Southern Min Wikipedia (Pe̍h-ōe-jī: Wikipedia Bân-lâm-gú, simplified Chinese: 闽南语维基百科; traditional Chinese: 閩南語維基百科), also known as Holopedia, to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 10:32, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. No need for a separate article. Athel cb (talk) 12:12, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per User:Cunard. I can attest that Cunard's translations are correct. --TheLonelyPather (talk) 20:33, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Previous AFD was Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Articles on individual Wikipedia language editions. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:09, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Cunard above. There are sufficient sources to support an article. Eluchil404 (talk) 02:32, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect‎ to List of Wikipedias. ✗plicit 06:56, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sorani Kurdish Wikipedia[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unnotable wiki citing only primary sources. That is to say Wikipedia/other Wikimedia projects.

Perhaps this is also considered circular referencing? QuickQuokka ^{[⁠talk • contribs]} 03:58, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language, Internet, Websites, Iran, Azerbaijan, and Turkey. QuickQuokka ^{[⁠talk • contribs]} 03:58, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Wikipedias per WP:ATD-R —siro χ o 06:51, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. No need for a separate article. Athel cb (talk) 12:13, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Un-closed discussion per User:Oblivy. Please also see this article and this article. --QuickQuokka ^{[⁠talk • contribs]} 07:41, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Although I did mention this AfD at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Tatar_Wikipedia, I didn't vote here. I'm convinced by the arguments and happy to follow @Siroxo's proposal for redirect.

For avoidance of doubt, I also would be fine if this was withdrawn (per comments on nominator's talk page). Oblivy (talk) 08:07, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Previous AFD was Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Articles on individual Wikipedia language editions. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:09, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 03:32, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hypnos (record label)[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable local business that do not satisfy WP:NCORP. Graywalls (talk) 04:15, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Entertainment, Companies, and Oregon. Graywalls (talk) 04:15, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: this article doesn't have enough reliable sources, and fails both WP:N and possibly WP:NPOV. 64andtim (chat) 06:20, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already PROD'd so not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:15, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:49, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Could not find any significant coverage. Sgubaldo (talk) 21:22, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect‎ to List of Wikipedias. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 06:11, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mongolian Wikipedia[edit]

AfDs for this article:

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unnotable wiki citing only primary sources. That is to say Wikipedia/other Wikimedia projects.

Perhaps this is also considered circular referencing? QuickQuokka ^{[⁠talk • contribs]} 03:49, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language, Internet, Websites, Asia, and Mongolia. QuickQuokka ^{[⁠talk • contribs]} 03:49, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Wikipedias per WP:ATD-R —siro χ o 06:51, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. No need for a separate article. Athel cb (talk) 12:14, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Previous AFD was Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Articles on individual Wikipedia language editions. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:07, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect‎ to List of Wikipedias. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 06:10, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lithuanian Wikipedia[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unnotable wiki citing only primary sources. That is to say Wikipedia/other Wikimedia projects.

Perhaps this is also considered circular referencing? QuickQuokka ^{[⁠talk • contribs]} 03:46, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language, Internet, Websites, Europe, and Lithuania. QuickQuokka ^{[⁠talk • contribs]} 03:46, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Wikipedias per WP:ATD-R —siro χ o 06:52, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. No need for a separate article. Athel cb (talk) 12:14, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Previous AFD was Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Articles on individual Wikipedia language editions. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:06, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Lack of notability but does merit inclusion in a list of Wikipedias. #prodraxis ^connect 01:16, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect‎ to List of Wikipedias. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 06:10, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kyrgyz Wikipedia[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unnotable wiki citing only primary sources. That is to say Wikipedia/other Wikimedia projects.

Perhaps this is also considered circular referencing? QuickQuokka ^{[⁠talk • contribs]} 03:45, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language, Internet, Websites, Asia, and Kyrgyzstan. QuickQuokka ^{[⁠talk • contribs]} 03:45, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Wikipedias per WP:ATD-R —siro χ o 06:52, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. No need for a separate article. Athel cb (talk) 12:15, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Previous AFD was Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Articles on individual Wikipedia language editions. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:05, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect‎ to List of Wikipedias. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 06:09, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Luxembourgish Wikipedia[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unnotable wiki citing only one primary source. That is to say Wikipedia/other Wikimedia projects.

Perhaps this is also considered circular referencing? QuickQuokka ^{[⁠talk • contribs]} 03:34, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language, Internet, Websites, Europe, and Luxembourg. QuickQuokka ^{[⁠talk • contribs]} 03:34, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Wikipedias per WP:ATD-R —siro χ o 06:54, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. No need for a separate article. Athel cb (talk) 12:21, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Previous AFD was Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Articles on individual Wikipedia language editions. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:04, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect‎ to List of Wikipedias. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 06:09, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kurmanji Kurdish Wikipedia[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unnotable wiki citing only primary sources. That is to say Wikipedia/other Wikimedia projects.

Perhaps this is also considered circular referencing? QuickQuokka ^{[⁠talk • contribs]} 03:31, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language, Internet, Websites, Iraq, and Turkey. QuickQuokka ^{[⁠talk • contribs]} 03:31, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Wikipedias per WP:ATD-R —siro χ o 06:55, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. No need for a separate article. Athel cb (talk) 12:20, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Previous AFD was Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Articles on individual Wikipedia language editions. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:04, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 03:33, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Rita Mayang[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The subject has earned at least two caps for the Papua New Guinea women's national football team. I am unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage from third-party sources, failing WP:GNG. JTtheOG (talk) 02:40, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and Oceania. JTtheOG (talk) 02:40, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:14, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:39, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge‎ to Organization for the Support of Democratic Movement in Taiwan. ✗plicit 03:34, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Democratic Taiwan[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The source 1 is worldcat website, source 2 merely mentioned the magazine's name, source 3 is an interview with the magazine editor, source 4 is a list showcasing the magazine itself, source 5 is a database on a university webpage, and sources 6-8 are all websites of the magazine publisher. In summary, the article lacks reliable third-party sources for an effective introduction. 日期20220626 (talk) 02:39, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's profoundly difficult to search for sources as someone who doesn't read much Chinese because '民主台灣' appears to be a generic term as well. In absence of improved sources during this discussion, I think a merge to Organization for the Support of Democratic Movement in Taiwan would suffice for now. —siro χ o 07:02, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Due to the Chinese article being tagged with a notability template and my inability to find suitable Chinese sources, I have initiated a deletion discussion on the English Wikipedia. The Chinese article is also likely to be nominated for deletion tomorrow. 日期20220626 (talk) 10:41, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Taiwan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:01, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and Illinois. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:54, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge concur with Siroxo; I found discussion of the journal and the organisation in Yeh Chuen-rong's 1989 "A Chinese-American community: The politicization of social organizations" PhD thesis. Organisation itself subject of oral history project; there appears ample material available in Chinese for an article on the organisation. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 11:08, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Organization for the Support of Democratic Movement in Taiwan per Siroxo and Goldsztajn. Sal2100 (talk) 20:51, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 03:35, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

KHIZ-LD[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

After some thought, despite this being a station in Los Angeles, one of the biggest television markets in the US, I cannot see how this low-power station — a former TBN relay turned into another DTV America/HC2/Innovate operation — actually meets the GNG. It appears to have only ever really been a repeater of other networks or stations, with neither the adequate sourcing nor any sort of local content or coverage that would get it anywhere near actual notability; the article also tends to attract unsourced edits of dubious quality, another reason why our old overpresumption of "notability" (based on an essay, which seemed to have these all-diginet stations slip through the cracks pre-2021, rather than GNG) was a bit of an error in hindsight. (This is another station that was part of the failed bulk nomination of HC2/Innovate station articles that intermingled stations like this one with facilities that have slightly more substantial histories; the history here isn't quite as threadbare as some of the newer DTV America stations that went from application to license surrender in about a decade, but it isn't much better.) WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:24, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and California. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:24, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is a strange one. This facility went on the air in 1979, as a note. The move to channel 33 in 1987 does have coverage in the Daily Press including a front-page story. But that's because it was displaced from channel 64 by KVVT and it tried to buy a channel from the translator system. But TBN translators have come to AfD before (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/K17ET), and there is no SIGCOV after that. GNG coverage just will not exist for this facility. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 05:37, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting subject to a previous AFD, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/K04QR-D so not eligible for a Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:56, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:30, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge‎ to List of The Book of Boba Fett characters. Merge is a common outcome from AFD Spartaz ^Humbug! 04:57, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Garsa Fwip[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Garsa Fwip is an extremely minor character whose reception consists of only three sources, two of which are simple lists. I'm not even sure why she has a page to begin with. Unnamed anon (talk) 01:20, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 August 14. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 01:42, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Science fiction and fantasy. Shellwood (talk) 08:47, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The articles on creation and development, not just reception, counts towards GNG. Jclemens (talk) 19:34, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Jclemens: All of the creation and development articles can easily be moved to the casting section of The Book of Boba Fett#Production. Unnamed anon (talk) 00:46, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Of course they can. But you've proposed an AfD-enforced outcome. I have no objection to a merge discussion on a talk page concluding this, but is it a policy-mandated outcome? It is not. Jclemens (talk) 22:09, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD was long overdue for an entirely non-notable character, both in terms of her impact in the show and in real life. It might not be policy-mandated to delete this article, but its mere existence is eyebrow raising. If you have no objection to a merge discussion, then why advocate for keeping this page? Unnamed anon (talk) 23:02, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

But she's not non-notable, so I'd recommend you go read up on the Wikipedia concept or be more precise in your usage. Non-notable things get merged at AfD. Notable things better served by merging get merged in merge discussions if there's consensus to do so. Maintaining this distinction is important to keep things in perspective and document the right level of consensus: un-redirecting a notable character for improvement should be something everyone is free to do whenever they think they can make the encyclopedia better. Jclemens (talk) 00:22, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to The Book of Boba Fett. The information here can easily be covered in the Production and Reception sections. Some Reception info can also be merged to relevant episodes if need be. Pokelego999 (talk) 16:47, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Pokelego999, finally somebody who realizes that the few actual good sources can go on another page instead of the a ridiculous page for a seldom talked about bit character. Unnamed anon (talk) 04:38, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The character is one of relatively few standout female characters in the Star Wars franchise, portrayed by a notable actress with decent coverage. The topic reached Good article status, and is interesting. No, the character may not be as notable as Princess Leia but she does not have to be. Worst case scenario, we can redirect to List_of_The_Book_of_Boba_Fett_characters#Garsa_Fwip and merge in some of the pertinent information from here that is not covered there.— TAnthony^Talk 18:09, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@TAnthony: "Relatively few standout female characters" is false on both fronts, as this character is not standout at all, and there are plenty of other standout females like Mon Mothma, Padme, Ahsoka, Bo-Katan, Rey, Jyn Erso, Rose, Qi'ra, the list goes on. The "good article" status is something I disagree with, and "interesting" is entirely subjective and something I also disagree with. The notable actress can easily go under the casting subsection in The Book of Boba Fett#Production. Unnamed anon (talk) 06:59, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep as the in depth development and the casting and reception section show notability. It qualifies as a stand alone article. The GA status also already illustrates its importance and how it should not be deleted. It does not matter if the character is "minor" – a character can be minor but still make a big impact/be talked about in sources, as done so here. DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 09:50, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@DaniloDaysOfOurLives: I can maybe see an argument that the casting section can prove notability, but the reception section is horrid. Only three sources are in there, and two of them are just lists of Star Wars characters the sources like. Unnamed anon (talk) 10:25, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't make the section "horrid". 3 sources is better than 1 (and better than 0) and lists are also perfectly acceptable. I think the creature of the article should feel very proud DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 12:47, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@DaniloDaysOfOurLives: Lists are not acceptable sources for reception, and 3 sources are too little. I'd like to ping Kung Fu Man, who recently has redirected many pages because of this very reason. Unnamed anon (talk) 02:42, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Where in the MOS does it say that lists are unacceptable? Pages have been using them for reception for years and no one has said that it's unacceptable..? DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 02:45, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe it officially says anywhere in the MoS, but it should be obvious why lists aren't ideal sources. It's because they don't actually fully detail the character the Wikipedia article is about, and usually are simply saying "this character exists", with very little other substance, and the Garsa Fwip "article" reeks of that. Unnamed anon (talk) 02:50, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Some listicle articles are viable sources on Wikipedia. While they should be shied away from and not used as primary backing, they can be used as additional sources if they have something to say about the character. Many articles on Wikipedia use these listicles effectively, it's just a matter of knowing which to avoid and which to use. Pokelego999 (talk) 03:05, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I feel the discussion here is based around notability, when it really shouldn't be. Yes, we can verify that she passes GNG, but the real question is whether or not that justifies a separate article or not. What the article says can be covered by other articles extremely easily, and Garsa herself doesn't seem to garner enough individual reception beyond that to justify a separate article. I actually missed that a List of The Book of Boba Fett characters article existed, but a lot of Garsa's information already seems to be covered there from a glance, and the reception can easily be slotted in without issue, alongside any information not already there. A lot of this information can also be, as mentioned earlier, either moved to the main article or respective episodes, depending on what works best. Though, yes, it is notable, there just isn't enough in the article to justify its separation from the other various Book of Boba Fett articles, in my view. Pokelego999 (talk) 15:55, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've been pinged into this and I would like to blatantly say I not only don't appreciate words being put in my mouth, but I also don't care for being pointed at an AfD like this and asked to give my opinion. That feels like canvassing. I would have likely given my two cents on my own over time, but I don't feel comfortable offering my opinion on this with that considered now.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 03:17, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Kung Fu Man: I sincerely apologize if I put words in your mouth; that was not my intention at all. I also did mot mean to canvas; the reason for pinging you was because this article, which is full of cruft and honestly poorly written, seems very similar to many the articles you redirected from my viewpoint, and I wanted advice from somebody with more experience than me in redirecting on when it what qualifies as good or poor sourcing, as the past few times I have WP:BLAR'd it has been reverted and contested even if the article was obviously crufty and problematic; whether you proved me right or wrong was irrelevant. If you still wish to not give your opinion on this article, that is all right, I just hope you know that canvassing/putting words in your mouth was not my intention. Unnamed anon (talk) 04:22, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Then by all means, please learn to improve articles appropriately and expend effort in that direction, rather than trying to use AfD, a blunt instrument, to force outcomes not demanded by policy. Hit me up on my talk page if you want some coaching on how to do this effectively. Jclemens (talk) 22:11, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Jclemens: Normally, I would agree that improving an article would be good, but in this case this is an extremely minor character. In my opinion, minor characters should only get wikipedia articles either if sourcing can prove that the character has had a real-life impact or was a giant breakout character in terms of reception on par with the main characters, for example Howard and Harold McBride or Edna Mode. There is nothing of that sort for Garsa Fwip, and even a simple google search shows nothing notable about this character's reception. I was always questioning why this page even existed, this AfD was very long overdue. The few good sources can be merged, as Pokelego999 and I have been talking about. Unnamed anon (talk) 22:59, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's nice, and thank you for sharing, but that's not policy. Learning to fix stuff is important, and I would prefer that AfD initiators who nominate something for deletion that is kept immediately become responsible for adding in all the improvements and sourcing brought up in the AfD before they're allowed to start another. That's not policy either, but I like it much better than your proposal. Jclemens (talk) 00:25, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as there is currently no consensus and certainly no consensus to Delete. I encourage the nominator, User:Unnamed anon to refrain from commenting on every remark in this AFD discussion or you could be blocked from participating in this discussion due to bludgeoning. You've made your nomination and views known, you don't need to counter every opinion that disagrees with your own. It certainly won't convince anyone to agree with your perspective.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:49, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. Very unimpressive Reception section that consists mainly of notes that she was 10th or so on some listicles. She is not named in the heading of any ref cited. Fails WP:GNG IMHO. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:17, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete / Merge to List of The Book of Boba Fett characters This never should have been given Good article sourcing. The character appears in four scenes of four episodes in what all reviews call a cameo, most reception being over fans of the actress happy to see her in Star Wars, not about the character herself. Everything Pokelego999 said is correct. 113.30.191.65 (talk) 13:38, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep coverage seems to establish notability. – Meena • 14:29, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. This fictional character is not notable. All encyclopaedic information about her should be given in the television series and character list articles to the extent appropriate per WP:DUE. PatricePatricia (talk) 15:42, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Most of the sources appear to be WP:PRIMARY, others content farms, and others only tangentially related, therefore, I am having difficulty seeing how it passes GNG. The nominator's argument is not necessarily disqualifying for an article, and their further commentary verges on WP:IDONTLIKEIT, but upon further inspection, notability is seriously in doubt. The Keep !votes seem to be along the lines of WP:ITSIMPORTANT without demonstrating evidence of the supposed SIGCOV. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 09:46, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Fails WP:GNG. GreenishPickle! (🔔) 13:35, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I may well have !voted differently if this were a merge discussion, but if the question is whether this article is policy-compliant, I feel it unambiguously is. The article is about the entire topic of the fictional character - its role in the series, its creation and portrayal by a notable actress, and its reception. All of these elements are sourced, taken together reflect a notable topic. If editors wish to take this information and organize it in a different manner, that can be decided on the talk page. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 02:24, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 02:29, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Brenda M. Saiz[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This subject does not pass WP:GNG or WP:NJUDGE as a failed judicial nominee. Perhaps redirect to Donald Trump judicial appointment controversies? Let'srun (talk) 01:28, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Women, Law, and New Mexico. Let'srun (talk) 01:28, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:NJUDGE. Would not redirect because her failed nomination wasn't a controversy. Otherwise, there would be some reporting on her. Longhornsg (talk) 07:31, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete I could find three non-govermental sources: Albuquerque Journal, CDLife, Law and Crime. I'd describe all three of these sources as borderline - reputable-looking local paper, trade press, and a kind of sensationalist-looking crime-focused newspaper.

Rusalkii (talk) 04:54, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect‎ to Gael Baudino. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:47, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Strands Series[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A bit of a large one - I'm wondering if *any* of these books as well as this "series" page should have pages. From what I can tell this is a minor fantasy series with very little engagement over time. Every book as well as the "series" page cites the same 2 references, both of which come from the same niche journal. Most all content on these pages is summarizing plot events rather than denoting any particular notability of the works. While not a formal metric, searching the books today results in "fan groups" of <100 people, suggesting the books also don't carry much widespread consumer notability.

If the consensus is to delete - I am unclear on if an XfD must be made for each book, as it seems to be an "all or nothing" situation. A MINOTAUR (talk) 16:58, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Edward-Woodrow :) _[talk] 19:48, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Is the author's notability clearly established? I can't really tell from the extant article. If so, merging there might be preferable to a standalone article series. Jclemens (talk) 21:39, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
From what I can tell no - she does not appear to have any other works that are more popular than this series (though a few others do have their own pages, also with the same 2 references). They also seem to be almost exclusively composed of plot summaries - and further searching does not seem to bring up much in terms of actual real world notability outside these wikipedia pages and various websites that seem to be directly grabbing Wikipedia information. The author's page is almost entirely just a list of her books.

It's a bit perplexing as there are quite a few pages and they've been around for some time, but It truly appears that these books are very minor publications with no real notability. A MINOTAUR (talk) 21:50, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't call Interzone niche - it's a very important British SF/F magazine. I also find that the author is definitely notable. She's in Contemporary Authors (sorry, my library subscribes to the Gale DB so the best I can give is Gale H1000122296 for a link) and the St James Guide to Fantasy Writers (Gale K2408000026). Gossamer Axe has many reviews, and at least one academic article about it (doi:10.1080/14735789509366588). The Strands is almost certainly out of print, so I wouldn't expect much of an online footprint for it. -- asilvering (talk) 00:45, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the response. I'm admittedly not very well versed in the genre - and had assumed it to be rather niche given the subject matter. I don't have any strong feelings towards deletion - but given the lack of online presence of the author or much discussion of her works it appeared at face value to be non-notable. A MINOTAUR (talk) 02:13, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
She falls into the '80s/'90s digital black hole - not recent enough to be online by default, but too recent to have been picked up in many digitization sweeps. They were more concerned with older material that was out of print or out of copyright at the time (20 years ago). Incidentally, that's about when these articles were originally written! Now those books are out of print and we're a bit SOL. Strangely, each book in this series does have its own individual article (with enough reviews to show notability), and this article doesn't even appear to be linked on Gael Baudino. It looks like this series article is almost entirely in-universe descriptions, which was normal around here in 2006 but isn't anymore. Since we have articles for the author and the individual books, this one seems a bit superfluous. We should probably redirect to author in this case. -- asilvering (talk) 00:05, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to author, Gael Baudino. See my above comment - we already have articles for each individual book, which readers will find linked on the author page when they get redirected to this article instead. -- asilvering (talk) 00:07, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Gael Baudino. There don't seem to be any sources discussing this series as a whole. There does seem to be some coverage of individual books (e.g. Crosby 2000, which discusses Strands of Starlight, p. 92 onwards), but this doesn't confer notability to the series. Redirecting any interested readers to the author's article, which provides some background information and points to the individual articles, is appropriate. I'd recommend the nominator create separate discussions for each of the novels if they don't think they're notable. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 18:54, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on redirecting to Gael Baudino?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti ^{*Let's talk!*} 01:17, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect‎ to List of Sirius XM Radio channels#Former channels. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:22, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Classical Voices[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Subject lacks any secondary sources here to meet the WP:GNG, and there doesn't appear to be much elsewhere. Perhaps redirect this to List of Sirius XM Radio channels? Let'srun (talk) 01:11, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio, Television, Canada, and United States of America. Let'srun (talk) 01:11, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Sirius XM Radio channels#Former channels per nom: there is insufficient significant coverage to merit any actual notability, but this seems to be the logical alternative to deletion for otherwise non-notable Sirius XM channels (if not associated with another notable parent entity). As an aside, the fact that the article has a see-also link to the long-deleted (after a 2012 AfD) Dish Network Channel Grid should be a clue as to how under-the-radar this article has flown under… WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:26, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Sirius XM Radio channels#Former channels per nom and Wcquidditch. Sal2100 (talk) 22:21, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 02:30, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Becky Minger[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This subject does not meet WP:GNG or any subject specific notability criteria. Let'srun (talk) 01:07, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Women, Beauty pageants, and Ohio. Let'srun (talk) 01:07, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Seems to be a case of WP:BIO1E. MrsSnoozyTurtle 01:23, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus‎. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 01:34, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Robert Parris[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Ambassadors are not inherently notable. Could not find significant coverage to meet WP:BIO. Hey man im josh (talk) 20:00, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Bilateral relations, Turkey, and Minnesota. Hey man im josh (talk) 20:00, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Since this posting, the article has been fleshed out. The subject received awards, wrote a book, and was a career-long member of the foreign service. I added more biographical content with sources to improve the article. The subject meets WP:NPOL and passes WP:GNG and WP:BIO. -AuthorAuthor (talk) 20:51, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: While standard diplomats might not be notable just because they are diplomats, heads of mission (ie: ambassadors) to other countries are (at least, in my opinion). I think more sources can definitely help there, but overall there is enough to meet WP:GNG and also WP:BIO.

Quick comment: that deprecated source in the article (#1) should probably be replaced with another reference. Losipov (talk) 21:34, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ambassadors are not inherently notable. Well over 100 have been deleted. LibStar (talk) 09:13, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There's a list or category that tells how many have been deleted? — Maile (talk) 13:55, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The nominator is correct in stating that ambassadors are not ~~inherently~~ automatically notable nor do they pass WP:NPOL, contrary to the personal opinions of the two editors above. Additionally, the coverage in the article certainly does not provide WP:SIGCOV for the purposes of WP:GNG; besides the deprecated nndb source, the Clinton White House source is just a press release announcing his appointment (provides some background of his career, but doubtful of the significance considering it is a press release of an appointment), the Brookings Institute source (which is duplicated) is just his profile on the Brookings site, the WaPo source is just his name in a huge list of nominees, while the UMinn source is simply citing a publication he wrote for the bibliography. Curbon7 (talk) 06:29, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Additionally, the awards he has received appear to be bureaucratic awards, of which there are hundreds upon hundreds. Commendable? Absolutely; however, these types of awards likely do not fulfill WP:ANYBIO#1. Curbon7 (talk) 06:35, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Ambassadors don't have any inherent notability. There's only one source in the article which is even secondary, and it simply names him in a list so is clearly not significant coverage. Clearly fails WP:GNG as a result. SportingFlyer T·C 00:01, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Sources are not WP:SIGCOV or they are primary. For example, this one is a 1 line mention. Ambassadors are not inherently notable. LibStar (talk) 03:22, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as lacking significant coverage. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 15:24, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Taking Out The Trash (talk) 15:39, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep or Redirect per WP:CHEAP to List of ambassadors of the United States to Turkey It looks like he authored a document titled U.S.-Soviet Bilateral Relationship. In 1986 The New York Times called him a "Soviet Specialist". We may have enough for WP:BASIC. Lightburst (talk) 16:04, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: is the post of ambassador not a international [or] national [...] office? (WP:NPOL) Edward-Woodrow :) _[talk] 20:05, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No. That refers to political officeholders (legislators, judges, etc.), not diplomats. Curbon7 (talk) 20:59, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Curbon7 is correct. There is no free pass for ambassador articles. LibStar (talk) 23:41, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Just going to send a ping to @Edward-Woodrow in case they weren't following the conversation after their vote. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:25, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The article needs c.e., as this man had a very substantive diplomatic career before the Clinton appointment See External links - I've added a State Dept official bio of Mark Robert Parris. — Maile (talk) 02:27, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No offense but if I see "Ambassadors are not inherently notable" one more time in an AFD (much less the 4 times it's stated here), I'm adding it to my list of Wikipedia's Most Overused Policy Cliches. Besides, being "not inherently notable" does not mean "not notable". Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:21, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
But Liz, ambassadors aren't inherently notable. SportingFlyer T·C 18:34, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Also, notability is based on what sources are available. Currently in the article, one is a database directory. One is a press release. One is his biography on Brookings (which claims it's from the "White House".) One is a mere listing - not even a sentence saying he was appointed - in the Washington Post. One is his state department biography. And one is a link to a paper he wrote. That's only six, but of the eight in the article, two are re-used. So the phrase is being said over and over again because the only way he could be notable with these sources is if ambassadors get some sort of free pass, which they don't. SportingFlyer T·C 18:38, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

SportingFlyer, what you just said is what I'd like to see, an analysis of the souces for this article subject. Not just the throw-away line saying that ambassadors are not inherently notable which doesn't say anything about THIS article subject and the sources that have been found which could (or might not) provide evidence of notability. A general statement says nothing about this article that is being considered. That's my POV. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:21, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Liz: I completely understand, but also consider as someone who participates in a lot of AfDs, shorthand can be very effective way of contributing to an obvious discussion. SportingFlyer T·C 09:57, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Ambassadors are inherently un-notable.^[sarcasm] Actualcpscm^{scrutinize, talk} 16:44, 20 August 2023 (UTC) [reply]

Keep. There might already be enough for WP:BASIC here, but to strengthen that argument, I'm quite confident that (offline) sources exist that cover this individual in detail. I also dug up some additional sources: 1, 2, 3, and 4 which are likely not SIGCOV, and some SIGCOV here. Reminder that WP:BASIC allows us to combine low-depth coverage to establish notability (to a certain extent). Looks like a strong case for keeping to me. Actualcpscm^{scrutinize, talk} 16:44, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
None of those are significant coverage. The Miami one looks like a mere mention and the Dayton one covers him for two sentences. The ProQuest ones are also just one or two sentences. If he were a sportsperson, this would be "routine transactional coverage." SportingFlyer T·C 22:05, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think it‘s enough if you consider the sources that have already been discovered and the low-depth provision of WP:BASIC. Actualcpscm^{scrutinize, talk} 22:10, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
WP:BASIC explicitly states that trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not usually sufficient to establish notability and that is all that has been demonstrated so far. SportingFlyer T·C 12:30, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I debated on whether to relist this or close it as a keep and I chose to relist it. We're on the keep side of things right now but it's really a weak keep in my opinion. Relisting so hopefully another week sparks a good round of discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti ^{*Let's talk!*} 00:50, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

How are we on the keep side of things when none of the keep !voters have shown any WP:GNG qualifying sources?!? SportingFlyer T·C 12:30, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

An (imo convincing) NEXIST argument has also been made. Actualcpscm^{scrutinize, talk} 12:37, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Which offline sources might possibly cover him? US government sources should be well documented in online archives. SportingFlyer T·C 12:39, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Not all ambassadors are notable, but it is quite likely that all U.S. ambassadors to Turkey are, given Turkey's longstanding importance in the region. BD2412 T 01:10, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's like saying WP:ITSNOTABLE. This biography needs to meet WP:BIO, concerns above from delete side is the lack of WP:SIGCOV. LibStar (talk) 01:24, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not really; it's just a common sense statement, such as stating that ambassadors of the permanament members of the UN Security Council to each other are highly likely to be notable. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 10:23, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Redirect to List of ambassadors of the United States to Turkey. None of the sources presented in this AfD satisfy WP:SIGCOV: all are passing mentions. This is unsurprising, given that this is the type of coverage that one can expect for most US Senate-appointed officials. Unfortunately, the suggestion that other sources might exist is WP:MUSTBESOURCES, unless evidence to the contrary emerges: US ambassadorships to Turkey are not the highest sought-after ambassadorships. I also don't think the source presented as SIGCOV by Actualcpscm fulfills SIGCOV: the article from Palm Beach Daily News is about an event the subject of this article moderated. Therefore, I have to agree with SportingFlyer, who in my view correctly points out that trivial coverage has only been presented so far, as I too have been unable to locate further online or offline sources that show or might show that this ambassador has received significant coverage, meaning that WP:BASIC is not satisfied. Pilaz (talk) 13:44, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Adding to this, I've also looked into Turkish-American relations literature to see if Parris went beyond being namechecked, but it never seems to amount to SIGCOV. For example, [52] and [53] are passing mentions. Pilaz (talk) 14:03, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 00:25, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Robbie Cup[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unreferenced, stat-only page about a minor event. The best source I found is [54], but WP:NOTNEWS, WP:NEVENT, etc. Is this rescuable? Or merge/redirectable? Note: I am nominating this here after a request at pl wikipedia's AfD at pl:Wikipedia:Poczekalnia/artykuły/2023:08:19:Puchar Chicago 1992, where a number of similar weak articles were nominated, and several have English Wikipedia entries (but very poor, as the one seen herel the two others that may merit discussion on English Wikipedia are Umbro Cup and 1985 Azteca 2000 Tournament). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 00:42, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports, Football, and United States of America. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 00:42, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:14, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:39, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete doesn't meet WP:GNG. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:21, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:18, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

James Bowie (lawyer)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Reasons for deletion include an apparent breach of the biographies of living persons policy, and because this article appears to be contrary to the What Wikipedia is not policy that discourages scandal mongering, so should also be excluded according to the second prong of the notability guideline.

This article was created on 22 December 2022 [55], after the subject began to receive Ottawa-based coverage related to a variety of serious misconduct allegations, including allegations described in an article source headline in terms that can be commonly understood as allegations of criminal conduct. An Ontario-based legal industry publication also reported on allegations in December 2022. Coverage of allegations appears to have begun in November 2022.

This article was brought to AfD on 18 February 2023, and NAC-closed as keep on 4 March 2023 by a now-blocked sock. Since then, the article subject has been criminally charged.

I have tried to find reliable sources to help establish this subject was well-known before and/or independent of 'lawyer is subject to bar disciplinary investigation and license suspension,' 'lawyer is accused of serious misconduct,' 'lawyer is facing criminal charges,' and 'lawyer is relatedly getting sued in a civil action.' With an assist from the prior AfD and article, I have found:

pre-November 2022 sources

a passing mention in a 2019 Toronto Star source that quotes him for his opinion: "James Bowie, an Ottawa criminal lawyer and past Liberal staffer, said..." - the mention of being a past Liberal staffer is used in the article to develop the Career section.
a 9-sentence report in a 2020 Ottawa City News source based mostly on Bowie's statements announcing his belief that there would be no arrests at an upcoming anti-racism protest, but if there were, he would volunteer to provide free legal services to those arrested.
a mention of Bowie live-tweeting court in a Feb 2022 post about a bail hearing for Pat King, published by the questionable Daily Hive, which describes itself as "hyperlocal" and delivering "information to its local audience and advertisers". Instead of editorial standards, this website appears to disclaim them: "The articles disseminated are believed to be reliable; however the publisher disclaims any and all liability as to the completeness or accuracy of the information contained in any article and for any omissions of material facts from such article."
a 7-minute 2022 CBC interview (a year ago) with Bowie - "Criminal lawyer James Bowie watched the bail hearing for convoy protest organizer Tamara Lich. He talks about the hearing, and where the process is at"
a nearly 7-minute 2022 CBC interview (a year ago) with Bowie - "Criminal defence lawyer James Bowie takes us through how a mass-arrest situation - such as we are seeing in Ottawa this weekend - is handled. He also reviews the bail hearing for one of the convoy organizers"

Based on available sources, compliance with WP:BLPSTYLE and WP:BLPBALANCE does not appear possible at this time - specifically writing a biography that is not primarily based on recent coverage related to allegations, investigations, and criminal charges. Since coverage of the allegations began, there are some brief mentions in Ottawa news about his past Freedom Convoy-related social media activity, e.g.

post-November 2022 sources

29 Nov 2022 CTV News Ottawa - includes a graphic content warning and briefly mentions "Bowie, who became known on Twitter this year for chronicling the court appearances of various 'Freedom Convoy' organizers"
30 Nov 2022 Ottawa Citizen - "Ottawa lawyer James Bowie, known for garnering Twitter followers during the “Freedom Convoy” movement,"
2 Feb 2023 Ottawa Citizen - describes Bowie's alleged belief in his own fame related to his tweeting about the Freedom Convoy
24 April 2023 CTV News Ottawa - "Bowie rose to prominence on social media by chronicling the court appearances of various 'Freedom Convoy' organizers last year."

Basic biographical and career information also appears to be limited, with the Ottawa Citizen mentioning on 2 Feb 2023 "Born in 1983, Bowie was licensed in 2015 and has worked as a sole practitioner since 2020 in Ottawa" and the general location of his residence. If his own representations about his media activity are included, he seems to have made some appearances in news media to offer comment on Freedom Convoy court proceedings in 2022, but there do not appear to be sources describing him as a well-known news commentator or pundit.

According to more recent sources, he "became known on Twitter"/"known for garnering Twitter followers"/"rose to prominence on social media by chronicling the court appearances of various 'Freedom Convoy' organizers" in 2022, but does not appear to have received contemporary, independent, reliable, in-depth coverage of this. I think WP:BASIC/WP:GNG notability would not be supported based on what appears to otherwise be available about his career, commentary, and social media activity, and this limited available coverage does not offer a lot to help develop a balanced biography.

In advance of this AfD, I removed content from the article based on WP:BLP policy. Sources remaining in the article are primarily coverage of allegations. So I am bringing this article here for further discussion, because notability does not appear to be well-supported, and it appears BLP policy further supports deletion of this article at this time. Beccaynr (talk) 00:34, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Crime, Law, and Canada. Beccaynr (talk) 00:34, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. (as article creator) As per the reasons listed at the first AFD. Since then the subject has only got more notable. He inevitably will continue to get more notable. Any BLP policy concerns can be (and a perhaps already have been; I see that over 4,000 bytes was removed from the article today) resolved (see the essay Wikipedia:Deletion is not cleanup and WP:ATD: If editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page. The votes to keep at the first AFD were not plentiful, but they were unanimous, User:Loewstisch pointed out how WP:GNG was met and I made the same argument citing news from 2020, 2022 and 2023:

https://ottawa.citynews.ca/local-news/lawyer-offers-free-legal-service-to-anyone-who-is-arrested-at-ottawas-anti-racism-march-2414073
https://www.lawtimesnews.com/resources/professional-regulation/ottawa-lawyer-james-bowie-accused-of-sexual-misconduct-suspended-by-lso-in-unrelated-proceedings/372287
https://ottawacitizen.com/news/local-news/ottawa-lawyer-in-legal-services-for-sex-scandal-probed-for-mishandling-money

WP:NOTSCANDAL says that we should not promote things heard through the grapevine. The article is cited. We should not delete content just because the content is scandalous if it is reported in reliable sources. See Category:Scandals for the many dozens of article specifically on scandals.

I don't think balance is missing from the article. He's somewhat known for live tweeting court cases, a little bit known for other legal things and mostly known for legal challenges, which are properly documented in the article. CT55555(talk) 00:51, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. we don't need to rely on his assertions that he was a pundit:

https://www.cbc.ca/player/play/2004927555865
https://www.cbc.ca/player/play/2005007427891

CT55555(talk) 01:03, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTSCANDAL also says, "Articles and content about living people are required to meet an especially high standard, as they may otherwise be libellous or infringe the subjects' right to privacy. Articles must not be written purely to attack the reputation of another person." And in the previous AfD, there were two keep !votes; the nominator did not change their support for deletion, so there was not unanimous support to keep.

I also think WP:CRYSTALBALL predictions of further coverage related to criminal proceedings and further sensationalized coverage of titillating claims about people's lives are particularly difficult to predict, especially given how limited and localized the prior coverage has been.

And I think the removal of content shows two things: 1) how non-notable this subject is if there is an attempt to comply with BLP policy, and 2) how BLP compliance is still not possible after such a removal because the sources (and headlines in the references section) still describe allegations that are problematic according to BLP and NOT policies. Beccaynr (talk) 01:14, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

To help avoid the possibility of inappropriate canvassing by a ping to only one participant in the previous AfD, courtesy pinging the other previous AfD participants: Bueller 007 and Elinruby, in addition to Loewstisch. Beccaynr (talk) 17:00, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I was a little surprised to see the Daily Hive described as unreliable, although I have not evaluated it specifically with respect to Wikipedia policy. My overall reaction to this AfD however is that this guy was a useful idiot who jumped on a toxic bandwagon that caused who knows how many deaths from covid, and we should not be straining to give him oxygen. I am very preoccupied with a wildfire near me, but assuming that remains stable I may come back and do a detailed analysis. I would have to see much more than passing mentions in the Toronto Star to change my vote however. EtElinruby (talk) 17:32, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Recent coverage is almost entirely about allegations that he sexually harassed "pro-bono" clients. It looks like this was substantiated to the extent that he lost his law license, but I don't know that this makes him notable outside Ottawa (as Ottawa, not as the capital of Canada). Some additional stories cover similar new allegations that don't seem to have been adjudicated yet, so correct me if I am wrong, but doesn't that mean we don't use them in a BLP? Speaking of policy, I did find the disclaimer at the Daily Hive website, which does lead to the conclusion that it is not an RS. The mentions of him as any kind of pundit have faded out with the trucker's convoy, and *that*... well . It was a big deal for a while, mostly in traffic news outside of Ottawa, but American money apparently was behind it, so I am not convinced it was genuine news story, and supposing it was, notability is not inherited and being a sorta social media commentator on Twitter about the ensuing legal proceedings does not make him notable. I don't think the article should have been kept last time. Elinruby (talk)

Delete as per my rationale on the original nomination for deletion. Non-notable, BLP1E, potential violation of BLPCRIME, etc. I find it very difficult to believe that anyone truly thinks that this person is notable enough to deserve an entry in an encyclopedia. Bueller 007 (talk) 19:23, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:09, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jang Bong-yong[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article fails WP:GNG. Simione001 (talk) 00:18, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 00:18, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 00:18, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 00:18, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. QuickQuokka ^{[⁠talk • contribs]} 05:37, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. Lightoil (talk) 12:18, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:14, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:39, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

[1] "Who Made America? | Innovators | Thomas Edison". www.pbs.org. Retrieved 2023-08-09.

[2] "Noesis Capital Advisors Satyadeo Hospitality Announce the Acquisition of Golden Tulip". Economic Times.

[3] "Noesis Hotel in 2032 report summarises trends in the hospitality sector". Economic Times.

[4] "Noesis propels hospitality sector in MMR region with 10 hotel tie-ups". Economic Times.

[5] "NOESIS revolutionises hospitality infrastructure in Mumbai Metropolitan Region with unprecedented hotel tie-ups". Business World.

[6] "NOESIS hospitality consulting firm dominates mid-market hotel space in India". www.hotelierindia.com.

[7] "Mid-sized hotels on aggressive expansion drive as occupancy, rates zoom". Business Standard.

[8] "Red carpet for leisure travellers: Hotels look to add 20,000 rooms". Business Standard.

[9] "Distressed deals in hospitality biz on the rise". Livemint.

[10] "Mozambique's Masa group to buy Mumbai hotel project from Aristo Realty Developers". Livemint.

[11] "Wyndham's India partner picks majority stake in Kolkata hotel". DNA India.

[12] "Lemon Tree takes long lease route to enter Banjara Hills". DNA India.

[13] "NOESIS hospitality consulting firm dominating mid-market hotel space in India". hospitalitybizindia.com.

[14] "Advisory firm Noesis drags OYO Rooms to court over Rs 1.5 crore payment failure". Economic Times.

[15] "Hospitality industry players remain resilient amid lukewarm investor interest". The Hindu BusinessLine. 24 April 2023.

[16] NOESIS CAPITAL ADVISORS v. ORAVEL STAYS PRIVATE LIMITED & ORS. (Delhi High Court), Text.

[17] NOESIS CAPITAL ADVISORS v. ORAVEL STAYS PRIVATE LIMITED & ORS. (Delhi High Court), Text.

[18] "Noesis Capital Advisors vs Oravel Stays Private Limited & Ors on 12 April, 2022". indiankanoon.org.

[19] "Advisory firm Noesis drags OYO Rooms to court over Rs 1.5 crore payment failure". Economic Times.

[1]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]

[10]

[11]

[12]

[13]

[14]

[15]

[16]

[17]

[18]