Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 August 7

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< August 06 August 08 >

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. Star Mississippi 01:59, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Halcrow, Manitoba[edit]

Halcrow, Manitoba (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable railroad siding. Appears to be a duplicate of Halcrow station, a flag stop along the railroad which is literally just a post along the tracks and is also up for deletion. –dlthewave ☎ 23:24, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

--A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 04:58, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Although unincorporated, it is a legally recognized area. The buildings are all around the intersection with Provincial Rd. 267, both east & west. If you look carefully at the satellite images you can see the access road from the intersection to the station winding through the trees just north of the railroad. Yes the road is obscured by the trees, but is ascertainable. Halcrow certain does verify, see citations. For notability see WP:Notability (geographic features)#Settlements and administrative regions. --Bejnar (talk) 16:25, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Bejnar, I looked closely at the features on Manitoba 267 previously and I didn't see any structures - just borrow pits from some highway projects. There is a winter road that runs parallel to the railroad when cutting through wilderness. I looked at satellite images of the railroad mile by mile for 100s of km and I almost always saw the road. I assume it's an ice road; there were no bridges and it didn't stop at lakes -- it went straight through them. Every so often, the winter road was connected back to the railroad tracks. My guess is that it's there for maintenance and emergencies. Images:[1][2]
    Can you elaborate on the legal recognition issue? I searched Statistics Canada for "Halcrow" and found nothing. The Association of Manitoba Municipalities doesn't list Halcrow. The Manitoba historic sites map has nothing in the area.
    --A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 18:21, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Bejnar, I'm not sure that I follow. Halcrow is a railroad siding/flag stop according to sources cited in the article. Are you saying that the buildings (gravel pits?) that you see in the satellite view, a mile away along the highway, somehow contribute to its notability? –dlthewave ☎ 20:02, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"Halcrow 12-60-22-W Manitoba Railway Point Official" footnote #1 here And yes to second question. --Bejnar (talk) 16:25, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, that tells us that it's a "railway point". Since we don't have significant coverage to meet GNG, what SNG are you using to establish notability? –dlthewave ☎ 16:42, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The borrow pit is off the highway and was used for the highway. It's connected to the highway. The railroad was built about a century ago and they hauled in gravel. That pit is clearly not a century old. Also, a hole is not a town, anyway. Not in Manitoba.
--A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 17:07, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Contrast the search for Halcrow with a search for "Pikwitonei", a place further down the line; Pikwitonei's actually got 55 souls. It's identified as a "Northern Community". Halcrow is identified as a "Railway Point". Specifically, Via Rail says it's a signpost.
--A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 17:17, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liamyangll (talk to me!) 23:38, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete There is a golf course that uses the name "Halcrow", but the only other sources that use the name are maps (which do not provide notability under SNG). P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 22:30, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Halcrow Lake Golf & Country Club is in The Pas, 30 miles away. –dlthewave ☎ 01:25, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete All of the pseudo-places along the Churchill rail line need to go. None of them are testified to as towns in any source. Mangoe (talk) 03:01, 14 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! 05:22, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Development Effectiveness Indicator[edit]

Development Effectiveness Indicator (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Conflict of interest, self promotional, unsourced non notable topic. Theroadislong (talk) 14:04, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 14:45, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. — Karnataka talk 14:56, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - unsourced article, created by someone with an apparent COI. mentions in three books published by the world bank aren't sufficient for WP:GNG. It's possible a merge is appropriate, but I'm not sure where to (and since there's no sourced content, what would be merged?). — Rhododendrites talk \\ 21:20, 1 August 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!* 22:51, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - My normal inclination on an under-/unsourced article would be give the authors time to source it, but that ship has sailed. It's been around since 2017, it has no sources, the Talk page is empty, and the content of the article is just bad with no clear way to improve it. Cheers, Last1in (talk) 18:19, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Poorly created article. Can support recreation per WP:TNT. Aman Kumar Goel (Talk) 17:21, 11 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! 23:18, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

John Masouri[edit]

John Masouri (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Delete. Does not meet WP:N. Sabih omar 19:30, 5 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!* 13:27, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep, seems to be the expert on the history of this type of music [6]; Vice seems to be an iffy source RS-wise, but I think with what's in the article we have enough. He's quoted a few times in peer-reviewed journals [ https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=%22John+Masouri%22] as well. Oaktree b (talk) 14:13, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 21:26, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment here is some in-depth sigcov of his first book [7] —siroχo 03:29, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:44, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Nom doesn't exactly elaborate on why he fails N. The sources in the article demonstrate WP:NBASIC to me. He was also interviewed in BBC Radio as an expert. SWinxy (talk) 17:29, 14 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! 23:15, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

TexLab[edit]

TexLab (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article contains -zero- reliable, independent citations that actually mention the article subject. In fact, as far as I can tell nothing in the references section even mentions this software. I've looked and I have found no additional sources aside from the author's own sites and indiscriminate software listings. This does not meet either WP:GNG or WP:NSOFTWARE and should be deleted. MrOllie (talk) 22:36, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I could find no independent sources for this, beyond a few software listings that provided no indepenent commentary or analysis about the software. Without such sources, even a redirect would have no reference support. Hence, delete. --{{u|Mark viking}} {Talk} 02:34, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete since there is no clear evidence of TexLab meeting WP:GNG or WP:NSOFTWARE. Almost all sources are actually about other parts of TeX ecosystem and not about TexLab (do not even mention it), those that do are not third-party (so are not considered reliable) or not in-depth. Anton.bersh (talk) 20:54, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I also did not find any sources for this article which satisfy WP:GNG or WP:NSOFTWARE.
The sources that do exist only mention the software in passing, and do not describe the software specifically beyond a line or two.
Although this isn't directly related to this article, this same user (who is also named as the creator of this software) attempted to promote Neural Lab in Neural network software back in 2008 [8]. I noticed this alongside a string of other people attempting to promote their specific software as well.
It seems to me that the intent of this article, and of Neural Lab is to promote their software, not to add to Wikipedia. Chemeez (talk) 04:26, 13 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. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure)‎ 123Writer talk 00:23, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Full Brutal[edit]

Full Brutal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Single review on article from what appears to be a blog. A peruse through Google finds no other sources which illustrate notability other than reviews by other authors on their blogs/websites (nothing in a newspaper, literary journal, etc.). 123Writer talk 22:20, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever issues this article may have, this process just seems wrong.
--A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 23:41, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
These are valid concerns, however this does not change the fact the article has no current notability. Even if the creator was reached out to, there would be little they could do to keep the article in the mainspace. Do you suggest Draftifying the article instead? 123Writer talk 04:12, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, 1TWO3Writer those certainly are very valid concerns. Did you really have to move so fast? Why not engage with the author? It just seems like the nice thing to do.
I can't write an article in 90 minutes straight. If I have to break for a meal or some sleep, I take even longer. I think either one of us would be upset if this happened to us.
Perhaps the editor has more in mind for the article. Perhaps they know of refs you don't. Honestly, I'm more worried about losing a new editor than this article.
--A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 04:43, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Why not engage with the author? It just seems like the nice thing to do. The nice thing to do is not always the right thing to do. In this situation, I was presented with an article that, on a Google search, showed no notability. If they or anyone else can present notability, then the article can be kept.
I can't write an article in 90 minutes straight. If I have to break for a meal or some sleep, I take even longer. I think either one of us would be upset if this happened to us. The drafting process exists for this reason. All of my articles have existed as a draft prior to publication. The editor seems to be aware of this process as shown in the AFC declination on their talk page. They decided to bypass said process and publish the page to the mainspace ergo arguing that said page is "ready".
Perhaps the editor has more in mind for the article. Perhaps they know of refs you don't. Honestly, I'm more worried about losing a new editor than this article. We can speculate what the editor has or has not, but the article presented is what I or anyone else has to go on. Just for future reference for anyone reading this, said article was only nominated ten minutes prior to the ninety minute "deadline". As for losing a new editor, while I appreciate your kindness for the individual in-question, if they cannot handle having an article deleted, which is something I or the vast majority of editors have experienced, then that is something they have to work on or we cannot expect said person to be a mature addition to the Wikipedia community.
I would also rather not speculate on the editor's character or possible reaction to the AFD: for all we know, they do not respond, they do respond and agree with you, myself, or someone else, or something else entirely. They have been notified of the discussion, it is up to them to argue their point-of-view beyond you or I speaking for them. 123Writer talk 05:19, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The issue is the speed with which you took this article to AfD. And there's no conflict between "nice" and "right" in this case. There is no community-based guideline or imperative that you have to delete something so fast. There are guidelines that say you need to use the talk page.
--A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 05:42, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural keep AFDing something this fast should never be done.★Trekker (talk) 23:01, 9 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! 22:14, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Michalis Michael[edit]

Michalis Michael (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

There seem to be multiple footballers of this name, one of whom is a goalkeeper - see Pafos Press (translated). I can't find anything decent about the defender of this name and so I'm not seeing WP:GNG or WP:SPORTBASIC here. Aside from the Playmaker Stats source that I added previously, I can only find Soccerway, which is no good. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 22:07, 7 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! 21:44, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Konstantinos Georgallides[edit]

Konstantinos Georgallides (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Currently an unsourced BLP. An English-language search does reveal some passing mention of his football career in America but nothing substantial e.g. this. A Greek-language search reveals a few articles about transfers/loans that were copied from club announcements and therefore aren't independent ([9] [10]) and one article in Kerkida that talks about his performance that may borderline qualify as a reliable source but on its own is by no means enough. Therefore the article fails WP:GNG and WP:SPORTSCRIT. GGT (talk) 21:39, 7 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! 21:43, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Andreas Fragkou[edit]

Andreas Fragkou (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A BLP that appears to fail GNG and WP:SPORTSCRIT. As is usual with Cypriot footballers, no results from an English-language search. The Greek-language search does reveal some promising sources but eventually I would say falls short - see below for analysis:

Overall I just don't see the significant coverage that would merit a Wikipedia article. GGT (talk) 21:27, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Cyprus. GGT (talk) 21:27, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 22:10, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. GiantSnowman 16:54, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Hang on here, are you sure about this nomination, because AEL Limassol is a fair size club, he played 9 times for, then you got 22 games for Aris Limassol FC which is also one of the bigger clubs on the island and possibly there is more for him? Govvy (talk) 21:27, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Look, I do carefully select the articles that I nominate for deletion and only do so after a thorough search, which includes specifically searching within Cypriot sports websites (not just random Google searches). That is not to say that others can't find more but I'm as sure as it gets - be my guest if you want to look further, I'm open to changing my mind. Cyprus is not a very big country after all (and the Kerkida article above will exemplify the usual level of sports coverage...) so even at the bigger clubs, it's to be expected that even some players will fail the GNG. GGT (talk) 22:39, 8 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 21:29, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Panayiotis Ioannou[edit]

Panayiotis Ioannou (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Currently an unsourced BLP. Despite a long career, I cannot see any sources that provide this footballer with significant coverage. No English-language results, and Greek-language results (after much filtering due to his very common name) reveal only passing mentions such as this, with the only news article specifically covering him being about his wedding and therefore not really contributing much to his notability. As such the article fails WP:GNG and WP:SPORTSCRIT. GGT (talk) 21:14, 7 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. Withdrawn. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 21:56, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Football in Slovakia[edit]

Football in Slovakia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

the article gives no additional information about slovak football, all info (with additional info and updated) is in other articles (most should be listed in this one) Michael H (talk) 20:59, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy keep - not a valid reason for deletion (or for blanking the entire article). The "football in X" articles are supposed to be overviews that describe the history of the sport in the country. This one isn't great, but again, AfD isn't cleanup. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 21:06, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    regarding blanking, i didnt blank the entire content, just the text that should've been merged to other articles Michael H (talk) 21:14, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    if your favorite quoute: ''AfD isn't cleanup'' is true i would agree with speedy keep Michael H (talk) 21:15, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Wikipedia:Deletion is not cleanup – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 21:24, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    i think its true then, please consider this proposal taken down and close it as speedy keeps thanks Michael H (talk) 21:32, 7 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! 19:24, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Glenn H. Greenberg[edit]

Glenn H. Greenberg (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article is about a person who is related to notable people rather than about a notable person. I cannot find much about Glenn Greenberg beyond that he is the son of a HOF baseball player, is related to the Gimbel family, and his marriage articles. While he is a hedge fund manager, that job title alone does not make a person notable enough to have a Wikipedia article. His brother Stephen, in fact, is far more notable than Glenn. -- Omnis Scientia (talk) 19:42, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, not eligible for Soft Deletion due to previous AFD, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Glenn H. Greenberg.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 20:36, 7 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) Actualcpscm scrutinize, talk 21:55, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The European Fine Art Fair[edit]

The European Fine Art Fair (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

violates WP:PROMO, feels like WP:TNT is necessary to cleanup the promo unencyclopedic verbiage. Lavalizard101 (talk) 20:34, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Arts and Netherlands. Lavalizard101 (talk) 20:34, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - clearly notable. There are 38 refs. Not all count for notability but there are more than enough. Many more are out there. "Deletion ≠ cleanup."
--A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 20:58, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Organizations. Skynxnex (talk) 00:12, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This in-depth [Wall Street Journal] was more than sufficient to convince me this article has significant coverage from international, independent reliable sources. This 35 year old event is getting coverage on multiple continents from business, art, and news sources. There are around 40 references in the article. These aren't trivial mentions in local sources: it includes Bloomberg, Business Week, The New York Times, The Art Newspaper. Deletion is not cleanup. WP:TNT is an essay that is not 100% without merit, but TNT should be a last resort, not the first option. Jacona (talk) 11:43, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It's been tagged as advertorial since 2015, how long should we give it before TNTing? Lavalizard101 (talk) 14:25, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It's been tagged as advertorial since 2015, how long should we give it before TNTing? Lavalizard101 (talk) 14:25, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Fix the article rather than deleting it. Deletion of a WP:N article isn’t a great plan. — Jacona (talk) 00:02, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, goes along with my observation that for some editors Wikipedia is running out of things to do. This page is clearly notable by being both well sourced and about a popular art fair. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:14, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep TNT is needed, and there may be some copyvio, but there's more than sufficient sourcing on which to build a neutral article. Star Mississippi 13:16, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and do not TNT – although if there is plagiarism those bits should definitely be removed. Not a sentence of this article reads as promotional to me. Superlatives like "the world's leading art fair [alongside Art Basel]" are backed up, in that instance with a New York Times citation (though that article's behind a paywall for me, as are many of the ones cited – fortunately here's Reuters calling it "the world’s leading fair", with "art fair" implied). Ham II (talk) 21:07, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as this is clearly not TNT material and AFDISNOTCLEANUP. Does pass the WP:GNG. WP:SNOW also applies! gidonb (talk) 00:47, 9 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 Materialscientist (talk) 12:15, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mustafa Merko[edit]

Mustafa Merko (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Apparent hoax, subject does not appear to be mentioned in sources given, some of the references are obviously utterly irrelevant, and google supplies no evidence of this person's existence either. Duplicate article at Mustafa Merko Balli Kombetar General DuncanHill (talk) 20:32, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete. Reported at WP:ANI. Article does have citations - sample
    • "A genral framework for tropical differential equations"
    • "Effectiveness of bio-insecticides and mass trapping based on population fluctuations for controlling Tuta absoluta under greenhouse conditions in Albania"
    • '"2011 Prognostics and System Health Managment Confernece. IEEE."
--A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 23:25, 7 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 Materialscientist (talk) 12:14, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mustafa Merko Balli Kombetar General[edit]

Mustafa Merko Balli Kombetar General (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Apparent hoax, subject does not appear to be mentioned in sources given, some of the references are obviously utterly irrelevant, and google supplies no evidence of this person's existence either. Duplicate article at Mustafa Merko DuncanHill (talk) 20:31, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. DuncanHill (talk) 20:31, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military, Albania, and Yugoslavia. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 21:26, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete This is a hoax. The editor has made other trolling edits too and might need to be blocked. Ktrimi991 (talk) 21:53, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete. Reported at WP:ANI. Article does have citations - sample
    • "A genral framework for tropical differential equations"
    • "Effectiveness of bio-insecticides and mass trapping based on population fluctuations for controlling Tuta absoluta under greenhouse conditions in Albania"
    • '"2011 Prognostics and System Health Managment Confernece. IEEE."
--A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 23:24, 7 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! 19:21, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Buypass[edit]

Buypass (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article only uses primary sources Greatder (talk) 19:07, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

--A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 19:19, 7 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! 19:20, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of works about the Crusades based on auxiliary sciences of history[edit]

List of works about the Crusades based on auxiliary sciences of history (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Page creator acknowledges with this edit that there is consensus that the subject matter is covered adequately elsewhere. Unable to propose for deletion, and thus bringing here. ~TPW 18:49, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Agree that this should be deleted. Dr. Grampinator (talk) 19:27, 7 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 Dvin (ancient city). (non-admin closure) — DaxServer (t · m · e · c) 12:39, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Dvin[edit]

Battle of Dvin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

There is no source that mention of such a battle. It's likely to be a hoax. Nanahuatl (talk) 18:22, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Armenia, History, and Military. XOR'easter (talk) 20:39, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge: to Dvin (ancient city), where it is partially already mentioned. I searched through both listed sources, but could not find much on this battle. Page 53 of the Minorsky source describes this battle a bit, but it's extremely thin and mostly focuses on other events, contextualizing it in the wake of the Battle of Ani. The Ter-Ghewondyan source mentions this battle similarly briefly mentions this battle on page 122, but again only barely. So not a hoax, but likely non-notable on its own. Curbon7 (talk) 06:30, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge: only sourced material to Dvin (ancient city), per above.  // Timothy :: talk  06:39, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per above. - Indefensible (talk) 05:05, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per above. Cheers, Last1in (talk) 15:59, 12 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 Botswana women's international footballers. Liz Read! Talk! 19:11, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kesegofetse Mochawe[edit]

Kesegofetse Mochawe (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Redirect to List of Botswana women's international footballers. The subject has earned at least six caps for the Botswana women's national football team. I am unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage from third-party sources, failing WP:GNG. The only coverage I found with more than one mention of her was this. JTtheOG (talk) 17:32, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles (talk) 17:38, 7 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! 07:37, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ibero-German[edit]

Ibero-German (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Don't see how this meets WP:GNG as a separate concept from Portuguese in Germany and Spaniards in Germany. No significant coverage (or much coverage at all) on 'Ibero-Germans' as a separate group outside of this article. AlexandraAVX (talk) 16:51, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles (talk) 17:38, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per above. No reason for a separate article and title is NN. Cheers, Last1in (talk) 18:49, 9 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 (nomination withdrawn) ‎. (non-admin closure) Edward-Woodrow :) [talk] 13:05, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew J. Mitchell[edit]

Andrew J. Mitchell (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Notability is suspect. Only current references are reviews of books written or edited by him. Fails WP:NACADEMIC and WP:ANYBIO and WP:SIGCOV Edward-Woodrow :) [talk] 16:46, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

--A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 19:30, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I initially thought that his professorship at Emory University made him notable, but I don't think that position is a named chair appointment or distinguished professor appointment. Edward-Woodrow :) [talk] 20:46, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the Google Scholar citations: I know nil about citation levels in any discipline, but I note that the citations are smeared across 80 works, the most cited of which has 223 citations – roughly one fifth of the total. Edward-Woodrow :) [talk] 21:08, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 21:28, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Philosophy is apt to be a book-oriented discipline, where having published books that have received reviews is a more clear indicator of article-worthiness than a citation profile. Mitchell has two solo-author books that have received multiple reviews apiece, which is enough for WP:NAUTHOR; the multiply-reviewed co-edited volumes count for less, since co-editing is less of a contribution than writing the whole thing, but they don't hurt. XOR'easter (talk) 22:36, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per XOR'easter.
--A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 05:14, 8 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! 16:59, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ramzi Toure Idrissou[edit]

Ramzi Toure Idrissou (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Ramzi Toure Idrissou

This stub article on an association football player does not satisfy general notability because it does not have any independent secondary sources. The references state that he exists and plays association football, but are a Wikipedia link and database entries.

Reference Number Reference Comments Independent Significant Reliable Secondary
1 Wikipedia This is a link to the article about the team that the subject plays for Yes Not about the player No Yes
2 Tampa Spartans Page listing him as a member of the college team No Yes Yes No
3 us.soccerway.com A database entry No No Yes No
4 utrop.no A database entry No No Yes No

The originator has also created a draft, so that this article cannot be draftified. This article can be deleted, and the draft can be expanded and resubmitted when there is adequate independent secondary coverage. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:40, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete At first I thought it looked like he played for two fair sized clubs, but it feels like a complete miss-direct. Govvy (talk) 21:19, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Article is poorly made and not notable. 🛧Layah50♪🛪 ( 話す? 一緒に飛ぼう！) 04:59, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    this is what the person wants, he wanted to be a simple article without a lot information DenisBoshnakovich (talk) 05:28, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
How do you know what he 'wants'? Do you know him? Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 20:59, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I deleted the draft in order to I recommend this article to be reviewed again and not to be deleted DenisBoshnakovich (talk) 05:30, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I want from the admins and the people who are about to delete my publication, please review the article again DenisBoshnakovich (talk) 06:03, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think you have to review again the publication DenisBoshnakovich (talk) 14:36, 12 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! 16:58, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mary Simpson (mathematician)[edit]

Mary Simpson (mathematician) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Taught mathematics for 11 years at University of St Andrews, but I am not seeing how she meets WP:GNG or WP:Notability (academic) –CaroleHenson (talk) 16:23, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Mathematics, Scotland, and Women. XOR'easter (talk) 20:25, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No pass of WP:PROF evident, sadly. There's in-depth coverage at the MacTutor History of Mathematics Archive (footnote 1 of the article), but that's only one source, and as something published at St Andrews about someone at St Andrews its independence is questionable, so it's not enough for WP:GNG. The references cited by MacTutor look to be primary and neither independent nor in-depth, so not themselves usable for GNG. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:37, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not able to see a way to meet WP:NPROF or WP:GNG after some searching. -Kj cheetham (talk) 19:02, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak-ish delete. I normally expect individuals covered by MacTutor to be notable, but I don't think it is necessarily enough on its own. There doesn't look to be much else. I did also find a passing mention in [11] as one of a number of women mathematics faculty in Great Britain in 1934, but I don't think this contributes much. Watching in case better evidence of notability arises -- it appears somewhat more plausible in this case than in the similar one of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Margaret Boyle. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 19:25, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails WP:PROF and WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 00:36, 14 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. I'm making this a straight Delete due to sockpuppet activity on this page title. Liz Read! Talk! 16:58, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

NAMTA[edit]

NAMTA (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article about an organization, not properly sourced as passing WP:NORG. As always, organizations are not automatically entitled to Wikipedia articles just because they exist, and have to be shown to pass WP:GNG and WP:ORGDEPTH on the quality of third-party coverage that has been devoted to their work in media and books -- but two of the four footnotes here are the organization's own self-published content about itself and a third is an unreliable source, none of which are support for notability at all, and the only citation to a reliable or GNG-worthy media outlet is not to coverage about the organization, but tangential coverage about an event that completely fails to mention this organization as having had anything whatsoever to do with it, so it doesn't support the notability of this organization either.
Nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt this group from having to be the subject of any external coverage. Bearcat (talk) 15:40, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete: Not notable at all. --Haoreima (talk) 16:39, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Looking at the page history, I saw that before the page was created, there was a redirect to the commonly used acronym for an article called International Art Materials Trade Association. I suggest restoring that redirect. HarukaAmaranth (話) 02:13, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I have no objection to the restoration of the redirect but to avoid "possible" copy and paste of the previously removed materials of this very topic (which is currently under AFD) and recreation of anything like such again by anyone, I think it will be nice if this page is deleted and again recreated for the very redirect to International Art Materials Trade Association. Haoreima (talk) 09:20, 10 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! 16:51, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ambush near Kaçanik[edit]

Ambush near Kaçanik (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

An ambush resulting in a single fatality which isn't otherwise notable for its impact on the wider conflict of which it was a part doesn't meet the criteria set out by WP:NOTABILITY, WP:LASTING and WP:SUSTAINED. Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 15:36, 7 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! 16:51, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

David Pérez (footballer)[edit]

David Pérez (footballer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article about former footballer which comprehensively fails WP:GNG. The only coverage available is statistical database entries. PROD was reverted without making any effort to address the WP:SPORTCRIT failure. Jogurney (talk) 14:35, 7 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! 04:11, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Camlann Medieval Village[edit]

Camlann Medieval Village (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Per WP:AUD, the local coverage this attraction has received is not sufficient to achieve WP:NBUSINESS BrigadierG (talk) 11:46, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

--A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 15:21, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep GNG is met by coverage, SNG is optional, N is met. Jclemens (talk) 00:10, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 13:55, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

--A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 22:58, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as nominator following doing some source analysis I see GNG is met. BrigadierG (talk) 22:47, 10 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! 16:40, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hush the Many[edit]

Hush the Many (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Tagged for notability in 2010. Fails WP:NBAND and WP:GNG. - UtherSRG (talk) 13:33, 7 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 ESPN Radio. (non-admin closure) — DaxServer (t · m · e · c) 12:41, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ESPN Xtra[edit]

ESPN Xtra (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Doesn't have the WP:SIGCOV from reliable secondary sources. The only secondary source currently cited in the article doesn't mention ESPN Xtra at all, and I couldn't find much else elsewhere. Let'srun (talk) 13:30, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio and Sports. Let'srun (talk) 13:30, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with ESPN Radio. Google search results are basically primary coverage and Wiki mirrors. Both pages are small enough that the content here can be incorporated into the proposed merge target. Carson Wentz (talk) 16:15, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into ESPN Radio It's ESPN's audio equivalent to ESPN2 as an overflow for the TV side's debate and league shows, but without much N to speak of. Nate • (chatter) 16:26, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into ESPN Radio: I can't imagine that a satellite radio channel that simply simulcasts the audio of some ESPN television studio shows and some play-by-play (and the bulk of the radio-specific content ever aired on the channel were simulcasts of the local shows on the former ESPN Radio O&O group — which were pulled from the schedule years ago) could possibly have any actual separate notability from the rest of ESPN Audio. A brief mention at ESPN Radio is more than enough. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:46, 12 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) — DaxServer (t · m · e · c) 12:45, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ken Hirschkop[edit]

Ken Hirschkop (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Tagged for notability since 2010. BLP with no sources, but two external links, neither of which are WP:IS. Fails WP:NPROF and WP:GNG. - UtherSRG (talk) 12:57, 7 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! 16:33, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yuji Himukai[edit]

Yuji Himukai (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Tagged for notability since 2010. Fails WP:NARTIST and WP:GNG. - UtherSRG (talk) 12:03, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure why nobody responded to this? Anyways, delete, not notable and near completely unsourced. NegativeMP1 (talk) 01:48, 14 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! 16:31, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Heath & Normy Show[edit]

The Heath & Normy Show (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Tagged for notability since 2010. Fails WP:GNG. - UtherSRG (talk) 11:59, 7 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! 16:00, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Staffan Jacobson[edit]

Staffan Jacobson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not the subject of significant coverage from reliable, independent sources. (?) A post to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anarchism#Staffan Jacobson found no major material.

In searches, do not confuse this author (born 1948) with the Staffan Jacobsson born in 1951, who works in technological research. Our 1948 Jacobson is an art historian that has not been widely regarded or reviewed for his work in that field, apart from one interview source (not used for notability) and one review. The current article focuses on his political background but we don't have any reliable, secondary sources that touch on this as being noteworthy or that warrant redirecting to another article on anarchism in Sweden.

The Swedish version of this article did not have additional sources for us to consider, but please {{ping}} me if you find non-English and offline sources to make a case for the independent notability of this topic. czar 11:14, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Insufficiently sourced to show notability. Sjö (talk) 12:18, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: as I noted earlier, [12] may have something. I'm sure we're missing things, but not at all sure they're WP:GNG- or WP:NAUTHOR-level things we're missing. Leaving the link here for convenience in case anyone wants to go digging. -- asilvering (talk) 17:54, 7 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. Liz Read! Talk! 19:30, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

2024 EAFF E-1 Football Championship[edit]

2024 EAFF E-1 Football Championship (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Two sources listed in this article is about the 2022 EAFF E-1 Football Championship and no reliable source of 2024 EAFF E-1 Football Championship can be found. Qby (talk) 10:13, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • PROD is not a better solution, as you can't PROD an article if it's the subject of an AFD. Also, most of the time, a PROD gets removed without fixing anything, and then you start and AFD anyway.
  • Move to draftspace as WP:TOOSOON, and it doesn't currently demonstrate that it passes WP:GNG. The fact other articles in the series exist is not a good enough reason to keep this a year before the event, as per WP:OSE. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:23, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify. We have a policy on this kind of article at WP:CRYSTAL: Individual scheduled or expected future events should be included only if the event is notable and almost certain to take place. I'm not seeing evidence of notability in the article, nor evidence that it is "almost certain to take place". CRYSTAL also stipulates that topics are generally inappropriate if nothing can be said about them that is verifiable and not original research. The GSA source doesn't appear particularly reliable, and the piece of information extracted ("The finals were originally scheduled to be held in South Korea.") is probably original research under WP:SYNTH, so the CRYSTAL provision applies; this is an inappropriate topic for now. On the other hand, there's a decent chance this will become an appropriate topic, and the existing work is usable for an article in the future, so draftification seems appropriate. Actualcpscm scrutinize, talk 11:13, 14 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! 15:52, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Political economy of oil in Angola[edit]

Political economy of oil in Angola (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Note on the page for many years about unencyclopedic style. Interested to hear whether others think the topic meets the GNG - my view is that even if it does, this page needs WP:TNT because it can't really be salvaged and has been left like this for way too long. JMWt (talk) 09:34, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Economics and Angola. JMWt (talk) 09:34, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:TNT, while something like this could theoretically be a notable topic I see no reason why this article's content can't be covered far more effectively at Economy of Angola, Politics of Angola and Sonangol Group. At the moment this is a rambling essay, and it would be better to delete and start again from scratch than attempt to wrangle this into something resembling a proper article. Devonian Wombat (talk) 02:05, 9 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! 15:51, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Institute of National Studies of Tiaret[edit]

Institute of National Studies of Tiaret (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I am unable to find any other references other than the passing mention on the page. It doesn't sound like a particularly large or notable collection of books. Seems like we need better refs that show that it meets the GNG and that the details can in fact me verified. JMWt (talk) 09:26, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I looked all over, including Wikipedia articles for Tiaret in French and both our major Arabic projects. French Wikipedia's article on the local university, fr:Université Ibn Khaldoun de Tiaret, doesn't mention it. I went to the University's French site and didn't see anything however they don't seem to have a site search capability. I would say to redirect to Tiaret or to a University article but I'm not sure this place exists other than one sentence in an encyclopaedia I have not heard of. It may also be independent of the University any way.
--A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 18:45, 7 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. Nomination withdrawn. Liz Read! Talk! 04:12, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Murder of Muhammad Naufal Zidan[edit]

Murder of Muhammad Naufal Zidan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A single criminal case of murder, a short-term hot issue. Fumikas Sagisavas (talk) 07:34, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Crime, and Indonesia. Fumikas Sagisavas (talk) 07:34, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Draftify this is WP:TOOSOON. Since it's well-sourced (a bit rambling/overdetailed), just as a matter of economy of effort I suggest it be put into draft. It's getting a lot of coverage right now, and if it becomes a source of long-term notability it can be improved and moved into mainspace. Oblivy (talk) 08:13, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment: This article has had 16 edits since this nomination by the article's creator (some of which added possibly reliable sources), and WP:BEFORE recommends considering waiting for new articles to be fleshed out before nominating. Closhund/talk/ 08:30, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Between WP:BEFORE and WP:TOOSOON I think I'd lean on the latter. The question right now isn't one of notability - this is getting tons of coverage - but sustained notability. Events like this sometimes make a big noise for a few days, and then no long-term impact. Oblivy (talk) 08:35, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Understood. Thanks. Closhund/talk/ 08:42, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Whatever the issues with this article, this process seems all wrong.
--A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 18:03, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@A. B. I agree to some extent, but what's a better way to handle these local current events articles? While shocking, and newsworthy today, there's no guarantee this story will be notable in a week or two. On the other hand, there doesn't seem to be a lot of harm in keeping it up and discussing on the talk page.
I thought draftify was a good solution. Is that too harsh? What's the harm?
Note that on reflection, I'm not sure WP:TOOSOON is quite right. Probably WP:NOTNEWS is better. Oblivy (talk) 04:24, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oblivy, at this point, I don't have an opinion about what to do with the article. My point has to do with:
  • Giving the author time to get something done
  • Communicating using the talk page
  • Basic respect for another editor
So I don't agree or disagree with your approach. I'm just calling out what I think is an improper, impatient rush to AfD.
--A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 04:30, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed on the nomination being premature. Unfortunately unless withdrawn an AfD is almost unstoppable. But I'll take a lesson from your comments and try to raise the talk page point if a case like this arises in the future. Oblivy (talk) 04:38, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Withdraw: I agree with the Wikipedians mentioned above, we need to pay attention to the follow-up development of a single incident, and it is too early to nominate for deletion. --Fumikas Sagisavas (talk) 08:19, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I revoked my draftify vote to remove any barrier to closing this discussion. This article may someday need another look, but for now it's well sourced and I see no issue leaving it up.Oblivy (talk) 09:13, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Withdraw as premature per all of the above.
--A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 13:10, 8 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! 06:46, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hal Gordon (hot dog vendor)[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Hal_Gordon_(hot_dog_vendor) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is not a relevant figure. This article was written in jest to depict an individual who is not noteworthy in any capacity. This individual is simply a graduate student who has done work as a hot dog vendor during sports games. Azakrzewska (talk) 07:01, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep meets WP:GNG through articles in independent media (KQED, Mercury News, SFGATE) over two different baseball seasons. And a quote in the NY Post. Oblivy (talk) 07:44, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Added to the list for baseball; probably shouldn't be on the basketball list. Typo? D. Benjamin Miller (talk) 18:38, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Appears to meet WP:GNG with the sources in the article. Alvaldi (talk) 12:34, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Please note that the nominator created his account six hours ago and has no contributions to Wikipedia outside of this AfD. Alvaldi (talk) 12:41, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. If we're going to insist on a standard of notability, GNG, that is based on how much media coverage a topic has rather than on how significant the topic is, we should not be surprised when that causes us to include some topics that have plenty of in-depth media coverage but are not in any way significant. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:12, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Well said. Oblivy (talk) 04:40, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I don't want to help someone out whose first edit was an AfD nom, but he appears to fail WP:BLP1E - a living person, otherwise low-profile, notable for a singular insignificant event - and BLP1E is a part of NOT, which does trump GNG. SportingFlyer T·C 20:36, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    He is notable for being an unofficial mascot of a major sports team for several years, that is not the same as being notable for a single event. Alvaldi (talk) 20:43, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    See the guidance at WP:PSEUDO. There's no reason we can't discuss him elsewhere though. SportingFlyer T·C 22:48, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    You know that's an essay, not a notability guideline, right? —David Eppstein (talk) 01:36, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    As David points out, WP:PSEUDO is an essay but regardless the subject passes its suggested tests as reliable sources cover the individual themselves as a main or sole focus of coverage. Also, WP:BLP1E doesn't apply as he not known from being involved in a single event (i.e. a single game or a playoff series), his notability stems from his career as an unoffical mascot of the team for several years. And he passes WP:GNG as he has received significant coverage in multiple reliable sources that are independent of the subject over a period of several years. Alvaldi (talk) 09:49, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Of course I know it's an essay and not a guideline. But you still haven't argued WP:BLP1E isn't met. Reliable sources cover him only in the context of a single event, he is likely to remain low-profile, and the event itself - being a hot dog vendor - isn't substantial. WP:BIO1E states Editors are advised to be aware of issues of weight and to avoid the creation of unnecessary pseudo-biographies, especially of living people. I think this easily qualifies - I understand I'm not going to convince you otherwise, but just because WP:GNG is met doesn't end the analysis: we still have to consider WP:NOT. SportingFlyer T·C 12:13, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    If all that was written about him was that he sold a hot dog to some celebrity, that he fell down the stairs at a game or that he sold a record amount of hot dogs during a game, then yes, I would fully agree that he failed WP:BLP1E. But that is not the case as this popular figure has gained significant notice as an unofficial mascot due to his entertaining acts during his work as a hot dog vendor of a major professional sports team over multiple years that spans multiple events. An over decade long career, regardless of it being a hot dog vendor, laywer, professional athlete, doctor or an artist, cannot be considered a single event for quite obvious reasons and there are enough sources that cover his whole career outside of any single event he participated in, for instance [13][14][15] Regarding WP:NOT, I'm not seeing anything particular there that the article goes against. Alvaldi (talk) 15:03, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the WP:BLP1E claims are invalid and nonsenical because this person served as an unofficial mascot for SEVERAL SEASONS. That's hundreds of "events." Several pieces of coverage of this person, spanning a period of over four years, are already present on the page. While they may not be the best coverage based on WP:GNG guidelines, there is certainly enough for the article to be kept. Per WP:NBIO, If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability. Carson Wentz (talk) 16:21, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (N.b., I was the original author of this article) There is no rule that says that people who sell hot dogs are (or aren't) notable. But WP:GNG and in particular WP:BIO spell out the requirements for notability. In this case, there are multiple articles from independent and reliable sources which cover the subject. In particular, he is the central focus of a number of these articles; a person who receives multiple biographical profiles in the major media outlets of a metropolitan area clearly passes WP:GNG. As for WP:BLP1E, as Alvadi remarks, "being a hot dog vendor" is not a single event; "people notable for one event" and "people notable for one thing" (e.g., one job they had) are two very different ideas — if having a job were an event, then many people would be notable for one "event." BLP1E would be applicable if he only were known for a single incident (e.g., selling a particular hot dog). D. Benjamin Miller (talk) 18:33, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- Coverage has lasted more than four years, so it's more than One-Event coverage. Very few hot dog vendors will be notable; this one is. (no WP:PROF pass though). -- Michael Scott Asato Cuthbert (talk) 06:35, 11 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! 06:34, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Agnesium[edit]

Agnesium (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Per WP:NEO. This article was proposed for deletion here [16] and was removed by the page's creator, User:Perry Schugart. There is apparently a Perry Schugart associated with a company called Agnesium Marketing, but I can't find any more references to this word than that company and the book cited in the article. I don't have access to the book. Closhund/talk/ 06:38, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nomination and my own ref check. Impressive results: 100s of instances of magnesium misspelled.
--A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 18:24, 7 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 Wiktionary. I'll try my first transwiki-redirect Liz Read! Talk! 06:31, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Randan[edit]

Randan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Two sentence substub based on old (1911) Britannica entry (effectively unchanged since creation in 2005), with the second sentence being some weird discussion of effectively unknown etymology - major issues with WP:DICTDEF and WP:GNG, likely a rare synonym for something we already have covered or old and obsolete technical term for niche vehicle of dubious notability (redirect targets welcome). Linked from only two articles, both using the same text (Moritz Immisch/electric boat: After 12 months of experimental work starting in 1888 with a randan skiff, the firm commissioned the construction of hulls which they equipped with electrical apparatus.). Can this be rescued? My BEFORE found nothing. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 06:14, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment picture https://pl.pinterest.com/pin/boats--327214729170093088/ Xx236 (talk) 06:38, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Moritz Immisch electrified a 'randan skiff'. Here is 'triple skiff or randan'. [17] 'Randan skiff' was painted in Victorian times. Four men travel with a randan [18]. Xx236 (talk) 06:52, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So perhaps include into 'Skiff#Traditional boats—United Kingdom? Xx236 (talk) 06:52, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The term could be mentioned there, probably. Might be a better redirect target than wiktionary if someone adds it there with reference. WP:BEBOLD! Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:31, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I !voted to redirect to Wiktionary but I'm fine with this alternative, too.
--A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 13:16, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
--A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 03:15, 8 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! 06:25, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of foiled right-wing terrorist attacks[edit]

List of foiled right-wing terrorist attacks (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is a POV fork of List of terrorist incidents. Any content that isn't irredeemably biased belongs there along with all other terrorist incidents. This page should be deleted and set to redirect to List of terrorist incidents. AlanStalk 06:06, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete curses! Foiled again! (In all seriousness “Failed” or even “thwarted” would be far less WP:POV but it’s a WP:FORK of a dead article) Dronebogus (talk) 09:01, 10 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! 06:25, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Subhash Charan[edit]

Subhash Charan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Clearly fails WP:GNG. He is the owner of a non-notable educational institution. Additionally, the books he wrote aren't notable. The article mostly promotes his institution and courses, and all of the sources given are sponsored posts. 𝙳𝚛𝚎𝚊𝚖𝚁𝚒𝚖𝚖𝚎𝚛 𝚍𝚒𝚜𝚌𝚞𝚜𝚜 06:05, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: There are multiple news sources in the article covering the subject, the coaching and the startup. "and all of the sources given are sponsored posts" is incorrect. Krayon95 (talk) 14:38, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Almost all sources have disclaimers, and all this content is distributed by ANI/PNN to all other news websites. ANI/PNN is a leading PR and news distribution company in India. Tomorrow, I will post a detailed review of all sources. 𝙳𝚛𝚎𝚊𝚖𝚁𝚒𝚖𝚖𝚎𝚛 𝚍𝚒𝚜𝚌𝚞𝚜𝚜 17:59, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If possible, please draftify, so can improve later. Krayon95 (talk) 06:02, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I believe that this subject does not adhere to Wikipedia's notability guidelines, so there is no valid reason to consider it for draftification. 𝙳𝚛𝚎𝚊𝚖𝚁𝚒𝚖𝚖𝚎𝚛 𝚍𝚒𝚜𝚌𝚞𝚜𝚜 11:52, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Non notable, and as per nom. User4edits (talk) 17:46, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Non of the sources given show notability. I've given a detailed analysis of the sources below -- Sohom (talk) 21:09, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Analysis of sources
- gkhub.in gkhub.in is not a reliable/idependant source
- aninews.in This is press release propagated via ANI News, not indepedent coverage.
- bhaskar.com 1 This is again a press release, not independant
- businessworld.in Same ANI press release/PR as aninews.in, not independant
- balotratimes.com I have never come across balotratimes.com, however, reading through this article first few does not inspire confidence in its impartiality, I would assume this is some sort of content written by somebody associated with (a pupil of) the subject
- bhaskar.com 2 These are a bunch of press releases talking about donations/good deeds during the COVID-19 times, I don't see a mention of the subject?
-timeofindia.com There is one fleeting mention of the platform created by the subject, I don't see how this is indepedent significant coverage.
- economictimes.indiatimes.com This doesn't seem to about the subject itself (It is behind a paywall so I cannot read all of the article)
- mid-day.com mid-day.com is unreliable, and the story is clearly labelled "partnered content", definitely not independant
- vccircle.com I don't think vccircle.com is a reliable outlet in this context. Also, this does read a lot like company PR, since it heavily leans on "the company says so" instead of relying on their own editorial voice "The company did this"
- expresscomputer.in This is also a press release, not independant coverage
- cnbctv18.com This article is mostly a list of press releases from various companies.
- bhaskar.com 3 This is not related to the subject at all
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! 05:27, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Karen Beyer[edit]

Karen Beyer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No significant coverage. Does not meet WP:GNG Sabih omar 05:35, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:06, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - all 2-bit roles, nothing substantial, literally cannot find a shred of notability[20], Fails NACTOR and GNG. –Davey2010Talk 16:33, 11 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. I see the consensus among editors here to be that this article is a POV fork and should be Deleted. However, I am open to Userfying the content of the article. But if it is then just moved into main space with further review, it can legitimately be tagged for CSD G4 speedy deletion.

I hope this AFD discussion closure doesn't impact the efforts being made at Dispute Resolution as this disagreement is not simply about this one article but the approach editors are taking towards writing about a potentially contentious subject. That discussion, which I looked over, should continue. Liz Read! Talk! 04:34, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Witchcraft (traditional)[edit]

Witchcraft (traditional) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Appears to be a SYNTH. This topic is already covered in relevant articles. Oaktree b (talk) 16:31, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I realized I didn't answer the original WP:SYNTH complaint. While I created this article from pieces of other articles, no individual claim is synthesized outside the cited material. The framework for this article as independent from other article topics comes from Hutton,[1] Bonewits,[2] and others, who not only acknowledge types of witchcraft beyond “diabolical” and “neopagan,” but generally list this specifically as one of those types. I understand that others don’t recognize that these “additional” definitions for witchcraft exist, but the idea of a non-neopagan non-diabolical witch is present in reliable sources without any synthesis. [3][4][5] -- Darker Dreams (talk) 23:24, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete as WP:A10 This user is creating POV forks for changes they can't get consensus for at Witchcraft. They just tried the same tactic at Witchcraft (diabolic) which was appropriately deleted by @Versageek: as A10: Recently created article that duplicates an existing topic, Witchcraft. - CorbieVreccan ☊ ☼ 18:56, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Additional data: The consensus also expressed at the failed page move discussion was that the traditional meaning of "Witchcraft" is an attempt to use metaphysical means to cause harm. So titling this copy paste POV fork with the Wiccan redefinition of "traditional" (See: Neopagan witchcraft#Traditional Witchcraft) is not only a blatant move against consensus but again, a duplication of an existing article that is right now under full protection, with the POV fork being edited against the spirit of the dispute resolution process, where users have been asked to leave the surrounding articles alone. As edits have continued, I added the systemic bias templates Darker Dreams did not copy over, as well as aligned the opening sentence with what is actually in the source, and edit-warrior Darker Dreams just reverted this addition.[21] Demonstrating once again what this is. - CorbieVreccan ☊ ☼ 23:31, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Complaining that I'm not supposed to be editing articles around the subject seems strange given that a) user:Asarlaí has continued to do so [22] without you feeling it necessary to comment and b) you haven't bothered to engage with the dispute resolution process in more than 48 hours. Darker Dreams (talk) 23:43, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Whether or not the current main witchcraft article remains as is or is made more broad, it is clear in reliable sources there are more definitions / usages for the term than are being fully covered in that article. While Witchcraft (diabolic) was arguably a repetition of the current witchcraft main article topic, which I now understand to be a major part of the disagreement, this article is an attempt to give space to one of the usages outside of that conflict. This method was considered fine for Neopagan witchcraft. I am unclear what POV you believe that I am pushing. If you think my POV is that there are definitions beyond "diabolic" and "pagan," then you should read the repeatedly provided quotes from sources you were using which explicitly state that. No "righting great wrongs," simply trying to cover sourced material. Darker Dreams (talk) 20:33, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:CONSPLIT Sometimes two or more distinct topics may share the same base title or similar titles [...] Sometimes the distinct topics may be closely related [...] When two or more distinct topics with the same or a similar titles are being written about on the same page, even if they are closely related, a content split may be considered. WP:DEL-CONTENT Disputes over page content are usually not dealt with by deleting the page, except in severe cases. WP:WIKIVOICE Achieving what the Wikipedia community understands as neutrality means carefully and critically analyzing a variety of reliable sources and then attempting to convey to the reader the information contained in them fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without editorial bias. Wikipedia aims to describe disputes, but not engage in them. The aim is to inform, not influence. Editors, while naturally having their own points of view, should strive in good faith to provide complete information and not to promote one particular point of view over another. As such, the neutral point of view does not mean the exclusion of certain points of view. It means including all verifiable points of view which have sufficient due weight. Darker Dreams (talk) 03:05, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I have opened a case on the dispute resolution noticeboard at Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Witchcraft which I believe is relevant to this discussion. Darker Dreams (talk) 00:06, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    And you were told not to edit the articles while the process is ongoing. When you copied and pasted the article, you did not include the systemic bias tags, and you added a ridiculous opening sentence that does not align with the source. As the text is sitting there, I returned the flag and took out your inappropriate link to Indigenous cultures, but you are now reverting.[23] - CorbieVreccan ☊ ☼ 23:34, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: per WP:A10 - we don't need half a dozen parenthetically disambiguated pages about witchcraft because a clutch of scholars often some academic opinions about the different categories of classification that can be applied to the subject. Hutton, in the source quoted above, makes clear what the main scholarly consensus is. That's exactly the sort of material that should be hosted on the base name page. That parenthetical disambiguation is used here is indicative of the fact that no term to naturally distinguish, while the obviously separate Neopagan witchcraft is already readily distinguished. Iskandar323 (talk) 07:50, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note about A10: the title is "a plausible redirect", imo. But not to Witchcraft as it now stands (since that is about malevolent witchcraft: see ongoing dispute resolution). Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 09:31, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Conversation has now been started (not by me) about the length of Witchcraft and whether it needs to be split into sub pages just on that basis. Talk:Witchcraft#Article_length. Darker Dreams (talk) 22:19, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - different topic than witchcraft, which is about "Worldwide historical and traditional views of witchcraft", while this one seems intended to be about the witchcraft itself rather than views of it. Possibly there is some other article it could be merged into, or more likely, there are articles or article sections that should be merged here. Still I don't think it's a fork, so those arguments should be dismissed. Skyerise (talk) 16:18, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:26, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep.Comment But keep the discussion going. Witchcraft is over 11000 words long and still incomplete. AFD should not be a place to prevent long articles from being split. It sounds like there needs to be further discussion in that topic area about how to cover the broad worldwide history of witchcraft in multiple articles. I'm not even remotely an expert on Eastern Slavic traditions of witchcraft, but even I can tell from reading the Witchcraft article that it's woefully underrepresented in that article and not given WP:DUE weight. I see other under-representation as well, including many cultures primarily represented by witch-hunts with little to no mention of traditional cultural understanding of witchcraft. It seems like this article is in part an attempt to remedy those types of concerns. I'm hopeful that editors with more knowledge in that domain can figure out the right solution.
As an aside, as an outsider to this topic area, I'd lean toward splitting on cultural traditions rather than "categories" of witchcraft, with plenty of wikilinks back and forth where there is overlap, influence, or similarity documented in secondary sources. —siroχo 08:25, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per WP:A10, spin off duplication from main topic. It seems to be created for the same purpose as the DRN, as a work-around to a discussion and current consensus on Witchcraft talk. Netherzone (talk) 03:41, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment (again): I thought you couldn't apply WP:A10 where the title is a plausible redirect? And CorbieVreccan recently made it a redirect during the AfD but was reverted, as the article should remain visible during AfD. Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 07:09, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: I agree with Skyerise that Witchcraft is about "Worldwide historical and traditional views of witchcraft", while this article is about "the witchcraft itself". CorbieVreccan insisted on copying the "systemic bias" and "unbalanced" templates over to this article. As Witchcraft stands, with its overarching and biased theme of witchcraft being malevolent according to scholarly consensus, that article does deserve those templates, but this new article treats the topic much differently and does not deserve those tags. This all started as ownership of the Witchcraft article, and a hostile WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality, which now extends over multiple satellite articles, disambiguation pages, redirects, and templates. This nomination is a continuation of these ongoing hostilities. Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 08:47, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm also concerned about ongoing changes to the article which should be aimed at improving the article. Is Asarlaí's recent edit (now backed-up by the AfD nominator, CorbieVreccan) with the summary "added more sources, and quotes from existing sources, which undermine the whole premise of this article" meant to indicate good faith, or an attempt to deliberately undermine the creative process? This is surely inappropriate behaviour. Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 17:03, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Esowteric, please assume good faith. I've looked at the "recent edit" changes you linked in your edit directly above this comment, and I see them as improvements to the sources; the changes also attribute certain statement to specific authors, adds page numbers, clarifies quotes and improves sourced content. Respectfully, it will help if we all stop looking at this as a hostile us-versus-them polarized situation and look through a neutral lens. Netherzone (talk) 21:37, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, you're characterizing an edit summary self-describing as "[...] undermine the whole premise of this article"[24] as "good faith?" - Darker Dreams (talk) 22:22, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry I was not more clear - I am not describing the edit summary, I am describing at the actual content of the edit itself that was linked above as "Asarlaí's recent edit." The edit itself was a good faith edit that improved the article. Netherzone (talk) 22:31, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm still not clear. My point was; doesn't the edit summary indicate the intent of those edits? We can have a discussion about what was done with the citations, and some of that is fine. But, if we do that we also need to have a discussion about some of the changes made with that edit to article content. Changes that go beyond citation improvement and do not inherently required by the changes in citation... which also seem to support the intent stated in the edit summary. I'm confused how some improvements to citation outweigh stated intent and additional aspects of the edit to make it "good faith." - Darker Dreams (talk) 23:18, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's probably better not to dwell on hypothetical intentions rather than focusing on the actual content in the edit. Netherzone (talk) 03:09, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've explained my edit on the article talkpage, here. – Asarlaí (talk) 09:54, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete bordering on Speedy per WP:POVFORK. Comment - Please see discussion below. I cannot find a single thing in this article or its approach to the topic that does not belong in primary article. If it is meant as a WP:CONSPLIT, the editor has approached it in a very WP:SYNTH manner and WP:A10 probably applies. The differentiation between the articles is not apparent from the lede (or the body, imo). If you want to split Witchcraft, the natural place is the geographical section that is roughly half the article. If Esowteric's assertion that this is about "the witchcraft itself" is valid (which I doubt), this article needs a serious dose of TNT and a title change to something like Witchcraft (practice). Cheers, Last1in (talk) 12:57, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 04:28, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Edit warring: There is an ongoing edit war between CorbieVreccan (AfD nominator and involved admin, opposing changes and issuing 3RR warnings) and Darker Dreams (article creator, attempting to improve the article). Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 19:44, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Darker Dreams has repeatedly reverted several of us, to insert material (witchcraft as "traditional knowledge"), that is not in the sources, and to remove RS sourced content. Darker Dreams is even going against what they agreed to on the talk page of Witchcraft - that it is uncontested/consensus that Indigenous people do not use the neopagan redefinition of "witchcraft".[25] Your statement that Darker Dreams' disruption is "attempting to improve the article" is heavily POV and incorrect, even by what Darker Dreams agreed to. I am sick of DD wasting all of our time with this. - CorbieVreccan ☊ ☼ 20:04, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Based on a review of the actions of various editors, including the edit war commentary here, I withdraw my Delete !vote. I believe that the entire group of witchcraft-related articles requires mediation and that no valid AfD consensus on one article is attainable or reasonable. I believe that the articles' content as well as their focus, their conceptualisation, and their structure are problematic in the extreme. The behaviour of their editors is even more unsettling. IMO, this clearly POVFORK article may actually be naught more than a symptom of WP:OWN behaviour and inflexibility on all sides. If mediation fails, I think that this article should be deleted and that Witchcraft should be TNTed to cover witchcraft in its entirety, not the article's "good versus evil" dichotomy artificially imposed upon it.

References

  1. ^ Hutton, Ronald (2017). The Witch: A History of Fear, from Ancient Times to the Present. Yale University Press. What is a witch? [...] Anglo-American senses of it now take at least four different forms, although the one discussed above seems still to be the most widespread and frequent. The others define the witch figure as any person who uses magic ... or as the practitioner of nature-based Pagan religion; or as a symbol of independent female authority and resistance to male domination. All have validity in the present, and to call anybody wrong for using any one of them would be to reveal oneself as bereft of general knowledge, as well as scholarship. ... [I]n this book the mainstream scholarly convention will be followed, and the word used only for an alleged worker of such destructive magic.
  2. ^ quoting by way of Adler Adler, Margot (2006). Drawing Down the Moon: Witches, Druids, Goddess-Worshippers, and Other Pagans in America Today. New York City: Pinguin Press. p. 40. "Is a "witch" anyone who does magic or who reads fortunes? Is a "witch" someone who worships the Christian Devil? Is a Witch (capital letters this time) a member of a specific Pagan faith called "Wicca"? Is a "witch" someone who practices Voodoo, or Macumba, or Candomblé? Are the anthropologists correct when they define a "witch" as anyone doing magic (usually evil)outside an approved social structure?" Bonewits does away with some of this confusion, as we shall see, by dividing Witches into many types[...]
  3. ^ Lawrence, Salmah Eva-Lina (2015). Witchcraft, Sorcery, Violence: Matrilineal and Decolonial Reflections. Australian National University Press. I challenge the notions that witchcraft and sorcery invariably lead to violence, that there is only one type of witchcraft and sorcery, and that what is labelled witchcraft and sorcery in English is entirely superstitious nonsense. [...] Despite early Christianisation, belief and practice of witchcraft continues to be prevalent in this primarily matrilineal province. Even outside the province, the flying witches of Milne Bay are legendary and Milne Bay itself has been described anecdotally as the witchcraft centre of [Papau New Guinea]. In contrast to other chapters from PNG in this volume which speak of witchcraft and sorcery accusations that generate brutal violence on the accused, violence against women is much less in this province where witchcraft is highly articulated, and it is said to empower and contribute to the status of Milne Bay women.
  4. ^ Kouvola, Karolina (2020). "Travellers, Easter Witches and Cunning Folk: Regulators of Fortune and Misfortune in Ostrobothnian Folklore in Finland". Journal of Ethnology and Folkloristics. 14 (1): 121–139. doi:10.2478/jef-2020-0008. Certain people, sometimes named but frequently referred to simply as trollgubbe 'witchman' or kloka gumma, 'wise woman', had special knowledge enabling them to carryout important and necessary supranormal tasks in the community. These people, also called cunning folk in the academic literature, were respected by their local communities for their skills in healing (37/299) and other matters (57/299) that required specialised knowledge (see also Midelfort 1974: 195–196). They are referred to in the archived material as trollkunniga or trolldomskunniga 'skilled in witchcraft', which does not translate well into English. Words such as trollkarl, trollkäring and trollgubbe are used in the data for different groups of people, both ingroup and outgroup. The informants do not make clear which of these pose a threat to the community, and which do not, and for this reason I would rather consider the word neutral without strong connotations.
  5. ^ Moro, P.A. (2017). Witchcraft, Sorcery, and Magic. In The International Encyclopedia of Anthropology, H. Callan (Ed.). https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118924396.wbiea1915 “the term witch has a bifurcated use similar to that of shaman, with scholarly consensus diverging from some popular adoption. Even among anthropologists, some use the terms witch and sorcerer, like shaman, widely—as broad labels that help make sense of patterns in the ethnographic literature—while others reserve them for more narrowly delineated, geographically or historically specific examples.”
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. Thanks for catching this dubious article. Liz Read! Talk! 03:07, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Tumi (ancient language)[edit]

Tumi (ancient language) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

New article created by an editor with a track record of inventing dubious Indonesian “languages” that get deleted at AfD because they don’t actually exist. Of the two sources here I don’t have access to the first but the second appears to be a blog that doesn’t mention this language at all. Perhaps someone with better knowledge or access to sources can advise? Mccapra (talk) 02:56, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language and Indonesia. Mccapra (talk) 02:56, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, cannot find any RS and, as nom indicates, one of the sources in the article doesn't even mention the subject. —siroχo 03:28, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, as noted by nom, the accessible source appears to be a blog-like website and translating the contents does not then present reference to the alleged language in question. I am unaware of the article creator and will trust the nominator's concerns around them having a record of creating similarly dubious articles (although some supporting alternate AfD links would be useful here too). Bungle (talk • contribs) 10:17, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - The first source is not just inaccessible, it appears spurious. It is given as "Sudjarwo, Prof. Dr. KPL Menjawab Sejarah (in Indonesian) (1 ed.). Lampung: Masa Kini Mandiri. p. 13. ISBN 9786025270529." The ISBN number does not exist in any of the databases I checked. A search for the title and author only comes up with a handful of pages and they are all Wikipedia or Wikipedia clones. I note that the page creator also recently created a page, Tumi (tribe) with the same source. Both pages are based on translations from Indonesian wikipedia, [26][27]. This page does not credit Indonesian Wikipedia for the copy within, so there is a (repairable) copyvio. On the basis of the sources present, this is a clear delete, but will wait to see if any better sourcing is available. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 10:50, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Whatever the issues with this article, this process seems all wrong.
--A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 17:55, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural Close - This looks like another rush to judgement without discussion on the Talk. AfD should not be the first recourse if you think an article is weak or sources are bogus (both of which might well be true in this case). If you post your objections on the Talk (and give the editors at least a little time to respond), either your AfD case will be unassailable, or we get an article that adds value to the encyclopaedia. I propose we drop this nom, put the objections on Talk, give it a week, then AfD if the article doesn't improve. (see below for corrected !vote) Cheers, Last1in (talk) 12:49, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think procedural close or withdraw is available here as there are already !votes. Also, whilst I understand the concern at the speed of the nomination, I was expecting the nom. might defend that by pointing out that this editor has some form regarding spurious pages. For instance: [28], and related to this AfD: [29]. Based on that form, there is a question as to whether this page might, in gact, have been a candidate for speedy deletion under G3. I have searched quite extensively now, and although we have editors more expert in this than me, who may hopefully comment here, I cannot find any evidence for such an ancient language. There is limited information for a modent Tumi language in Nigeria. See Tumi language (it won't take long to read!) But there are no books in English that discuss an ancient Tumi language per this article, nor journal articles nor anything else I can find. AfD takes at least a week, and if the page creator can present sources, these can be discussed and the process may take longer. But as soon as a page is in main space it qualifies for deletion, and if a page in mainspace appears to be a hoax or complete non subject, then a deletion discussion is wholly appropriate. We have draft space where articles can be developed to a publishable level, but once an editor makes a decision to publish a page, a deletion discussion is wholly within the rules. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 13:59, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Good info and fair reasoning. I withdraw my !vote and change to Delete. I still don't like the persistent trend to RUSHDELETE so many articles, but I agree that this is not a viable article based on Sirfurboy's data. Cheers, Last1in (talk) 16:22, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Yet another one of Eiskrahablo's dubious creations. And I'm not sure what "Unattested (possibly including Proto-Austronesian language)" is supposed to mean. The creator has been nothing but obtuse dealing with any concerns raised (persistent edit warring). Semmiii (talk) 17:04, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm confused; the page history says the author is Blackman Jr. (talk · contribs).
    --A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 17:37, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    ... who is the same person, with a history of terrible edits. But I'm not sure if anything should be deleted on account of them being a sock. The real issue is that they haven't improved and there's little (if any) salvageable content in these creations. It all ranges from misrepresenting sources (Eastern Indonesia Malay) to dubious hoax-like stuff ("standard Sula", this "ancient language"). To their credit, though, the first source here *could* be real as the ISBN appears to be (technically) valid. Except I have no reason to trust them at this point (and I'd just nuke all of it). Semmiii (talk) 18:11, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    If you suspect someone is a sockpuppet, you will need to take it to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations and open a case there. I strongly suggest you strike the accusation here until that is completed. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 18:17, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Semmiii: You shouldn't come to hasty conclusions. Blackman Jr. randomly translates articles from Indonesian WP with zero scrutiny and a very apparent lack of competence or judgement about what they are doing, but also with zero POV. It's just random fluff. The LTA that you refer to has a very distinct and twisted POV. I see nothing of this in the creator of the present article. –Austronesier (talk) 18:41, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Another day, another spurious language article by Blackman Jr. as a result of translation from Indonesian WP with zero scrutiny. There is no coverage of a "Tumi" language at all. In whatever kind of reliable or not so reliable sources. There are some dubious sources that talk about a semi-legendary people called "Tumi" that are claimed to have played a role in the early history of Lampung. But there is no mention whatsoever about their language in any source. People speak, right, but it is a stretch to "invent" a distinct language at any mention of a certain group of people, as was obviously done by the original creator of the Indonesian article. And the infobox is telling: it says "unattested", which is a very honest thing to say, but at the same time is a nice way to say "this is all made up".
Btw, I am absolutely baffled why it this AfD is called "rushed". If something is rubbish, then no time should be wasted to remove it from WP before it finds its way into mirrors and search engine. That's our responsibility. If there is anything to blame, it's taking it to AfD instead of simply PROD-ing it (OTOH, keeping a hoax for 7 days is quite irresponsible). –Austronesier (talk) 18:28, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Add. For the record, the Indonesian version of this article was created by the same editor. I have mixed it up with Tumi (tribe). So unlike I have claimed earlier, this is not an just indiscriminate translation of an article with a spurious topic, but their very own concoction! –Austronesier (talk) 16:47, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I have made the case above. Just adding the !vote. I note that a translation of the web page source on the page talks about the Tumi people, not the language and the page says the language is "unattested". I think the page creator has simply assumed that the language of the Tumi people must once have been a Tumi language, but that is WP:OR. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 18:31, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per all of the discussion to date. Bottom line: article is unreliable (in addition to notability, etc.)
--A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 18:45, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for the above mentioned reasons. CMD (talk) 01:55, 9 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. "Keep" voters do not provide a sufficient rationale, particularly when it comes to providing reliable secondary sources. Given the history of the article, SALTing seems appropriate to me. Drmies (talk) 12:35, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kalki Avatar and Muhammad[edit]

Kalki Avatar and Muhammad (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Repeated recreation despite many discussions closing with delete.

The subject still fails WP:NBOOK. Aman Kumar Goel (Talk) 02:32, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature, Islam, and India. Shellwood (talk) 07:00, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This book is significant in the debate of Indian religions that, The book has been considered by reliable sources to have made a significant contribution to ... political or religious movement, fulfills the condition. Prominent Indian evangelist Zakir Naik has been criticized for saying things that match the book's content. Furthermore Ziaur Rahman Azmi also responded to the content of this book and referred to the book. The book has been widely accepted and criticized among Muslim, Hindu and atheist debaters in Indian subcontinent.‍~ 𝕂𝕒𝕡𝕦𝕕𝕒𝕟 ℙ𝕒ş𝕒 (inbox - contribs) 13:03, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Where are the sources? There are none. Aman Kumar Goel (Talk) 18:35, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 02:36, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Aman.kumar.goel: I am not happy to see that you proposed for deletion without reading the article. Sources are added to the article itself. You can watch this video for Zakir Naik's topic. Although many have criticized him, but you can see this blog of Asif Mohiuddin, if you know Bengali language. ‍~ 𝕂𝕒𝕡𝕦𝕕𝕒𝕟 ℙ𝕒ş𝕒 (inbox - contribs) 05:12, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I heard about this book in real life during some Vedas Vs Quran debate. That said, this book's local popularity won't decide the notability. GNG requires significant coverage in reliable sources and this book lacks it. CharlesWain (talk) 10:35, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @CharlesWain Why and how? All those who have researched Islam versus Hinduism in the past and present centuries have referred to the book or its contents. Do you think the whole thing fails GNG? ‍~ 𝕂𝕒𝕡𝕦𝕕𝕒𝕟 ℙ𝕒ş𝕒 (inbox - contribs) 05:25, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously the subject fails WP:GNG because it is lacking significant coverage in reliable sources. There are a number of subjects (such as YouTube channels) that have gained popularity in local spheres but they haven't recieved significant coverage from reliable sources that are independent of the subject. CharlesWain (talk) 08:36, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@CharlesWain I don't understand which GNG you read. If a book creates a new argument that is fundamentally used in a religious debate on that topic for the next 50+ years; How is that book not notable?
And the references here include Milli Gadget articles, books by Ziaur Rahman Azmi, Afrasiab Mehdi Hashmi and two other professors. I don't understand, are you considering these as YouTube channels or have you not seen the references at all? ‍~ 𝕂𝕒𝕡𝕦𝕕𝕒𝕟 ℙ𝕒ş𝕒 (inbox - contribs) 15:50, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Your sources are only making a passing mention or they are discussing a broader subject. Read WP:GNG properly. Aman Kumar Goel (Talk) 02:05, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Aman.kumar.goel Ziaur Rahman Azmi wrote the book about the similarities and differences between the religions of India (Hind). There he criticized the book for 5 pages. is this just a passing mantion? Another thing I found about this book today is that, this book was translated in bengali by the former Paschimbanga Bangla Akademi president Asitkumar Bandyopadhyay.[4]
Another complementary point to the book's notabilty is its misinterpreted (alleged by many Hindu pandit and I read a book by ISKCON Bangladesh about this) in Hindu scriptures. Doesn't that prove the notability? (Off topic: Dada, please mention me while answering. I'm actually not very active on English Wikipedia.) ‍~ 𝕂𝕒𝕡𝕦𝕕𝕒𝕟 ℙ𝕒ş𝕒 (inbox - contribs) 17:11, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "Muhammad in Hindu scriptures". Milli Gazette. Archived from the original on 2019-01-07. Retrieved 2014-11-06.
  2. ^ الرحمن, أعظمى، محمد ضياء (2008). دراسات في اليهودية والمسيحية وأديان الهند والبشارات في كتب الهندوس (in Arabic). مكتبة الرشد،. pp. 703–708.
  3. ^ Malik, Dr Ahmad; Mehdi Hashmi Qureshi, Afrasiab (1 January 2022). END TIMES (What could happen in the world tomorrow). (Center for Global and Strategic Studies, Islamabad). pp. 13, 274, 275. ISBN 9789699837142. Retrieved 1 September 2022.
  4. ^ Basu, Anjali (Jan 2019). Samsad Bangali Charitabidhan (in Bengali) (Second ed.). Kolkata: Sahitya Samsad. pp. 48–50. ISBN 978-81-7955-292-6.
Still fails WP:SIGCOV. Dympies (talk) 14:26, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non-notable per nom. There is no coverage from reliable sources. Also consider nominating Ved Prakash Upaddhay (the author of this book) which was created just 1 week ago by an IP sock. Editorkamran (talk) 02:55, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Editorkamran Whether the book's author's article is produced by IP for a week is none of our business. Let us discuss this article. How do you say the article doesn't have RS? Do you know what RS is? ~ Deloar Akram (Talk • Contribute) 02:07, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]


Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: A source analysis table would be very helpful at this point in the discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:55, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - fails to prove WP:BK ; delete per according to the nomination. Kind regards –––ÀvîRâm7(talk) 12:03, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question - I would like to ask a question out of respect for those who are asking for deletion: When a book appears as the main subject of two notable religious debates, notable religious figures review and criticize or in some cases praise the book in their respective books or in the media; So why is the book not notable? Because the reviewer's book is in Arabic, Sanskrit or some such language? or anything else? Although I don't normally participate in AFD. But a few days ago, besides participating in the AFD of Ulipur.com, I also participated in this AFD. So maybe, I'm not understanding the point correctly. ‍~ 𝕂𝕒𝕡𝕦𝕕𝕒𝕟 ℙ𝕒ş𝕒 (inbox - contribs) 06:02, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Aman.kumar.goel, please don't forget the steps listed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion#After nominating: Notify interested projects and editors. Thanks,

--A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 03:42, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@A. B.: There is no such requirement. Aman Kumar Goel (Talk) 00:37, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You're right -- it is not technically a requirement but it is recommended and requested by the AfD procedure. It's unusual that a nominator doesn't do this. It's highly unusual when they refuse to do it. This leaves others wondering what's up with the nominator.
--A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 00:53, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Then it is your own issue that you are not assuming good faith. Aman Kumar Goel (Talk) 02:02, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete A book appearing in debate isn't enough. I note that not a single source has been provided which would satisfy WP:GNG. Shankargb (talk) 04:24, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, because this article passes WP:GNG and also passes WP:NBOOK too. ≈ Farhan  «Talk» 17:15, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Sources have been offered but their reliability remains completely unestablished; the conclusion of the previous deletion debates still holds. Given the current text of the article, WP:TNT would apply even if notability were established, which it isn't. XOR'easter (talk) 21:20, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, there is a lot of established reliable source here including Afrasiab Mehdi Hashmi, former Pakistani High comissioner, Zakir Naik, Ali Gomaa, Ali Unal, Ziaur Rahman Azmi, Asitkumar Bandhopaddhay Abubakar Muhammad Zakaria etc. and most of the sources discuss the matter in detail, including the published journal articles given in the article from Middle East, Pakistan, Iran and Indonesia from their renowned national leading universities, also there are references from lots of established news articles and international books, so it clearly passes WP:RS, WP:NB and GNG. But in all the article, there should be also added hindu point of views more to make the article more balanced, because the book and the topic is also very familiar in Hindu communities when it comes to the hindu muslim dialogue, and most of the Hindus gives different explanations of these discussions, their referencial point of views should be also added. — Masum Ibn Musa  Conversation 10:02, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:SPAM, blatantly promotional. — Preceding unsigned comment added by UrielAcosta (talk • contribs)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Still hoping for a source analysis.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 02:47, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Liz: Sources were already analyzed. None of them fulfills the requirement of WP:GNG. Aman Kumar Goel (Talk) 05:21, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
where have you given or discussed the detailed analysis of the sources pointing them specifically? Show. The article meets WP:SIGCOV of WP:GNG, and besides when SNG is met, GNG is not needed, and according to WP:SNG of WP:NB, and to the first 66 of the given 67 sources in reference, the article meets the criteria 1, as this book "has been the subject of two or more non-trivial published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself. This can include published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, other books, television documentaries, bestseller lists, and reviews. This excludes media re-prints of press releases, flap copy, or other publications where the author, its publisher, agent, or other self-interested parties advertise or speak about the book.", criteria 3, as this book "has been considered by reliable sources to have made a significant contribution to a notable or significant motion picture, or other art form, or event or political or religious movement.", criteria 4, as the book "is, or has been, the subject of instruction at two or more schools, colleges, universities or post-graduate programs in any particular country.". 43.245.120.228 (talk) 10:25, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • But @Liz there are 68 citations / footnotes for this article! Please don't ask for a source analysis again.
I'm here grudgingly because this article is listed in Category:AfD debates relisted 3 or more times
I machine translated and analyzed a few of the refs and did some searches of my own. In the interest of not making others eyes bleed with a wall of text, I will not post them here. See Wikipedia Talk:Articles for deletion/Kalki Avatar and Muhammad.
Assessment: this book is notable but it's been superseded by a later book Ved Prakash Upadhyay wrote. Upadhyay's books, as I understand them, attempt to find some common theological overlap between Hinduism and Islam. This work is polarizing partly because adherents of both faiths seem to see this as a long stretch. It's also polarizing because South Asia is violently polarized anyway; Upadhyay wants to calm this. Someone in a previous AfD called these views "fringe" and I can see why; I'm not saying they are but I can see how most South Asians might see them this way. That doesn't mean they're wrong; it's a matter of faith. Nevertheless, I think they are notable if you sift through enough stuff; see the talk page.
Merge with Ved Prakash Upadhyay. Notwithstanding the technical notability of this book, I recommend merging its article to the author's article. This is because the refs I read tended to lump this in with the later book and Upadhyay in general. Do we want an article on this book and the later book and the author repeating the same arguments? It just seems to make the most sense to put all this together in one good, comprehensive article. It's less susceptible to POV forking, too.
That's 2 hours Wikipedia owes me.
--A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 03:03, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ved Prakash Upadhyay. The same citations here apply there also. Upadhyay's article has more refs and honors cited than this book.
--A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 03:11, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not a single source satisfies WP:GNG. You believe this self-published source (as stated by the website itself) "counts towards notability". In any case, your own poor analysis fail to suggest any notability. Editorkamran (talk) 06:15, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Editorkamran You answared about only a single source. What about Ziaur Rahman Azmi's book? why is this not notable? And what about the work of Asitkumar Bandyopadhyay, Is his work was not notable? He was the president of Paschimbanga Bangla Akademi, who translated it and added an appendix chapter. ‍~ 𝕂𝕒𝕡𝕦𝕕𝕒𝕟 ℙ𝕒ş𝕒 (inbox - contribs) 06:45, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails GNG. I will make this easy — those who wish to keep this article, please provide the best seven(Ceiling[68/10])sources and I will offer an explanation about why they don't contribute to GNG. TrangaBellam (talk) 14:53, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

:*ref no 1, 2, 3, 4, 12, 13, 14, 15, 28, 30, 32, 42, 44, 45, 48, (mostly 1, 2, 3, 4, 12, 13, 14) use Google Translate and Google Lens. I am not having time otherwise i have the ability to show the notibility.202.134.10.138 (talk) 16:34, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • I asked for seven; so, my analysis will be restricted to Sources 1, 2, 3, 4, 12, 13, 14 as present this version which stood at the time of your comment:
    Source 1: "Human Resource Management Academic Research Society" is a journal that is not indexed in any bibliogaphic database of repute (Scopus/WoS/..) and more importantly, was in Beall's list before it was shut down. When anybody tries to cite the journal, we issue an alert about the poor quality of the source but that has not discouraged you or whoever added it.
    Source 2: A publication by Center for Global and Strategic Studies, Islamabad. There is not the slightest of indication that this is a think-tank of any repute.
    Source 3: The Jordanian Journal of Islamic Studies is a journal that is not indexed in any bibliogaphic database of repute (Scopus/WoS/..) and is published by a fringe Islamic universty.
    Source 4: PalArch's Journal of Archaeology of Egypt / Egyptology was hijacked. C. 2018, it was transferred to Open Access Text Ltd., a known predatory publisher — again on Beall's list and our black-list — and subsequently removed from Scopus at the end of 2019. Need I say more?
    Source 12: You claim that undergraduate theses are reliable? Or do you think that I am stupid enough to be misled because I cannot read Indonesian?
    Source 13: Why would Al-Idrak, published by an eponymous research center in lahore, be considered as a rleiable source? This is not indexed in any bibliogaphic database of repute (Scopus/WoS/..) and has never been cited by any scholar in the Academe.
    Source 14: Why would انتظار موعود be a RS? This is not indexed in any bibliogaphic database of repute (Scopus/WoS/..), etc. TrangaBellam (talk) 19:27, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Aman.kumar.goel, please do not strike comments from editors you disagree on the basis of your own unproven "sock" allegation. Get a checker confirmation first.
This AfD is getting out of hand on both sides of the issue. @Liz
--A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 11:45, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@A. B.: The IP who is obsessionally badgering here is evading his block on this proxy IP. Stop assuming bad faith. You have been already warned by me right above on 02:02, 5 August 2023. Aman Kumar Goel (Talk) 12:13, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This IP is now blocked again. Aman Kumar Goel (Talk) 12:29, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ IJ-ARBASS 2017, Vol. 7, Special Issue – Islam and Contemporary Issues) ISSN 2222-6990
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! 02:54, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of anti-sexual assault organizations in the United States[edit]

AfDs for this article:
List of anti-sexual assault organizations in the United States (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:NOTDIRECTORY, full of external links, and likely to be out of date. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 02:06, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:NOTYELLOWPAGES Dronebogus (talk) 09:03, 10 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.

Cape Breton International Drum Festival[edit]

The result was ‎WITHDRAWN. (non-admin closure) JFHJr (㊟) 03:53, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

AfDs for this article:
Cape Breton International Drum Festival (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article has never had any cites at all, let alone to a reliable source. Because the vast majority of it was a list of notable and non-notable living persons, I removed it. Looking for sources, I got mostly 1) PR, 2) passing mention, no in-depth coverage of the festival itself, or 3) announcements for upcoming/planned events, which cannot support prose to say it happened or was significant. See WP:V and WP:OR. JFHJr (㊟) 02:56, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. See also the previous AFD. The Cape Breton Post appears to have a huge amount of bylined SIGCOV as a search in ProQuest demonstrates but I'm not sure where to access the archives. There is a variety of other reasonable SIGCOV [30][31][32]. —siroχo 04:05, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Without fixing/adding content and sourcing, insisting it's out there isn't very persuasive. Also, excessive(ly) local coverage does little compared to wider coverage. JFHJr (㊟) 06:39, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Per WP:NEXIST, Notability is based on the existence of suitable sources, not on the state of sourcing in an article, and as they say, AfD isn't cleanup. —siroχo 17:52, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I cleaned up the article before nominating. The multiple reliable sources giving in-depth coverage don't exist. If they do, put them in the article. JFHJr (㊟) 01:26, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The previous AfD mentions includes several references, but the websites hosting at least one of those references have disappeared. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 04:09, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    So far, I removed one cite to a blog. And second that failed WP:V and contained no prose at all. The remaining WP:RS seem to be actually about a Mr. Brennan Murray. And are actually the exact same story twice on one site. JFHJr (㊟) 06:31, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Events, and Canada. — Karnataka talk 07:05, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: We are still looking at an article with one reliable source giving double coverage primarily to Mr. Brennan Murray. If other sources are out there, it's time to put up. JFHJr (㊟) 01:12, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I appreciate your desire to improve things. I encourage you to read through WP:NEXIST. The sources do not need to be added to the article as part of this discussion. If you would like to add the sources found in this and the previous discussion, please be WP:BOLD and do so. If you are worried about credit, I sometimes reference the discussion in the edit summary. Up to you! —siroχo 01:36, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    "Notability is based on the existence of suitable sources, not on the state of sourcing in an article" ...and those sources don't exist ...none gives in-depth coverage for encyclopedic content (WP:GNG). JFHJr (㊟) 01:54, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, your PQ links above lead to future tense prose. Announcements about upcoming things. That can't support prose that said it happened or was noteworthy. JFHJr (㊟) 02:03, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Asserting in-depth coverage of events when you can't even access the sources you claim have it (as you stated you couldn't) is dishonest. JFHJr (㊟) 02:23, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @JFHJr your comment to Siroxo immediately above is unfair to say the least. Some might call it worse. I have been in dozens, maybe hundred of AfDs with Siroxo and they always edit in good faith.
    --A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 04:15, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    That's me pointing out someone who is claiming substantial coverage without actually having access to the sources, and then !voting here. The "sources" don't have them. Cheers. JFHJr (㊟) 04:18, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    What I said is not at all unfair. You can refactor your edits all you want after replies. You leveled a PA yourself there, and didn't comment on the contents or sourcing of the article at discussion. Your past experiences doesn't mean anything for this article subject's notability. Cheers! JFHJr (㊟) 04:32, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, no, it wasn't a personal attack -- more of warning. I subsequently tempered my comment to be more polite but the original comment was a fair assessment and hardly a personal attack. Since you latched on to this, I'll spell out what I originally wrote and let others decide for themselves:
    • "JFHJr your comment to Siroxo immediately above is borderline uncivil and/or a personal attack for which you could get sanctioned. I have been in dozens, maybe hundred of AfDs with Siroxo and they always edit in good faith.""
    --A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 04:44, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Nice! JFHJr (㊟) 04:50, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    !Voting based on not having done the reading, no access, claiming reliable substantial coverage that there is not. It's uncivil and personal to call that out. Especially when it's an experienced editor who should know better. Nice indeed. JFHJr (㊟) 05:17, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I think this is probably notable and I'm sympathetic to you refs search but I'm busy with an article of my own that's teetering on the brink at AfD with a hungry mob.
I did squeeze in a little time for searching and found this:
Don't know if it'll help but give it a try. This article about Bruce Aitken also talks about the festival. You might look for other articles by searching on Aiken's name.
--A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 02:40, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Aitken is a WP:BLPSPS because he's basically talking about himself. If prose based on him talking about his own festival belongs anywhere, it's his own article. He doesn't add anything to the festival's stand-alone notability. JFHJr (㊟) 02:50, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as there are three editors arguing for a Keep and one determined editor insisting on Deletion. I think we need a few more participants and let's focus on the sources, not evaluating other editors.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 01:48, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's awesome. That's two sources giving substantial coverage (in the past tense). I'm withdrawing this nomination. JFHJr (㊟) 03:53, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A lot of big names came to this festival.
--A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 16:11, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Tons of names + no reliable sourcing = tons of BLP violations. There's nothing about famous people attending that makes this festival notable. See WP:GNG, WP:RS and WP:BLPSPS. JFHJr (㊟) 22:25, 7 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 could have also been a Redirect but those advocating Keep attest to the validity of the sources so I'll close this as Keep. There is no support for Deletion aside from the nominator. Liz Read! Talk! 01:21, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Aryan Khan (actor)[edit]

Aryan Khan (actor) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

less notablity, fails in WP:NACTOR Worldiswide (talk) 02:50, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 02:54, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong Kept - per Siroxo. –––ÀvîRâm7(talk) 11:55, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Shah Rukh Khan: No significant roles yet (I'm discounting the dubbing parts he's done), redirect for now. Ravensfire (talk) 21:59, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep; frankly, I don't understand why we wouldn't keep it. The subject does seem to meet WP:NACTOR.1, but even setting that aside, there's more than enough sources to satisfy WP:GNG in the article. It does need a rewrite, though. Actualcpscm (talk) 13:53, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Divided between those advocating Keep and those arguing for a Redirect.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 01:42, 7 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 01:49, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Tippe Emmott[edit]

Tippe Emmott (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not meet the GNG as a former beauty pageant contestant, nor any other guideline to warrant keeping an encyclopedia article on this subject. Let'srun (talk) 00:42, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previous WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 01:01, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, McLongdong Johnson,
How did you end up at this AFD on your very first edit to the project? This is very unusual for a brand new editor. Liz Read! Talk! 06:31, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I used the portal where you go to see how editing to even do more get involved. McLongdong Johnson (talk) 00:56, 8 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 Zilog Z80#Derivatives. Liz Read! Talk! 01:18, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Zilog Z380[edit]

Zilog Z380 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article, sources cited (mostly manuals?), and my BEFORE do not suggest this piece of tech (processor) meets GNG. My best find is a single sentence here from PediaPress, which may not be reliable as it republishes Wikipedia texts... Can anyone find better sources to rescue it or suggest a redirect/merge target? Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 00:44, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 00:44, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Zilog_Z80#Derivatives where it is mentioned briefly. Basic facts about the chip (produced by Zilog, a 32-bit successor to the Z80, etc.) are verfiable from secondary-source directories like [36]. I haven't been able to find much about the history or impact beyond what is in the directories, so haven't established notability. Hence a redirect and perhaps merge of basic facts seems appropriate. The Z380 is always mentioned in context as a successor to the Z80, so redirecting to the Derviatives section of the Z80 article seems the best target. --{{u|Mark viking}} {Talk} 18:01, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect Per Mark viking. Seems like a reasonable choice - unless sources supporting notability for a stand-alone article are found. Pavlor (talk) 05:06, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What exactly is your problem and why do you want to delete this article? Gábor Mayer (talk) 10:57, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It is not meeting WP:GNG. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:28, 10 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2023_August_7&oldid=1170446964"