Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 December 20

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< December 19 December 21 >

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 soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 23:17, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Badri Asadi[edit]

Badri Asadi (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)

Fails notability, this is a very detailed article and you probably will never doubt about its credibility but in fact someone just did a good job to create a long article about her. she is listed as "World Championship medalist" but all of her medals are in poomsae (and not usual taekwondo) and they are all in over 36-40 years old category (never been mentioned in the article) which is far from being a notable achievement. Sports2021 (talk) 23:46, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Iran. Sports2021 (talk) 23:46, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:42, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:42, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Her world medals were all in senior events in poomsae (aka forms or patterns). She won an individual medal in women's age 41-50 and two team medals in the women's 36+ division. None of these would be considered to be at the sport's highest level. The article also gives several mentions of her being tested to be a referee at the Tokyo Olympics. It's true she was among 79 invited to a training and selection camp but that was only for the Asia and Oceania region. She didn't appear to make the final training session for the 50 referees from around the world from which the 30 Olympic referees were chosen. The final point is that there's nothing that shows significant independent coverage of her. There are results and passing mentions in lists of referees, but nothing significant. In fact, she's not even mentioned in some of the references. Papaursa (talk) 23:14, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus‎. Star Mississippi 22:40, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Peninsula Youth Orchestra, Newport News,VA[edit]

Peninsula Youth Orchestra, Newport News,VA (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 seem to meet notability requirements (all four links in the article are dead). In addition, no major edits to the article have been made since 2018 Saltyeg (talk) 05:37, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:23, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 22:58, 20 December 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 Akino (singer). Sourcing is insufficient for a standalone page Star Mississippi 22:39, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lost in Time (Akino album)[edit]

Lost in Time (Akino album) (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)

Insignificant presence for this record that I can determine. Appears to fail GNG. Andre🚐 22:57, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs and Music. Andre🚐 22:57, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom Mach61 (talk) 00:15, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Akino (singer) as is the usual solution for a non-notable album by a notable artist. As for this album specifically, it made the official Oricon chart in Japan and that's nothing to sneeze at, but a shortage of informative articles from reliable music media (at least in English) gives us little material with which to build an encyclopedic article. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 16:46, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:47, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This album hit on the Oricon chart. There's some coverage about it on the Japanese Wikipedia articles [1] [2] [3]. While my brief search did not bring up additional articles (searching for articles in Japanese from the early 2000s can be difficult), I believe that making being an album from a notable artist that made the charts in what was then the world's second largest economy (+ coverage we have) means that this is notable and simply more time needs to be invested in finding additional sources in order to build out the article. I don't think anyone would suggest that an album from a major U.S. artist that makes the U.S. charts isn't notable. DCsansei (talk) 00:16, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    People redirect charting albums all the time, and indeed WP:NALBUM notes that a standalone article is only appropriate when there is enough material to warrant a reasonably detailed article. Mach61 (talk) 01:11, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to artist article - Impressive charting but reviews from secondary sources to build an article exceeding stub size do not seem to exist.--NØ 17:08, 22 December 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 Bahuchara Mata or a section therein Star Mississippi 21:39, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bapaiya[edit]

Bapaiya (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 contested draftification. The subject does not appear to be notable, as none of the sources provide significant coverage of the subject, only passing references. A check before the nomination turned up no other useful sources I could find to establish notability. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 22:54, 20 December 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 Kingdom of Armenia (antiquity). This discussion is a horrible mess. If there is evidence supporting the existence of this title as a standalone article, it has not been presented here. If there is a strong reason why this title needs to be a DAB separate from Greater Armenia, it has not been cogently presented either. As such I'm seeing consensus that the title should be redirect, and "Kingdom of Armenia" has the most support for a target, but alternate targets were not discussed much; so this discussion does not preclude retargetting if a future discussion finds consensus for it. I would remind all participants that this is a designated contentious topic; more decorum is expected, or sanctions may follow. Vanamonde93 (talk) 07:24, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Greater Armenia (state)[edit]

Greater Armenia (state) (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 had been a dab (see here) before MarshallBagramyan rewrited it to an article (see here). It's not a broad-concept article, and may not stand for a separate topic from Kingdom of Armenia (antiquity). Although most of its material lacks reliable sources, A455bcd9 replaced it with a section similar to Kingdom of Armenia (antiquity)#Provinces (see here) and eventually turned it to a dab (see here) again one month after they proposed the merge. Given that the consensus in the merge discussion is not clear, I restored the dab at the base name and moved the article here to obtain further consensus if it should be deleted or blanked and redirected. NmWTfs85lXusaybq (talk) 10:54, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Neither: merge the content, and then restore the disambiguation page. This isn't a deletion argument, because the title has some encyclopedic value and the content that was here should be/should have been merged into "Kingdom of Armenia (antiquity)". It shouldn't be a redirect, because there's a secondary (or perhaps even primary) meaning in a nationalist concept of Armenia extending beyond its present borders. The existence of two or more plausible meanings for the phrase is what justifies a disambiguation page; and we do not need to delete the article and create a new page for that purpose in order to hide what was previously written and merged into "Kingdom of Armenia (antiquity)". The original source of merged content is usually kept, with the content available for review under article history, unless for some reason it violated copyright or was patent nonsense.
Here the reasons for merging are that it's overlapping and underdeveloped. The lack of sources isn't even an issue in this regard. As far as I could see, the only arguments opposing the merger seemed to be vague assertions that the topic was somehow distinct in a way that could not be clearly described; and it seemed to me that they were coming from the perspective of modern Armenian nationalism, rather than anything to do with the article as it stood. P Aculeius (talk) 17:12, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Greater Armenia has already been a disambiguation page, while we might want to merge the history there. The only issue is that the merge proposer A455bcd9 tried to remove almost all content in this article without merging for the lack of sources. NmWTfs85lXusaybq (talk) 00:17, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Stop repeating the nonsense that I debunked many times: I improved the content of the article and you reverted to add back unsourced content and removed sourced one. You keep refusing to engage in discussion on the content (not the process). You went against the consensus to start this new procedure, even after you recognized your disruption yourself and reopened the merge discussion. You're wasting other people's time. a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 08:33, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Discussing with someone who is bludgeoning like you is actually wasting everyone's time. And I can't find any consensus formed before you unilaterally overwrited this article without merging anything into Kingdom of Armenia (antiquity). Hold yourself together and wait for AfD outcome. NmWTfs85lXusaybq (talk) 10:40, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well, since it doesn't look like you're going to be able to agree on who's bludgeoning whom—why not just see what material in this article needs to be merged into the other—with sources if possible, with tags requesting sources if not, but at least plausible—and then redirect this title to the best target.
It may be that nothing in here needs to be added to the other article, if it's already covered, or unclear/improbable and unsourced. That's okay—sometimes a merge just amounts to blanking with the edit summary "content merged into X" after you've made sure that there's nothing left over that isn't in the appropriate article. The difference between merging and deletion is that with a merger, the original page contents are preserved in case this gets turned into an article again in the future, or in case someone wants to check whether something in another article came from here. It also preserves the work that went into this article, so that the various editors who contributed to it receive credit. It doesn't matter if you don't take anything from here somewhere else; it's still useful to be able to review what was here, and who contributed to it. P Aculeius (talk) 16:55, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@NmWTfs85lXusaybq: I can't find any consensus, then what is 4 people in favor (providing arguments) vs 2 against (without providing any argument)?
@P Aculeius: I added tags requesting sources in October. I removed the unsourced content one month later after I failed to find sources and I aligned the content with the sources already cited. NmWTfs85lXusaybq, without reading anything, reverted that 🤷. I've just added back tags. But what should we do next? (I offered to request a third opinion but NmWTfs85lXusaybq refused...) a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 09:38, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What do you want then? This is already the discussion for its deletion, given that you are asking for removing most of the material which is unsourced or failed verification. Your section that overwrited this article should have been directly added to Kingdom of Armenia (antiquity)#Provinces instead. NmWTfs85lXusaybq (talk) 14:02, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I want the same thing as @P Aculeius: "Neither: merge the content, and then restore the disambiguation page". Basically, revert everything you've done. a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 14:11, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Determining consensus isn't about counting votes. You have to consider what the arguments being made by each side are, and whether they hold water. That's not to say you agree with them—they can be valid arguments even if you think that other arguments should prevail. However, from what I saw, no coherent argument was made by the people opposing the merger, and neither one was willing to explain that opposition in greater detail, which made it appear that they were opposing it out of nationalist sentiment—the sheer emotional assertion that "Greater Armenia is grand and noble country!"
In order for retaining this article to make sense, it needs to represent a real and definable topic that is clearly distinguishable from the ancient kingdom of Armenia as a topic, and include significant (i.e. not trivial), verifiable contents that are not already found in the main article about that kingdom and cannot conveniently be added and addressed there. That doesn't mean that the contents of this article would need to be added there verbatim and without alteration to the sources. Redundant or trivial information, material that is incorrect or that cannot be verified with diligent effort to locate a good source for it may be omitted. If better sources exist for something than the ones cited in this short article, then they can be replaced too—the same as if they had been copied over first, and then someone found better sources and replaced them.
If everything significant and verifiable in this very short article is adequately covered in the other one, then there is nothing remaining to merge. Any edits that added material—even a minimal amount, such as a redundant source citation—to the other article can indicate a partial merger from this article in the edit summary. This article can then be turned into a redirect to the disambiguation page, with a similar edit summary: "contents merged to Kingdom of Armenia (antiquity)" or something similar.
If you're opposed to this process, please indicate clearly what contents in this article cannot properly be merged into "Kingdom of Armenia (antiquity)", and why they justify a stand-alone article. There is already an article about the concept of "Greater Armenia" as the current state plus extraterritorial claims that nationalists would like to add to it. Anything along those lines can be merged there, as well—you can merge content into more than one article—and if the title of that article isn't satisfactory, you can open a page move discussion there. But since the title of this article is probably ambiguous, it'd be better as a redirect to the disambiguation page. The fact that other editors opposed the move without explaining clearly why merger should not be done doesn't provide a significant reason for opposing it.
This is how the process is supposed to work under ordinary circumstances. A third-party opinion from someone else who isn't involved and doesn't have a strong opinion before reading the arguments is a way of seeking help if, after reading the above, you still can't agree on how to proceed. But it seems to me that you have a pretty straightforward merger here: short article, poorly sourced, the contents of which seem to duplicate or fit entirely within the scope of a much larger and better-sourced article (I didn't say perfect: that one also could use work, but most articles can be improved). You should be able to agree on that if you're both arguing in good faith, in which case a third-party opinion may not be needed. P Aculeius (talk) 14:09, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree @P Aculeius. (FYI: That's what I did on Dec 3rd: Changing 'Greater Armenia' to a dab and merging one source to 'Kingdom of Armenia (antiquity)'. NmWTfs85lXusaybq reverted all of that for reasons that I still fail to understand then renamed the article, created a dab, closed, reopened and then reclosed the merge discussion and started this AfD process.) a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 14:17, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Finally, you admit that all the content you merged into Kingdom of Armenia (antiquity) is no extant material but only a source you just tagged with {{Failed verification}}. However, the other source which passed verification was replaced and later abandoned from your merging. NmWTfs85lXusaybq (talk) 14:43, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What?! What's your point? Nonsense again:
I tagged the sentence that cannot be verified by the source used. But the source is good and it does talk about Greater Armenia so I added it to the related section in Kingdom of Armenia (antiquity) which was unsourced. How is this a problem? If you could take the time to read the source, you'd understand.
What is "the other source"? The Armenian Soviet Encyclopedia? It's only used in Greater Armenia (state) in the sentence about Lesser Armenia. The same sentence could be backed by Hewsen 1997 which also mentions Lesser Armenia, that's what I did. So there was no reason to cite The Armenian Soviet Encyclopedia (which might not be RS btw...). a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 15:08, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Once again, you have removed all extant material in the original article and even one source added by yourself without merging. A deletion could never be seen as a merge and must be concluded formally in the AfD procedure. NmWTfs85lXusaybq (talk) 15:21, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
But all the content is already in Kingdom of Armenia (antiquity). You cannot merge what is already there. a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 15:23, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No, that's only the section you used to overwrite this article, otherwise you wouldn't drop your source from merging. Almost all extant material in this article had been tagged with {{cn}} and later removed in your consecutive edits from 29 November 2023. NmWTfs85lXusaybq (talk) 15:30, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What are you arguing for? I'm really trying to understand your point.
Greater Armenia (state) has 5 sentences:
  1. The first one, with cn, is already covered by Kingdom_of_Armenia_(antiquity)#Artaxiad_dynasty => I did not move it.
  2. The second one, unsourced, is covered by Kingdom_of_Armenia_(antiquity)#Provinces => I moved the source there.
  3. The third one, unsourced, is indeed not in Kingdom of Armenia (antiquity). I removed it while editing the article. So when I transformed into a dab, I did not copy this unsourced content into Kingdom of Armenia (antiquity). Is this a problem?
  4. The fourth one about the Latin name and the distinction between Lesser and Greater Armenia, is already mentioned in Kingdom of Armenia (antiquity) as well. So I did not copy it to Kingdom of Armenia (antiquity) either.
  5. The fifth one about Cicilia, is unsourced and not covered in Kingdom of Armenia (antiquity). I could not find a source so I deleted it and later transformed into a dab. Is that an issue?
a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 16:27, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion is about deletion of Greater Armenia (state), as opposed to its merge to Kingdom of Armenia (antiquity). In your version, the first sentence is not expanded by material and sources in Kingdom_of_Armenia_(antiquity)#Artaxiad_dynasty, but removed for no RS. NmWTfs85lXusaybq (talk) 00:29, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 07:21, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The WordsmithTalk to me 22:50, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep‎. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 06:36, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Solaris (band)[edit]

Solaris (band) (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 rock band. Fails WP:NBAND ‍ ‍ Relativity ‍ ‍ 22:46, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Hungary. Shellwood (talk) 00:28, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Proably keep. For one, it does actually seem to meet WP:BAND#7. As for WP:SIGCOV in WP:RS, what we are looking for are media that have a named reviewer and a named editorial board, and preferably an existence dating back several years. DPRP seems to be such a source, and it dedicated an entire issue to Solaris in 2015. In addition, the same site wrote up a review later [4]. We also have these [5] [6]. For examples of media that do not look reliable, we have progarchives.com where the reviewers have nicknames: [7] [8] [9] [10] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Geschichte (talk • contribs) 21 December 2023 (UTC)
  • Keep (but clean up significantly). From personal experience I can state that searching for Hungarian topics in English search engines is tough due to language inconsistencies, and it takes some extra work. In addition to some sources found by the previous voter, this band has extensive coverage in Hungarian media as a long-running band in that country, including during the Communist years (e.g. [11], [12], [13]). They can also be found in books that cover entertainment during the Communist years, such as Social Currents in Eastern Europe The Sources and Consequences of the Great Transformation (English) and After the Flood - Progressive Rock 1976-2010 (Hungarian). Their Hungarian WP article [14] is also much more informative than this one. If the English article survives this process, I volunteer to clean it up. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 17:30, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: per sources brought up by Gesihte. बिनोद थारू (talk) 04:45, 28 December 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 23:18, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Marvin Blapoh[edit]

Marvin Blapoh (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 subject, a Liberian men's footballer, has not received enough coverage to meet WP:GNG. The closest thing to WP:SIGCOV I found was this short piece. Everything else that came up in my searches were passing mentions (2016, 2019, 2023, etc.) JTtheOG (talk) 22:25, 20 December 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 Café Hillel bombing. Star Mississippi 21:38, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nava Applebaum[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Nava Applebaum (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:BIO1E - should be covered in the page on the event (Café Hillel bombing), but as it stands the entirety of the coverage here is about the single event, even the Biography section is largely about her father. nableezy - 22:24, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Israel and Palestine. nableezy - 22:24, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Terrorism. Shellwood (talk) 22:28, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or possibly redirect, if her particular case is deemed worthy of mention in the main article with a sentence. Such a tragic event, yet so little to say in reliable sources that isn't about her father, the bombing or its aftermath. There are literally a couple of sentences on the topic itself: pure WP:NOTNEWS, NOTENCYCLOPEDIC and fundamentally, how does this adhere to WP:ANYBIO or WP:BDP? ——Serial 22:53, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge (selectively) into Café Hillel bombing. Should be mentioned in a sentence at the main article, which is too short. The biography is unjustified. gidonb (talk) 06:01, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge: I agree with the suggestion to merge into Café Hillel bombing. Rublamb (talk) 04:12, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per above arguments. --Grnrchst (talk) 15:32, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge as above. microbiologyMarcus (petri dish·growths) 20:24, 27 December 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 Barney & Friends or a section thereof. Star Mississippi 21:19, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sing and Dance With Barney[edit]

Sing and Dance With Barney (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 first tagged it under WP:G12 - copyright violation of https://barney.fandom.com/wiki/Sing_%26_Dance_With_Barney but then I saw CC-BY-SA license on that page and decided to revert my speedy deletion tag. What do you think? Deltaspace42 (talk • contribs) 22:02, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, Music, and Texas. Deltaspace42 (talk • contribs) 22:02, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could be retained if the commercial sucess is judged enough for notability or if reviews are presented. If not Redirect to Barney & Friends, where it can have its own section.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 09:37, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've added a {{cc-notice}} in the references section since the original contribution adding the text from Fandom wasn't attributed, but I think Redirect is the best option here - it can have its own section there, as Mushy Yank said. Suntooooth, it/he (talk/contribs) 16:00, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 23:18, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Deysla Reyes[edit]

Deysla Reyes (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 sufficient coverage of this Puerto Rican women's footballer to meet WP:GNG. The closest thing to WP:SIGCOV I found was this, which would not be enough to establish notability on its own. Everything else was passing mentions (2013, 2014, 2018, 2019, etc.) JTtheOG (talk) 21:50, 20 December 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 The Morecambe & Wise Show (1968 TV series) as an ATD. Daniel (talk) 03:46, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Best of Morecambe & Wise[edit]

The Best of Morecambe & Wise (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 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 Nicaragua women's international footballers. Star Mississippi 19:20, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jackie Gilday[edit]

Jackie Gilday (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 Nicaragua women's international footballers. The subject has not received sufficient coverage to meet WP:GNG. The closest thing to WP:SIGCOV I found was this short four-sentence piece. JTtheOG (talk) 21:33, 20 December 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 The Architects Collaborative. History is preserved if someone wants to merge. Star Mississippi 21:19, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Architects Collaborative, 1945–1965[edit]

The Architects Collaborative, 1945–1965 (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)
Agree. Merge into The Architects Collaborative ? SSR07 (talk) 17:06, 25 December 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. Star Mississippi 21:38, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mohamed Hedi El Amri[edit]

Mohamed Hedi El Amri (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 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. Star Mississippi 19:20, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Boom! (System of a Down song)[edit]

Boom! (System of a Down song) (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 page has been as possibly not meeting the notability guideline for nearly a year now, and it's clear that the sourcing has not improved much in that time. It didn't chart anywhere, and across the six sources, the last two are Discogs, which fails WP:UGC, one is a link to a Reddit AMA with Serj Tankian and John Dolmayan (likely an outdated one too, given that it does not specifically direct to anything about the song itself, at least on my end), and one is a link to watch its music video on MTV, which absolutely does not prove any notability whatsoever. The MTV News article does not discuss the song independently, and only the New York Times article comes anywhere close to meeting WP:SIGCOV, but even then it's in the context of music videos commenting on war (including the then-current one in Iraq) receiving airtime, or lack thereof, on MTV at the time. To me, given all these issues, this should just be a redirect to Steal This Album!, but rather than being bold and redirecting, I figured I'd open up discussion here to see what the community thinks. JeffSpaceman (talk) 21:16, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Revising to neutral. Looks more like it was a sloppy creation, but there is sourcing out there. Sergecross73 msg me 01:25, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I do agree with the nominator's original reasoning for the article as it stood. Since the three comments above, I've added three sources to the article, including direct analysis of the music/lyrics which I think keep it on the right side of WP:NSONGS. Jonathan Deamer (talk) 21:55, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The song has been highlighted by many observers for its war protest aspect, outside of its appearance on the album. It has its own legs in that respect. MTV Europe banned its video, reported by The New York Times, despite the fact that MTV was playing the video in the US, as reported by Billboard. The song gets its own paragraph in CMJ magazine, written by Amy Sciaretto. The song gets its own chapter in the book Songs of Social Protest: International Perspectives, starting on page 303—see Chapter 19, written by Canadian scholar Clare Neil King. The song was given a full page write-up by Billboard Staff in March 2003. Loudwire gives the song a paragraph, and so does Spin magazine. The song gets eight sentences in the Routledge textbook Music in the Post-9/11 World, on page 1930 where it says that MTV never officially enacted the ban on the song, but it was "conspicuously absent from MTV's European playlists." One page of the book Rise Up and Sing!: Power, Protest, and Activism in Music is dedicated to the song: page 163. Ben Myers gives the song a thorough treatment in his book System of a Down - Right Here in Hollywood, concentrating on its war protest aspects. Binksternet (talk) 22:03, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above. The article was definitely in poor shape at the time the AfD started, but it's already been improved significantly and more than enough sources have been added/listed above to cover notability. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 07:40, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Agree with users above. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.170.194.91 (talk) 09:25, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - For a little historical perspective, in the early years of Wikipedia there were articles for almost every single System of a Down song, created by over-enthusiastic fans. Many of those have since been redirected to their parent albums as not being independently notable. On the contrary, this song really did get extra notice from the reliable media due to the controversy surrounding its video, and for making a certain political impact in its day. The sources located by the voters above are sufficient. Also, an unreliable source like a Reddit discussion link can simply be removed. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 16:41, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Good finds by the users above, especially this one which I think is well within the territory of WP:SIGCOV.--NØ 17:13, 22 December 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 Karampon which preserves the history should offline, non-English sources become accessible Star Mississippi 20:02, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Karampon Little Flower's Girls' Maha Vidyalayam[edit]

Karampon Little Flower's Girls' Maha Vidyalayam (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)

Fails WP:NSCHOOLS – current references do not indicate notability, and searches turn up nothing spectacular. Cremastra (talk) 21:08, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 23:20, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Web Application Distribution Infrastructure[edit]

Web Application Distribution Infrastructure (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 independent sources covering the subject. Deltaspace42 (talk • contribs) 20:58, 20 December 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.

Kabardian offensive[edit]

The result was speedy draftify. (non-admin closure)‎ Conyo14 (talk) 21:56, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]


Kabardian offensive (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)

Manually copied out of draftspace, conducted a BEFORE and cannot find anything that refers to this as an offensive for the purposes of notability. Did see on Russo-Circassian War that at the same date, On October 10, 1779, the principalities of Chemguy, Besleney, and Kabarda coordinated an offensive together. The leaders were Misostiqo Bat and Qownshayiqo Adildjeri.[1] As a result, Russian armies temporarily withdrew from Circassia. but I don't think that alone meets N. microbiologyMarcus (petri dish·growths) 20:56, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Berkok, İsmail. Tarihte Kafkasya [Caucasus in History] (in Turkish). İstanbul Matbaası.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 23:21, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Web Developer (software)[edit]

Web Developer (software) (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 independent sources which would support notability. I don't think web browser extension automatically merits an article if it once won some competition (2006 "Extend Firefox" in this case). Deltaspace42 (talk • contribs) 20:43, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Computing, Internet, and Software. Deltaspace42 (talk • contribs) 20:43, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, no indication this is published to any significant extent in reliable sources, while an internal mozilla "competition" is hardly something notable. No indication this is even close to passing the criteria at WP:NSOFTWARE. Searching is made a little harder by virtue of the term "web developer" being a common phrase in itself, but nothing evident which would assert notability. Bungle (talk • contribs) 22:20, 27 December 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 Sun Java System#Sun Java Enterprise System. History remains for a merger, if needed. Star Mississippi 21:37, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sun Java System Access Manager[edit]

Sun Java System Access Manager (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 reliable independent sources which would cover the subject. I don't think it merits dedicated article. Deltaspace42 (talk • contribs) 20:04, 20 December 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. czar 05:14, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Necrobotics[edit]

Necrobotics (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 is essentially synopsis of a single academic paper, with all secondary sources being trivial mentions thereof. Please finish AfD submission. 70.172.183.203 (talk) 22:15, 19 December 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. RL0919 (talk) 19:47, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Patrik Vydra[edit]

Patrik Vydra (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)

Reviewed during NPP. No indication of wp:notability under GNG or SNG. Content is just "he plays football" and who for. One source is just a database entry and the other does not appear to even mention him North8000 (talk) 19:04, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Czech Republic. Deltaspace42 (talk • contribs) 19:06, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The fact that the page is a stub is not a reason for deletion. He plays for the U21 and for the top Czech team in the Czech First League and in UEFA Europa League, that is, he belongs to the great talents of his generation. FromCzech (talk) 19:34, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Just clarifying, I only mentioned the limited contents of the page as a reflection that it does not have the required sources to fulfill wp:notability....in depth coverage of the subject of the article. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 19:41, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 16:32, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - no BEFORE has been undertaken. There are plenty of sources out there in Czech-langiage sources, such as this and this and this (the first two look good, but I don't read Czech). Article needs improvement, not deletion. GiantSnowman 16:38, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep since I agree with the notion of existing sources, but for the future, articles should ideally be created with the use of 2-4 such sources, fleshing out the article a little more than what was done here. The fairly recent shift in attitude towards sourcing of sportsperson articles is the way to go. Geschichte (talk) 17:12, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Per all before Svartner (talk) 10:53, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep decent amount of coverage (abit in the Czech language) that help subject pass WP:GNG. Inter&anthro (talk) 15:24, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Blesk is a tabloid labeled GUNREL with the bad refs script, so that's out. The sport.cz article is almost entirely an interview, with the only secondary content being He always waited for dad to come home from work and go digging with him. And when Patrik Vydra was twelve, he moved from Beroun to Sparta. He won a title with her in the spring and is now a patient substitute, the defensive all-rounder picking up starts in the tight end A's minutes at a time. This is not SIGCOV.
JoelleJay (talk) 18:48, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
But that does not apply to the sources cited in the article. FromCzech (talk) 07:16, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The only source I saw with anything beyond a passing mention is the Berounsky piece, but now I see the full content of the Hradecky article isn't actually available to me. Does it go beyond just match coverage? JoelleJay (talk) 03:39, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Per above. Young player with ongoing career in Sparta Prague, one of best teams in fully pro Czech league. Article needs improvement, not deletion. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 21:09, 26 December 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. Not particularly speedy given run time, but no reason made for deletion. As TulsaPoliticsFan notes, this does not preclude a nomination, if needed, for legit policy based reasons. Star Mississippi 19:22, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

KECO[edit]

KECO (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 wanted. Blocks Google My Business from SERP Paragon965 (talk) 18:58, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I don't see how this is a valid reason to remove the page. Ternera (talk) 19:07, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I couldn't even decipher what Paragon965 meant by Blocks Google My Business from SERP. Deltaspace42 (talk • contribs) 19:09, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
When I google search my business name "KECO" this Wikipedia block comes up. I'd rather have my Google Business Profile show up. Paragon965 (talk) 20:32, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Now that's hilarious. Reminded me of NASA killed Michael Jackson. Deltaspace42 (talk • contribs) 20:47, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep. The nomination is completely erroneous. No accurate deletion rationale has been provided. per WP:SKCRIT. I mean where is rationale? Not wanted? See WP:IDONTLIKEIT Deltaspace42 (talk • contribs) 19:14, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep: per WP:CSK#1 or WP:CSK#3. No deletion rationale is being proposed here. User:Let'srun 19:29, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:31, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep: I don't think there's anything in the deletion policy that requires us to get rid of articles for reasons relating solely to what shows up in Google search results. As has already been mentioned, "not wanted" is not a valid deletion reason on its own; there has to be a policy-based rationale. (Note that the nominator has a conflict of interest; besides their stated desire to have my Google Business Profile show up, this radio station is owned by a company called Paragon Communications and its frequency is 96.5 MHz, both of which would appear to tie in to the Paragon965 username.) WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:47, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Lack of any sort of sourcing is enough to delete the radio station article. I'm not sure why this is a speedy keep when there are no useful sources. Oaktree b (talk) 21:00, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Non-notable radio station, with only sourcing to a database and a profile. Links I find are only news stories from the radio station. Nominator should speak with Google about the screw up, Wikipedia can't help with that. Oaktree b (talk) 20:59, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep: I struggle to understand the reasoning for this AfD. Speedy Keep for the article, TROUTing for the editor. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 01:09, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep No valid deletion rationale. While I was here, I tried to scrounge up what I could, but without local newspaper all I have are a bunch of sale transactions. This has been a country music station since it hit the air in 1982, so not a very turbulent history. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 18:43, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • It occurs to me after seeing the username that Paragon965 is a station representative (the station is owned by Paragon Broadcasting and broadcasts on 96.5 MHz). As an encyclopedia, we can't control what Google does or doesn't do in displaying rich content. What we can control is considering whether a page meets our policies and guidelines in a deletion discussion and determining whether a valid rationale for deletion has been supplied. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 18:46, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep as this is not valid grounds for deletion at all — we do not delete articles just because their existence is interfering with somebody else's SEO desires, because helping you increase your business's Google presence is simply not our job. I also don't understand why, if the nominator is associated with a different business that this radio station is "interfering" with, their username blatantly implies a direct connection to this radio station. I see the argument that the article isn't sourced brilliantly, but this isn't the right place to handle any quibbles about that — if somebody wants to mount an argument that this radio station fails WP:NMEDIA (which it is not at all obvious that it would), then they should do that in a new AFD discussion that makes that argument from the start, and dignifying this nomination at all is the wrong answer. Bearcat (talk) 17:20, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Note that WP:NMEDIA is no longer a notability guideline. Let'srun (talk) 22:12, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Further note: "[NMEDIA]...is a tool to help determine whether a media outlet is a valid subject for a Wikipedia article." - Neutralhomer • Talk • 03:11, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural keep Keep due to bad nominating rationale, but the keep here should not be used as justification to keep in any future AfD with a legitimate rationale. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 20:51, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep Nom's reason for deletion is blatant WP:IDONTLIKEIT. SBKSPP (talk) 01:47, 23 December 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 by snowball clause. Evident consensus that the topic is notable, and the nominator has added a keep !vote, which amounts to withdrawing the nomination. (non-admin closure) ‎ XOR'easter (talk) 17:28, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

NLIN[edit]

NLIN (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)

Reviewed during NPP. I can describe this as no indication of wp:notability under GNG or SNG but in a search I found zero, so not even enought to confirm that this exists. It's not even mentioned at the Computational complexity theory article. If it exists, the coverage here (a one sentence definition) could go in that article. North8000 (talk) 18:50, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The article starts with "in Computational complexity theory". Pointing out that this is contemplating a separate article dedicated to something that is not even mentioned there is a useful point and is not equivalent to me claiming that all articles are to be complete as you imply or me not knowing the obvious reality that Wikipedia articles are a work in progress as your writing "See WP:WIP" implies. North8000 (talk) 20:01, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, sorry, I didn't know you thought that the creator meant the actual Wikipedia page when writing "in Computational complexity theory". But I think the creator just meant the theory and then wikilinked it because why not. Deltaspace42 (talk • contribs) 20:08, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
My main concerns were that it is a real topic suitable for future building (and that the term is not just a neologism invented/promoted by one author). Were you able to see if this is the case? Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 20:19, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: This (and DLIN) may warrant inclusion on the list of complexity classes. I don't have the expertise to know if any of the entries there already encompass this topic. Reconrabbit (talk|edits) 21:29, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have now included it in that page, as well as in the page P versus NP problem. Its relation to that problem is the main argument for the interest in NLIN AmirOnWiki (talk) 08:40, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Searching for both the keywords DLIN and NLIN on Google Scholar finds some 170 hits, with the combination of keywords seeminingly eliminating many of the false positives that you would get from only one: most of the results are highly relevant. These are a niche topic in structural complexity (because not robust classes) but notable enough. Leaving the same comment on both AfDs. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:49, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Based on what folks have found that I didn't find. North8000 (talk) 17:00, 21 December 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 by snowball clause. Evident consensus that the topic is notable, and the nominator has added a keep !vote, which amounts to withdrawing the nomination. (non-admin closure) ‎ XOR'easter (talk) 17:27, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

DLIN[edit]

DLIN (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)

Reviewed during NPP. I can describe this as no indication of wp:notability under GNG or SNG but in a search I found zero, so not even enought to confirm that this exists. It's not even mentioned at the Computational complexity theory article. If it exists, the coverage here (a one sentence definition) could go in that article. North8000 (talk) 18:50, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Mathematics and Computing. Deltaspace42 (talk • contribs) 19:04, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Usage in academic sources. Entirely about DLIN: [17] [18]. [19] [20] Mentions: [21] [22] A412 (Talk • C) 19:12, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the good sources found by A412. --{{u|Mark viking}} {Talk} 21:57, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the sources above, and in general its relevance to the P versus NP problem. I have added references in the List of complexity classes and in P versus NP problem. AmirOnWiki (talk) 08:32, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Searching for both the keywords DLIN and NLIN on Google Scholar finds some 170 hits, with the combination of keywords seeminingly eliminating many of the false positives that you would get from only one: most of the results are highly relevant. These are a niche topic in structural complexity (because not robust classes) but notable enough. Leaving the same comment on both AfDs. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:49, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Based on what folks have found that I didn't find. North8000 (talk) 17:02, 21 December 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. Star Mississippi 19:49, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

CGIProxy[edit]

CGIProxy (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 reliable independent sources indicating any notability. Deltaspace42 (talk • contribs) 18:08, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Computing, Internet, and Software. Deltaspace42 (talk • contribs) 18:08, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Another software article from the early days; one gets the feeling that for this type of article the normal rules about references just didn't apply. I looked through Google Books but found nothing that discussed this specific program; it just seems like one of many freeware application that exist but aren't notable by our standards. Drmies (talk) 18:13, 20 December 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. Speedy declined in lieu of discussion here, but consensus is clear. Star Mississippi 19:46, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Adorján Czipleá[edit]

Adorján Czipleá (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)

13 Year hoax, All sources reflect off of article, No sources before article creation, Article was only expanded by one editor, No links from other main space articles CosXZ (talk) 18:05, 20 December 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. Star Mississippi 19:45, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

CCTRL[edit]

CCTRL (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 term is used only in relation to Lignup's software, so not notable. Was PROD'ed in 2007 but the creator quickly removed the PROD tag. Deltaspace42 (talk • contribs) 18:02, 20 December 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. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 17:22, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Manaka Kubota[edit]

Manaka Kubota (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 NATHLETE. This has been un-bundled from a squib AfD.
For BEFORE I am recycling sources offered by a "keep" voter who said they spoke Japanese offered these sources: profile and coverage from NHK [24], Yomiuri [25], Nikkei [26], multiple posts in Sanspo [27], 47NEWS [ja] [28]. One other source this article was offered. However another voter analyzed the sources and had this to say. None of those are close to SIGCOV, even if we were to give some kind of exception for the depth of Japanese sources (which we should not, because notability is exclusively derived from the amount and depth of IRS SIGCOV, not the importance of someone's achievements). The first is the standard athlete blurb derived from their sports org's website Red XN. The second is a stats page with no secondary coverage Red XN. The third is a passing mention Red XN. The fourth is a press release Red XN. The fifth looks like a local-interest community news story, though I can't access the whole thing. Like all GNG-predicting SNGs, NSPORT standards demand NOTNEWS is met, which means routine reports are not considered SIGCOV.
All in all, I still think this is not a notable athlete; simply qualifying and competing, with resultant routine stats coverage, do not notability make. ☆ Bri (talk) 16:42, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

*:I agree with this comment at all. Also, might it looks like WP:MILL case. Might I am wrong and it is not applies here, so I won't vote. Antonio Vinzaretti (talk) 10:13, 22 December 2023 (UTC)Strike, sock Star Mississippi 19:13, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, per my arguments in the bundled nom.
JoelleJay (talk) 23:15, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: the bundled nom was Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lisa Jahn ☆ Bri (talk) 00:34, 27 December 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. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 17:20, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Internet (web browser)[edit]

Internet (web browser) (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 a notable mobile web browser which is accessible only in India. Independent sources just talk about launch of the application, but a burst of coverage (often around product announcements) does not automatically make a product notable per WP:NSOFT. I don't think it should have a dedicated article. Deltaspace42 (talk • contribs) 16:13, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Internet, Software, and India. Deltaspace42 (talk • contribs) 16:13, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: It's got a full article in the Verge and the Hindustan Times, both solid sources. I'm not sure what the issue is. Oaktree b (talk) 21:03, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, I looked at those and, as I said, a burst of coverage (often around product announcements) does not automatically make a product notable per WP:NSOFT. I think it really needs more than that to merit a standalone article, but we'll see what others say. Deltaspace42 (talk • contribs) 21:26, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Ok the Verge is minimal, but a solid source. Here's TechCrunch [29] Oaktree b (talk) 21:04, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: coverage in The Verge, Hindustan Times and TechCrunch amounts to notability. Owen× ☎ 15:07, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - While it's understandably difficult to find sources for a browser simply called "Internet", I did find some reviews in addition to the above, including in Digital Trends. Some of them I found have a churnalism vibe to them or are sites that I'm not familiar enough with to say they're reliable, but I think what's been listed here so far does show enough notability per WP:GNG if nothing else. - Aoidh (talk) 03:34, 24 December 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 08:41, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Riverdale, Mendocino County, California[edit]

Riverdale, Mendocino County, California (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)

Disputed PROD. I do not think this location passes WP:GEOLAND as there is little evidence it was ever really a populated recognized place; the sources cited are either not reliable (GNIS), or trivial passing mentions that establish existence but not notability. From what I can gather, this seems to have been the site of a resort: [30] mentions "Riverdale Resort...in the city of Leggett", and this site: [31] can sell you a vintage postcard from said resort, specifically labeled as being in Leggett, California. A satellite view of the coordinates shows a couple of houses along the river, but not much else. The vast majority of references to Riverdale (even in the Mendocino County press) are to the Riverdale in Fresno County, so I think a redirect to Leggett, California would be potentially confusing and not useful to the average user; I think this article should just be deleted in the absence of more evidence that this was a populated place. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 16:03, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Does not appear to have either legal recognition or significant coverage to meet our notability standards. Looks to be a former resort area, Streetview shows a few occupied homes, but nothing noteworthy. –dlthewave ☎ 17:44, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:Geoland#Settlements and administrative regions states that only legally recognized places are presumed notable. Non-legally recognized places such as Riverdale, must meet WP:GNG in order to be considered notable. In particular Riverdale fails Wikipedia:Notability#SUSTAINED, I also believe that previous discussion indicates that Riverdale fails WP:NRV as well. policy guidance given in both WP:GNG and WP:GEOLAND are that such articles should be merged into the article that covers the notable administrative area that contains it, but this appears to not be or never was a populated place so nothing to merge.
James.folsom (talk) 01:56, 26 December 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 Weightlifting at the 2009 East Asian Games. History is there should consensus emerge to merge Star Mississippi 16:02, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weightlifting at the 2009 East Asian Games – Results[edit]

Weightlifting at the 2009 East Asian Games – Results (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)

Reviewed during NPP. This one is simpler than most, by it's mere title it's a stats only article which would not even use (much less have) GNG coverage. So no evidence of wp:notability under GNG or SNG. i would say merge to the 2009 East Asian Games article but there is nothing to merge.....maybe 1 sentence. North8000 (talk) 15:43, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly that's fair, I'll move the data as soon as my willpower will allow me! Arconning (talk) 15:56, 20 December 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 08:42, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of countries by intentional homicide rate by decade[edit]

List of countries by intentional homicide rate by decade (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:NOTDATABASE this concept is trying to do too much. This article tries to list every yearly murder rate ever published for each country. It's unreadable even though it's incomplete - if complete, it would house 20,000+ data points and no guidance to the reader on which parts are supposed to stick out. There are better ways to represent these data: perhaps line graph by region (neighbors rarely differ much). If any notable trends exist, then editors should make them obvious to readers, not just assail them with raw data. Wizmut (talk) 15:39, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime and Lists. Deltaspace42 (talk • contribs) 15:46, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete under WP:CROSSCAT and WP:NOTDB -- This exactly the kind of complex, intersectional list that makes it so hard to establish a firm policy on cross-categorical lists. As the nom suggests, it is trying to do too much. Cheers, Last1in (talk) 17:41, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Trying to do too much. I think some of the data here per country could be folded into the countries' respective articles on crime (if it was reliable and complete, which it doesn't seem to be, so let's not do that) and while I think the list without the 'by decade' part is fine, this is complicated and useless due to its inherent incompleteness spoiling the point. PARAKANYAA (talk) 21:20, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Too much of a trivia for encyclopaedia. Lorstaking (talk) 04:53, 21 December 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 2024 New Hampshire gubernatorial election#Candidates 2. While consensus is that he isn't notable, this is a viable ATD that preserves the history should he become governor. Star Mississippi 15:52, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jon Kiper[edit]

Jon Kiper (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 seem to satisfy WP:POLITICIAN and WP:GNG. Probably should fall under WP:G11 section for speedy deletion, but I'm not sure. Deltaspace42 (talk • contribs) 14:52, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Politicians, and New Hampshire. Deltaspace42 (talk • contribs) 14:52, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: non-notable businessman, being a political candidate isn't enough for notability. Sourcing used just talks about where he's worked and good deeds done in the community. Oaktree b (talk) 15:54, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Several reliable sources about the campaign itself and his business, GNG is met here. Royal Autumn Crest (talk) 20:58, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment One thing to note here, there appear to be two other candidates he's up against: Cinde Warmington and Joyce Craig. Warmington only has one link about her gubernatorial run in her article and Craig only has two. Clearly there are likely more out there for them, and likewise there will probably be more for him as well given that he's already gained exposure before the run (see the links.) This article is new, it should be seen as what it can become over the next few months, not as what it is now. Royal Autumn Crest (talk) 14:00, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. People do not get Wikipedia articles just for standing as candidates in elections they have not won — and since every candidate in every election always receives some amount of campaign coverage, the existence of some campaign coverage is not enough to hand a candidate any sort of GNG-based exemption from having to pass NPOL. If that were how it worked, then NPOL itself would be entirely meaningless and unenforceable, because every candidate would always get that exemption and nobody would ever be subject to NPOL at all anymore. So the inclusion test for an unelected candidate doesn't hinge on "campaign coverage exists" — it requires that either (a) he has sufficient coverage in other contexts besides the election campaign that he would already qualify for an article on those other grounds regardless of his success or failure in the election, or (b) the campaign coverage evinces a credible reason why his candidacy should be seen as a special case of markedly greater notability than everybody else's candidacies, such that even if he loses his candidacy would still pass the ten year test for enduring significance anyway. Neither of those things have been shown here, however. Obviously no prejudice against recreation next fall if he wins, but nothing here is already enough as of now. Bearcat (talk) 18:01, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect >>> 2024 New Hampshire gubernatorial election Djflem (talk) 08:19, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non-notable candidate for office, fails GNG. Bearcat as usual encapsulates my argument better than I can. SportingFlyer T·C 02:21, 27 December 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 Blocksworld as a viable ATD Star Mississippi 15:49, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fortell Games[edit]

Fortell Games (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)
  • Completely non-notable, I cannot find any sources about them online. Even without looking at sources, it's pretty clear that they're non-notable; they've only developed two games, neither of which seem to be very special.

    AriTheHorsetalk to me!

    14:49, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games, Ukraine, and California. Deltaspace42 (talk • contribs) 14:53, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Their second game, Blocksworld, received millions of downloads from 2012-2020 so I don't see how it isn't particularly special. Also, how do you mean you can't find any sources? A simply google search brings up all the information you need. If that isn't enough for you, then why is there many other articles relating to game developers that have even less information that still remain on this site? Nintentoad125 Talk 15:09, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It is not even actually their game. They bought it. Not to mention that notability is generally not inherited.

    AriTheHorsetalk to me!

    17:24, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Blocksworld. Blocksworld may be notable, though it requires cleanup and removal of unreliable sources. Notability is not inherited and there is nothing demonstrating the notability of this minor studio. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 15:17, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Sourcing to reddit and a gov't website aren't really helping notability. I can't find anything else about this company, some PR stuff. Oaktree b (talk) 15:55, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Blocksworld. If this does not meet the notability criteria, then I don't see the harm in redirecting to Blocksworld. It is their only notable product and currently all that they are known for. Nintentoad125 (Talk)
  • Redirect - per Zxcvbnm and Nintentoad125. Videogameplayer99 (talk) 11:31, 26 December 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. Star Mississippi 18:12, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Associate-O-Matic[edit]

Associate-O-Matic (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 meet WP:NSOFT. No independent sources with significant coverage. Deltaspace42 (talk • contribs) 14:22, 20 December 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 08:43, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

PerfectDraft[edit]

PerfectDraft (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 notable, no reliable independent sources to indicate notability, just an advertisement, we don't need articles like this in the Wikipedia. Deltaspace42 (talk • contribs) 14:04, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink and Products. Deltaspace42 (talk • contribs) 14:04, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: PROMO. Sourcing used is primary. What I find are press-releases. this is the best coverage in a RS [32], basically a guide to the thing being on sale for Black Friday and having a limited description of the product. Oaktree b (talk) 15:51, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete per G-11 Promotion/ advertising. Banks Irk (talk) 17:15, 20 December 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. Star Mississippi 18:11, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Boccia at the 2023 ASEAN Para Games[edit]

Boccia at the 2023 ASEAN Para Games (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)

Reviewed during NPP. No indication of notability under GNG or SNG. A stats-only article with the stats for one type of game at that event. The only source is those stats. North8000 (talk) 13:56, 20 December 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 08:43, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

BeerTender[edit]

BeerTender (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 notable, no reliable secondary sources. This article was PROD'ed a few months before, but somebody didn't like WP:NOTDICT as a reason and removed the PROD. Deltaspace42 (talk • contribs) 11:40, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails to meet the GNG. On a search, all of the results are just sites selling the product and related accessories. No significant coverage by reliable sources independent of the producers. Combustible Vulpex (talk) 11:49, 20 December 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. Eddie891 Talk Work 13:17, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fsn (file manager)[edit]

Fsn (file manager) (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 meet WP:NSOFT as I couldn't find any reliable independent sources to indicate any notability of this application. Deltaspace42 (talk • contribs) 11:12, 20 December 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. The attribution issue has been addressed, rendering this a possible solution and one that has consensus. Star Mississippi 15:44, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of types of businesses using the "as a service" business model[edit]

AfDs for this article:
List of types of businesses using the "as a service" business model (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)

After the last AFD, a DRV was opened and resulted in no consensus as a service. I have used my discretion to relist here and am neutral. I would encourage contributors here and the eventual closer of this discussion to read the previous AFD first. Stifle (talk) 09:18, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Stifle (talk) 09:18, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business and Lists. Deltaspace42 (talk • contribs) 09:28, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - basically serves little purpose as there are relevant categories for navigation and another index page with better layout. If someone really was searching for as a service they'd find better pages so I don't see what this page could possibly add. JMWt (talk) 09:34, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I agree with JMWt. We already have Category:As a service and As a service. Why would we need another article for this? Deltaspace42 (talk • contribs) 09:36, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - The original page was an unacknowledged copywithin from As a service. This has been expunged but the copyvio wass still not repaired in page history (but I have just done so). During the DRV it was belatedly changed to a set index article (SIA) but by then As a service had itself been transformed into (a more complete) set index article. This article name does not lend itself to a useful SIA. The other article is the better SIA and the better landing point for one and this was always a WP:POVFORK of that one. As a list article it fails WP:LISTN and although an SIA is clearly useful, this one is now entirely redundnant. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 09:54, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Partially repeating my comment in the DRV, the as a service article has been converted into a SIA after the previous AfD that includes all the entries in this article, plus some additional entries and information. Therefore, this list is now redundant, so it should be deleted. Liu1126 (talk) 11:01, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm not sure how neutral one can be when they open an AfD. If anything, a discussion of deletion can be placed into the talk article. One of the delete !voters should have opened this. Conyo14 (talk) 18:56, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The WP:DRV closing admin is simply executing a relist. Looks neutral to me. Deletion discussions happen at WP:AFD, not article talk pages. This helps them get seen by more than just the article's watchers. Hope this helps. –Novem Linguae (talk) 22:01, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I appreciate the clarification, thank you Novem. Conyo14 (talk) 06:52, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • The problem with a delete outcome is that someone did a copy-paste merge during the previous AfD. This creates an attribution problem which is technically solvable by an administrator performing a history merge -- but that's a laborious and time-consuming procedure. We could avoid that by one of the other methods described in WP:PATT but it's likely a lot less work for the closer if we decide to redirect and add a {{r from merge}} to the redirect page.—S Marshall T/C 08:54, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I attempted WP:RIA yesterday with a dummy edit. Is that not sufficient? And as the original copyvio was replaced with new content, wouldn't a revdel fix this? I am not really clear as to why redirecting is a better option than deletion when a page was created by unattributed copywithin. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 09:16, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Are you saying material has been copied from List of types of businesses using the "as a service" business model to as a service requiring attribution? If so, what content? If the copy was in the other direction, deleting this article will solve the problem; a deleted article doesn't need attribution. Stifle (talk) 09:59, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah, yes, I misunderstood. If the copy had been from this article to As a service then this would need to be kept and redirected. In fact, the content on this page was copied from as a service to create this page. During the DRV, As a service was improved, but without copying from this page. Material was already on that page, as it was the source. Thus, I believe there is no reason attribution here needs further repair (even bearing in mind that deleted pages still exist somewhere). Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 10:05, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, I had this backwards! My sincere apologies. I have no remaining objections to a delete outcome here.—S Marshall T/C 15:50, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this WP:REDUNDANTFORK, as there are two set index articles of this type and the other one is more developed and better named.—Alalch E. 13:37, 22 December 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 Gurugram University as a viable ATD Star Mississippi 15:11, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yasin Meo Degree College[edit]

Yasin Meo Degree College (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)

Unable to find GNG-level sources for this college. The only reliable source (the JSTOR one) has bare mentions of the college. Recommend redirect to Gurugram University. A previous PROD was contested. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 08:39, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, India, and Haryana. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 08:39, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 11:24, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Finding mentions of its predecessor school, Brayne Meo High School. At minimum redirect to the University it's affiliated to or to Nuh (city), where it's located — unsure which is best at present taking into account its roots. Not ruling out keep either. The college claims importance to the Mewat region of Haryana as the only minority college in Western part of the country; presumably referring to the Mewati language, though it's not altogether clear.[33] Needs a further look. Rupples (talk) 18:46, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Here is another source I found which mention's Brayne Meo High School and how today it has been renamed Yasin Meo Degree college. [34] Do read and inform whether it is a valid source to confirm the notability of the subject... Ah507 (talk) 03:56, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, the Brayne Meo School is mentioned but I'd find it difficult to expand the article on the College from this source, which mostly concentrates on Meo relations with Hindu adherents in 1920–33. I didn't see a mention of the College, but may have missed this. The evidence I'm finding from sources is there may be sufficient material to support an article on Chaudhri Yasin Khan, after who the College is named. He is the father of Tayyab Husain, the College's founder. What's needed is independent confirmation of the College's claims found in the history section of its website. I don't think proof that it derives from the Brayne Meo School is enough. Rupples (talk) 07:56, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    did you see check this source? [35] It has mentions of Chaudhary Yasin Khan and the formation of the college, which confirms the colleges origins and existence, historically speaking. The college is also mentioned on government websites. This is the government website for the Nuh district in Haryana, India which mentions the existence of the college. [36] This source also mentions the college. [37] Ah507 (talk) 05:24, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No sources on Google or Scholar rather than an article from The Times of India but it is a mention. Toadette (Happy holiday!) 10:25, 21 December 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. Because it's unclear whether Looter shooter or action role-playing game would be the correct target AND because, as DF pointed out, we have an unattributed copy issue as well. Any editor is welcome to create a redirect Star Mississippi 15:07, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Role-playing shooter[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Role-playing shooter (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)

Insufficent notability from its parent genre. Could also merge some of the the content to its subgenre under action role-playing game. Its loose and occasional use as a genre term was more widely used fifteen years ago but no longer. The use of the specific term had some minor currency as a self-promoted term with the Borderlands series, but this has not been a consistent and enduring trend. The article is a laundry list of games where a source has remarked that it is a "role-playing shooter" or there are elements of both genres in the game.

Firstly, there is no commentary on what criteria or elements identify a role-playing shooter, so it's by extension a term where the developer has called it that (as in Borderlands) or a source has noted the two genres happen to converge. The article has a flavor of original research to it, given that not all games are unanimously or clearly identified as such - I go more into that below. I cannot find evidence of source analysis of the genre beyond the label, which indicates it could easily be merged as a subcategory of the action role-playing game genre. So even if it is a term with some meaning, it's not substantial enough to justify an article if the article is currently serving as a glorified list.

Secondly, a source analysis of the article shows pages and citations rarely and inconsistently use the term. The only wikilinked articles to independently describe the game as a “role-playing shooter” are the articles for ‘’Mass Effect’’ and ‘’The 3rd Birthday’’. For the cited sources, the ones that do use the term mostly use it in reference to ‘’Borderlands’’: [38][39] and one for ‘’The 3rd Birthday’’: [40]. The ‘’Inside Mac Games’’ article clearly is following the ‘’Borderlands’’ developer’s self-description. Some other citations don’t use the term, but the page author has assumed they meant a role-playing shooter because they described the game as being in the role-playing genre and shooter genre: [41][42][43]. Otherwise, the remaining citations don’t use the term. Broader sources do use the term, but not as widely as expected. A WP:BEFORE finds a few loose use of terms for various games, but not consistently and widely in a way that inspires confidence. The best shot is a listicle-type article from TheGamer which is a good start but generally provides no guidance on the genre: [44]. The listicle type seems to lend itself to cramming as many games that seem to fit in the genre as possible to meet the brief - even acknowledging for one item that the game doesn't really have that much in the way of role-playing mechanics. As mentioned earlier, the term originates from self-description from Gearbox developers for ‘’Borderlands’’: [45][46]. Other scarce examples of the term from online news searches include describing ‘’The Outer Worlds’’, [47], ‘’Mass Effect 3’’ [48], and something called ‘’Slayer Shock’’ [49]. Searches on Archive for the term are limited. Once you remove false hits for lists of genres listing ‘role-playing’ and ‘shooter’ together, there are a few dozen hits, but again they are skewed towards the era of ‘’Borderlands’’: the term was in vogue during the time of ‘’Bioshock’’ and ‘’Mass Effect’’, and occasionally earlier, but generally not any more.

Thirdly, there's a previous successful AfD, so people have been dubious for a while.

Sorry for the essay! I just want to be thorough on this one. As ever, I'm happy to be proven wrong. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 08:14, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with either Shooter or Action role-playing game. This article hasn't really demonstrated why Role-playing shooter is a distinct enough concept from its parent genres to warrant its own article. A Role-playing shooter is really just another flavour of shooter game or another flavour of action RPG, depending on how you look at it. The history section is also essentially just a list of games that fit the genre, while ideally a proper history section should inform the reader about how the genre came to be and how it has evolved or developed over time.
Personally, I don't think that this warrants its own article, but the fact that some shooter games have RPG elements (and vice versa) and could be considered their own sub-genre could be talked about under the respective articles insteadd. Currently there is already a section for this in the Action role-playing game article, and everything notable enough about this topic for an encyclopedia can likely be condensed down into a short paragraph and placed there, perhaps with a few of the most notable examples listed in this article. It's a sub-genre anyways, so I think using the article of one of the main genres as a starting point would be a more appropriate way to handle the topic. If it turns out that in future, players and the industry start to widely consider role-playing shooters a distinct genre of its own, then it may be more reasonable to spin off the section into a separate page.
I also agree with V R X C E S about the use of the terminology not being consistent. If someone says 'Role-playing shooter' you'll know what they mean, since the term is pretty self explanatory, but I don't think it's a term that's used industry-wide or even widely used among players. Combustible Vulpex (talk) 10:30, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Or just restore to the redirect and lock it. On 5 November 2023 CoolingGibbon made an edit with the summary "Creating article by merging content from the action RPG and looter shooter articles." Then someone removed the looter shooter content. So this is just a copy and paste bit from another article it seems. Dream Focus 12:29, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The proper genre would be looter shooter, for which an article already exists. Role-playing shooter is not the common name, nor is a duplicate article needed for it. The creation of this was really random and unnecessary. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 13:37, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete‎. Article creator/nominator is a confirmed sock (Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Masckarpone). If an established editor wishes to write about Bitget, they're welcome to do so. Star Mississippi 17:13, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bitget[edit]

Bitget (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)

Hi fellows. I think we need 3rd AfD cause I'm not responsible for former AfDs and draft reviewers hasn't see any significant changes since past. I found in web-archive how it was looks like before me here: https://web.archive.org/web/20231028000951/https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bitget We need consensus, cause to me - CSD G4 violation might harm my interes to improve Wikipedia, cause my next similar to bitget wishes is KuCoin, WhiteBIT, Qmall, MEXC etc which was deleted before me and I has no clue how it was looks like in past. TBH, I spent my weekend to write the article, then got rejected without any suggestions or comments. So you're welcome to leave any comment throught this AfD. Enjoy--Antonio Vinzaretti (talk) 07:59, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment This is so unnecessary. I moved this article to Draft space stating that because it a previous version had been deleted in an AFD, you should submit it to WP:AFC for review. But after it was declined twice, you decided move it back to main space and launch a 3rd AFD! I never said it was a CSD G4 violation, I just said that it should be reviewed by an AFC reviewer. Liz Read! Talk! 08:13, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Before you move article to the draftspace, article was nominated for speedy deletion because of CSD G4, then in draft article was declined because of CSG G4. Looks like Draft reviewers mocking of me, because to me I not violated that. So I am sorry if I bother. I just want to learn how to do. Antonio Vinzaretti (talk) 08:15, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment what an odd one... did I get this right, the author has moved their rejected draft past AfC into the main space, and then straight away started this discussion in the hope of reaching a 'keep' verdict to overrule the rejection, not to mention the earlier AfDs? --DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:22, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes it is. I am interesting to get attention, cause I not accept silence rejection of AfC. As I see I got rejection from you because of WP COPYVIO. I fixed that and mentioned you to take a look as a reviewer, then got silence. No one adviced me how to improve, just declined. Unfair to me. Antonio Vinzaretti (talk) 09:27, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    "not to mention the earlier AfDs" what it means and how it even connected with my article? Antonio Vinzaretti (talk) 09:28, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    So if it got AfD I should not continue to work on bitget, kucoin, mexc, qmall, whitebit which probably meet CSD G4? Is it my fault that I'm interested in cryptocurrency exchanges? Yes, they were all deleted (I checked), but I'm not responsible for every one lol. It kills my interes. Antonio Vinzaretti (talk) 09:38, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Can you take a look on Bybit please? Pretty one, right? I'm going to start AfD on Bybit too. Too strict to me, too kind to Bybit. Antonio Vinzaretti (talk) 10:04, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify? I guess. I'm not sure what you're trying to prove or why you think the problem is CSD G4. The reason your draft wasn't approved is because there's only routine coverage (mostly of a lawsuit by a more notable company) or non RS crypto sites. It also could use some copyediting but that's a secondary concern. I get that you're trying to learn Wikipedia but that'll be easier if you stop and hear out other editors. BuySomeApples (talk) 11:51, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not sure you even want review the article correctly, cause looks like you just defend your submission decision while you even ignoring changes. I started AfD to let others be involved, enjoy. Not take it personally pls. Then go draftify Bybit, why not bro? Antonio Vinzaretti (talk) 11:56, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Bybit does not look ready for mainspace either but it's too old to be draftified, it has to be handled through AfD. Also, just because other stuff exists doesn't mean that Bitget has to have a page. BuySomeApples (talk) 12:02, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's not even about bybit or bitget. You just too strict, while to bybit too kind. Initiate AfD then for Bybit please, thx. Now I'm not at my PC, so cannot do it right now. And some frustrates me when everyone blames, no one helps to improve or explain. Antonio Vinzaretti (talk) 12:04, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Offtop: Lewcm started AfD here. Antonio Vinzaretti (talk) 17:53, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify OP, it would probably be better to work on this as a draft, as they do not qualify for WP:G4. There will always be other bad articles to delete as well; however, volunteer time is limited and cannot possibly confirm every possible article, thus why the other stuff exists argument is not a good one. Sungodtemple (talk • contribs) 14:18, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete don't really see the point of draftifying this, given that was done once already, the draft was then rejected at AfC, and moved into the main space by the author. Moving it back to drafts now would achieve... what, exactly? If someone wants to TNT this, find new and better sources, and rewrite the whole thing from scratch, by all means have at it, but that doesn't need this to be moved to the draft space, surely? (And all this before we even consider that the 1st and 2nd AfD resulted in delete, both in the last six months.) --
  • Comment why you blame here CSD G4, because of "1st and 2nd AfD resulted in delete, both in the last six months". Where evidence that this version isn't better than previous? So if it deleted once, so I should'nt continue to develop KuCoin article for example? Nice logic.Antonio Vinzaretti (talk) 15:57, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    "the draft was then rejected at AfC, and moved into the main space by the author. Moving it back to drafts now would achieve... what, exactly?". Buddy, since moving I extended the article by 12 references (third party significant coverage reliable sources) on 4 different topics. Are you lazy even to check it before blame me for nonsense my contribution? So at minimum it worth another one AfC in the Draft. What a hater... Antonio Vinzaretti (talk) 16:36, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I think you would do well to stop WP:BLUDGEONING the discussion and start coming up with some policy-based arguments instead.
    The reason why the earlier AfDs are relevant is that this subject has been discussed twice quite recently, and on both occasions found non-notable. Therefore the onus is on you to come up with something that clearly demonstrates notability. You couldn't demonstrate that at AfC, and to instead bring this 3rd AfD is bordering on WP:TENDENTIOUS. The AfD department is busy enough as it is, and we shouldn't be litigating the same subject over and over unless there's reasonable cause. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 18:42, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It has reasons, cause if you take a look properly you will notice that article has changed. Or I do changes for myself lol? So I repeat question, If my further articles on KuCoin, WhiteBIT, Qmall, MEXC, any other exchanges has previous AfD, so I should'nt spend my time on develop articles? Looks like I shoud'nt cause you again refer me to 1st and 2nd AfD which has no connection to my article if you take a look on the content. Sounds like I in wrong place. Sorry for WP:BLUDGEONING, but you just refer us to AfD (which is nonsense now) and evade do reviewer's work proreply. Antonio Vinzaretti (talk) 19:21, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete and enhance with cobalt salt. Acknowledging our social policies, there still comes a time where patience wears thin. Let us not have a 4th nom for 5 and a half years. Alpha3031 (t • c) 13:35, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Citations 5, 16 and 30 are green, so considered reliable, but I'd only consider source 5 as extensive, non-PR text. Rest is about routine funding. All I can find are PR items. Oaktree b (talk) 13:51, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, just look at the two earlier AfD nominations. There are also a few reliable sources, but the rest are all promotional. HarukaAmaranth 春香 16:31, 22 December 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! 06:13, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Academic history[edit]

Academic 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)
  • Delete Reads more like an opinionated essay with no notable sources. Conceptually an "Academic history" may exist but is it even notable? Tooncool64 (talk) 07:08, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academic journals and History. Deltaspace42 (talk • contribs) 07:58, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Unsourced since 2007. As "academic" and "history" and even the combination "academic history" are very common terms, I don't even see how one could search for sources. And as the nom says, this reads like "an opinionated essay". Unless some history specialist knows of some sources that show the notability of this concept, we should get rid of this. --Randykitty (talk) 10:11, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unsourced and appears to just have flown under the radar. Dr vulpes (💬 • 📝) 10:21, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as failing GNG for lack of RS and V. Tagging for 16 years has not led to additional sourcing and OR remains after 14 years of tagging, so Draftify and other AtDs do not appear to be viable options. Cheers, Last1in (talk) 15:00, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    This demonstrates more the uselessness of such tags than the non-notability or -verifiability of the article. Srnec (talk) 18:15, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It's an unsourced essay, not an article. Banks Irk (talk) 17:23, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • The topic of academic history—i.e., history as taught and practised in academia—is a notable topic. This article is such a poor start, however, that WP:TNT applies. Delete. Srnec (talk) 18:15, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: In agreement with Tooncool64, Randykitty, and Banks Irk, it is currently an unsourced essay, doubtfully one that can be fixed. XxTechnicianxX (talk) 20:00, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- I agree with views expressed above. There is a variety of history (or perhaps historiography) that is more about discussing and reviewing the ideas of historians than about recounting what happened. However that is not he subject of this article. Possibly redirect to historiography. Peterkingiron (talk) 11:32, 24 December 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! 06:13, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Madiha (singer)[edit]

Madiha (singer) (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 seem to meet the criteria of WP:SINGER. Steven Walling • talk 06:56, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus‎ to delete, but consensus to do something - most likely some significant editing via collaboration and talk page discussion, and potentially having a conversation on the talk page of a rename and/or refocus for the article. Daniel (talk) 00:55, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Azerbaijani-Mongolian cultural relations[edit]

Azerbaijani-Mongolian cultural relations (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 is one big WP:OR mess. Not sure where even to start.

This article is named "Azerbaijani-Mongolian cultural relations", yet talks about Turks (which is a huge group, Turkic peoples) the vast majority of the time, which makes sense, considering the Azerbaijanis were not even close to forming an ethnonym at this time (we're talking multiple centuries here). The article quite bizarrely tries to claim all Turks in the area and period as "Azerbaijani", which is pure historical revisionism. This is not surprising, considering the article was translated from the Azerbaijani Wikipedia (where even the ancient Manneans [50] are claimed as "Turks" in "Azerbaijani" land), literally a mirror of all the historical revisionism/negationism campaigned by the government of Azerbaijan and its predecessor governments, all the way to the early Soviet era. Wikipedia even has an article and a whole section dedicated to it Historical_negationism#Azerbaijan and Falsification of history in Azerbaijan.

The article also uses the irredentist term "South Azerbaijan", also part of the same historical revisionism. It also cites a lot of "sources" published in Azerbaijan, which are not WP:RS, as the country is notorious in scholarship for campaigning for this kind of historical revisionism/negationism.

Sources that are actually WP:RS such as the Yarshater citation is used to mention info about the Turks in the Ilkhanate army, which is indeed mentioned in the source, but what does it have to do with the Azerbaijanis? Nothing.

Besides the two articles I just mentioned, there are countless other sources (listed down below) which also report on the Azerbaijanis not being an ethnonym at this time (first really started emerging in 1918 and the 1930s with that name and the identity they have today) and the historical revisionism/negationism heavily pushed by Azerbaijan since Soviet times. This is unanimous in scholarship. HistoryofIran (talk) 21:32, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The ethnonym Azerbaijani
  • "Russian sources cited in this study refer to the Turkish-speaking Muslims (Shi’a and Sunni) as “Tatars” or, when coupled with the Kurds (except the Yezidis), as “Muslims.” The vast majority of the Muslim population of the province was Shi’a. Unlike the Armenians and Georgians, the Tatars did not have their own alphabet and used the Arabo-Persian script. After 1918, and especially during the Soviet era, this group identified itself as Azerbaijani." -- Bournoutian, George (2018). Armenia and Imperial Decline: The Yerevan Province, 1900-1914. Routledge. p. 35 (note 25).
  • "The third major nation in South Caucasia,19 the Azerbaijanis, hardly existed as an ethnic group, let alone a nation, before the twentieth century. The inhabitants of the territory now occupied by Azerbaijan defined themselves as Muslims, members of the Muslim umma; or as Turks, members of a language group spread over a vast area of Central Asia; or as Persians (the founder of Azerbaijani literature, Mirza Fath’ Ali Akhundzadä, described himself as ‘almost Persian’). ‘Azerbaijani identity remained fluid and hybrid’ comments R. G. Suny (1999–2000: 160). As late as 1900, the Azerbaijanis remained divided into six tribal groups – the Airumy, Karapapakh, Pavlari, Shakhsereny, Karadagtsy and Afshavy. The key period of the formation of the Azerbaijani nation lies between the 1905 revolution and the establishment of the independent People’s Republic of Azerbaijan in 1918 (Altstadt, 1992: 95)." -- Ben Fowkes (2002). Ethnicity and Conflict in the Post-Communist World. Palgrave Macmillan. p. 14
  • "As hinted earlier, the history of Azerbaijan and of the growth of an Azerbaijani ethnie is more problematic than the other two cases. The lack of a clear way of differentiating between the various Turkic languages spoken and written in medieval and early modern times is one of the difficulties. Another is the absence until the twentieth century of an Azerbaijani state." -- idem, p. 35
  • "In the case of the third major ethnic group of South Caucasus, the Azerbaijanis, the path towards nationhood was strewn with obstacles. First, there was uncertainty about Azerbaijani ethnic identity, which was a result of the influence of Azerbaijan’s many and varied pre-Russian conquerors, starting with the Arabs in the mid-seventh century and continuing with the Saljuq Turks, the Mongols, the Ottoman Turks and the Iranians. Hence the relatively small local intelligentsia wavered between Iranian, Ottoman, Islamic, and pan-Turkic orientations. Only a minority supported a specifically Azerbaijani identity, as advocated most prominently by Färidun bäy Köchärli." -- idem, p. 68
  • "Azerbaijani national identity emerged in post-Persian Russian-ruled East Caucasia at the end of the nineteenth century, and was finally forged during the early Soviet period." -- Gasimov, Zaur (2022). "Observing Iran from Baku: Iranian Studies in Soviet and Post-Soviet Azerbaijan". Iranian Studies. 55 (1): page 37
  • "In fact, the change in defining national identity in Azerbaijan was a result of a combination of developments in the 1930s in Turkey, Iran, Germany, and the Soviet Union. The article concludes that these developments left Soviet rulers no choice but to construct an independent Azerbaijani identity." -- Harun Yilmaz (2013). "The Soviet Union and the Construction of Azerbaijani National Identity in the 1930s". Iranian Studies. 46 (4). p. 511
  • "A group of Azerbaijani nationalist elites, led by M.A. Rasulzada, declared independence for the Azerbaijan Democratic Republic (ADR) on 28 May 1918. After a century of Russian colonial rule, the emergent Azerbaijani nation established its first nation-state. Not only was it a new state but also it was a new nation. Because they previously had lacked a distinct national identity, the Azerbaijani Turks had been called “Caucasian Muslims” or “Tatars,” a common term used for the subject Muslim population in the Tsarist Russian empire (Мишиjeв, 1987, p. 159). The Azerbaijani identity and nation were new constructions of nationalists of the late 19th century, culminating in the establishment of the ADR." Ahmadoghlu, R. Secular nationalist revolution and the construction of the Azerbaijani identity, nation and state. Nations and Nationalism. 2021; 27. Wiley Online Library. p. 549
  • "Azerbaijan first tried to create a national identity in 1918 at the time of the formation of the first Azerbaijan republic. Because of linguistic factors and despite its deep and long connection with Iran, Azerbaijan constructed its identity on the basis of Turkism and even pan-Turkism." Eldar Mamedov (2017). The New Geopolitics of the South Caucasus: Prospects for Regional Cooperation and Conflict Resolution: Azerbaijan Twenty-Five Years after Independence: Accomplishments and Shortcomings. Edited by Shireen Hunter. Lexington Books. p. 29
  • "In the pre-national era, both north and the south of the Aras River (Shervan, Mughan, Qarabagh, and Azerbaijan) were provinces, akin to Lorestan or Khorasan of an all-Iranian imperial structure. Following the Russian conquest of the Turkic-speaking regions in the South Caucasus in the nineteenth century, a thin layer of intelligentsia emerged in Baku and began discussing the characteristics of a distinct Azerbaijani identity. The Republic of Azerbaijan was established in May 1918 by the same elite. This short experience was abruptly halted when the Red Army occupied Transcaucasia in 1920/21. Subsequently, the Bolsheviks launched their modern, state-driven nation building projects in Azerbaijan, Armenia, and Georgia. Contemporary Azerbaijanis are Turkic-speakers and their national history could be centered on a Turkic ethno-linguistic identity. Nevertheless, for reasons discussed elsewhere, the Bolsheviks did not prefer this solution. The Azerbaijani national identity and historical narrative constructed after 1937 stressed the indigenous nature of the Azerbaijani people and was based on a territorial definition. The territorial approach found support at the highest level—from Joseph Stalin himself." -- Yilmaz, H. (2015). A Family Quarrel: Azerbaijani Historians against Soviet Iranologists. Iranian Studies, 48(5), p. 770
  • "Even as the ethnogenesis of the Azerbaijanis continues to be a matter of academic debate, most scholars agree that Azerbaijan, as a national entity, emerged after 1918, with the declaration of the first Republic of Azerbaijan after Word War I" -- p. 585, Gippert, Jost and Dum-Tragut, Jasmine. Caucasian Albania: An International Handbook, Berlin, Boston: De Gruyter Mouton, 2023.
  • "At the beginning of the 20th century, the heavily used name “Turks” for the Muslims of eastern Caucasus was replaced by the term “Azerbaijani.” It has dominated since the 1930s as a result of the Soviet policy of indigenization, largely promoted by Josef Stalin" - p. 254, After the Soviet Empire. Leiden, The Netherlands: Brill, 05 Oct. 2015.
  • "Besides Azerbaijan, which as a historical territory in the 12th century has been illustrated in the maps of that era as an area in modern northwestern Iran and distinguished from Arrān, we should mention the term “Azerbaijani”. Prior to the late 19th century and early 20th century, the term “Azerbaijani” and “Azerbaijani Turk” had never been used as an ethnonym. Such ethnonyms did not exist. During the 19th century and early 20th century, Russian sources primarily referred to the Turcophone Muslim population as “Tatars” which was a general term that included a variety of Turkish speaker. Under the Mussavatist government, in 1918 and during the establishment of the Democratic Republic of Azerbaijan, the term “Azeri people” referred to all inhabitants while the Turkish-speaking portion was called “Azeri Turk”. Thus the concept of an Azeri identity barely appears at all before 1920 and Azerbaijan before this era had been a simple geographical area." -- pp. 16-17, Lornejad, Siavash; Doostzadeh, Ali (2012). Arakelova, Victoria; Asatrian, Garnik (eds.). On the modern politicization of the Persian poet Nezami Ganjavi (PDF). Caucasian Centre for Iranian Studies.
  • "Until the late 19th and early 20th century it would be unthinkable to refer to the Muslim inhabitants of the Caucasus as Azaris (Azeris) or Azerbaijanis, since the people and the geographical region that bore these names were located to the south of the Araxes River. Therefore, the Iranian intelligentsia raised eyebrows once the independent Republic of Azerbaijan was declared in 1918 just across the Iranian border. - pp. 176-177, Avetikian, Gevorg. "Pān-torkism va Irān [Pan-Turkism and Iran]", Iran and the Caucasus 14, 1 (2010), Brill
Historical negationism/revisionism in Azerbaijan
  • "The republication of classical and medieval sources with omissions, with the replacement of the term "Armenian state" by "Albanian state" and with other distortions of the original manuscripts was another way to play down the Armenian role in early and medieval Transcaucasia. ... The Azeri scholars did all of this by order of the Soviet and Party authorities of Azerbaijan, rather than through free will." Victor Schnirelmann. The Value of the Past: Myths, Identity and Politics in Transcaucasia. Senri Ethnological Studies. pp. 160, 196–97
  • "Bournoutian’s scholarship has always been relevant. However, today it is even more essential as Armenia and Artsakh are facing monumental challenges due to the 2020 Artsakh War. One of these challenges deals with the intentional falsification of Artsakh’s history by Azeri scholars and their acolytes in the West. Bournoutian has been on the forefront of combatting this revisionist history, which has now infiltrated western academia through Azeri-funded centers and thanks to some Western scholars who seem infatuated by the Aliyev regime." -- Bedross Der Matossian, In Memoriam, Dr. George Bournoutian (1943–2021)
  • "Scholars should be on guard when using Soviet and post-Soviet Azeri editions of Azeri, Persian, and even Russian and Western European sources printed in Baku. These have been edited to remove references to Armenians and have been distributed in large numbers in recent years. When utilizing such sources, the researchers should seek out pre-Soviet editions wherever possible." -- Robert Hewsen. Armenia: A Historical Atlas. University of Chicago Press, 2001. p. 291
  • "It should be noted that such falsifications with regards to the regional history of Iranians and other groups, to the point of denial and falsification of their history (e.g. denial of Armenian, Greek and Assyrian genocides due to modern Turkic nationalism or claims that many Iranian figures and societies starting from the Medes, Scythians and Parthians were Turks), are still prevalent in countries that adhere to Pan-Turkist nationalism such as Turkey and the republic of Azerbaijan. These falsifications, which are backed by state and state backed non-governmental organizational bodies, range from elementary school all the way to the highest level of universities in these countries. Due to prevalent political situation in the world, where historical truths are sacrificed for political and financial reasons, falsification of history has even reached some authors who claim affiliation with Western academia as noted in the Part I of this book and exposed in other books such as Vyronis 1993. Another recent example was the desecration of Armenian monuments in Nakhjavan." -- Lornejad, Siavash; Doostzadeh, Ali (2012). Arakelova, Victoria; Asatrian, Garnik (eds.). On the modern politicization of the Persian poet Nezami Ganjavi (PDF). Caucasian Centre for Iranian Studies. p. 85 (note 277).
  • "Azeri scholars, until some two decades ago, did not deny the historic Armenian presence in Mountainous Karabagh. In fact, the works of Mirza Jamal,'Mirza Adigozal Beg, Ahmad Beg, and Bakikhanov, mentioning an Armenian presence in the region, were printed in Baku. Everything tumed upside down in 1988, following the demands of the Armenians of Mountainous Karabagh to secede from Azerbaijan. Azeri politicians, journalists, and, as will be demonstrated below, even academics, in order to justify their government's anti-Armenian actions in Mountainous Karabagh, avowed that the region was never part of historic Armenia and that the Armenians of Mountainous Karabagh were newcomers who had gradually arrived there only after 1828." -- Bournoutian, George (2011). The 1823 Russian Survey of the Karabagh Province. A Primary Source on the Demography and Economy of Karabagh in the First Half of the 19th Century. Mazda Publishers. p. 427
  • "A more recent revisionist view claims that in the nineteenth century Russia and Iran conspired to divide Azerbaijan between themselves. Considering that Iran fought two devastating wars with Russia (1803–1813 and 1824–1828), the idea of a Russo-Iranian conspiracy against Azerbaijan is totally absurd. However, this is exactly what the Azerbaijani nationalist poet Bakhtiar Vahabzadeh claims in his poem titled “Gulistan.” The poem refers to the 1813 Treaty of Golistan, according to which Iran lost part of its Transcaucasian possessions to Russia. This view is now widely accepted by Azerbaijani nationalists. The result has been that Azerbaijan’s post-Soviet national identity is not only Turko-centric but also very much anti-Iran. In many ways, it has been developed in opposition to Iran as “the other,” not only as a state but also as a culture and historical entity. Being Azerbaijani has come to mean denying any Iran connection." Eldar Mamedov (2017). The New Geopolitics of the South Caucasus: Prospects for Regional Cooperation and Conflict Resolution: Azerbaijan Twenty-Five Years after Independence: Accomplishments and Shortcomings. Lexington Books. p. 31
  • "This certainly is the case with Zia Bunyatov, who has made an incomplete and defective Russian translation of Bakikhanov's text. Not only has he not translated any of the poems in the text, but he does not even mention that he has not done so, while he does not translate certain other prose parts of the text without indicating this and why. This is in particular disturbing because he suppresses, for example, the mention of territory inhabited by Armenians, thus not only falsifying history, but also not respecting Bakikhanov's dictum that a historian should write without prejudice, whether religious, ethnic, political or otherwise. [...] Guilistam-i Iram translated with commentary by Ziya M. Bunyatov (Baku. 1991), p.11, where the translator has deleted the words 'and Armenia' from the text, which shows, as indicated in the introduction, that his translation should be used with circumspection, because this is not the only example of omissions from Bakikhanov's text." -- pp. xvi and 5. The Heavenly Rose-Garden: A History of Shirvan & Daghestan. pp. xvi, 5. Willem M. Floor and Hasan Javadi
  • "The young Azeri's seemingly innocuous, abstract archaeological paper was a deliberate political provocation: all the crosses on today's territory of Azerbaijan, including significantly Nagorno-Karabagh and Nakhichevan, were defined as Albanian, a people who in turn were seen as the direct ancestors of today's Azeris. // The rest, as they say, is history. The Armenian archaeologists were upset and threatened to walk out en bloc. Protests were filed, and even Russian scholars from Leningrad objected to this blatantly political appropriation, posing as scholarship. [...] // Thus, minimally, two points must be made. Patently false cultural origin myths are not always harmless." -- p. 154, Philip L. Kohl (1996). Nationalism, politics, and the practice of archaeology. Cambridge University Press
  • "In the Republic of Azerbaijan, the long Soviet practice of historic falsification has left a legacy which has distorted both the views of many Azerbaijanis of Iran and the true nature of their cultural, ethnic and historic connections. The following are some examples of this process of falsification, which, incidentally, in the last few years, has been picked up and given new credence by a number of Western commentators. Several myths with significant policy implications shape the Azerbaijanis' views of their country, its origins, and its relations to Iran." -- p. 106, Shireen Hunter (1998). Shireen Hunter: Iran and Transcaucasia in the Post-Soviet Era. Routledge.
  • "As noted, in order to construct an Azerbaijani national history and identity based on the territorial definition of a nation, as well as to reduce the influence of Islam and Iran, the Azeri nationalists, prompted by Moscow devised an "Azeri" alphabet, which replaced the Arabo-Persian script. In the 1930s a number of Soviet historians, including the prominent Russian Orientalist, Ilya Petrushevskii, were instructed by the Kremlin to accept the totally unsubstantiated notion that the territory of the former Iranian khanates (except Yerevan, which had become Soviet Armenia) was part of an Azerbaijani nation. Petrushevskii's two important studies dealing with the South Caucasus, therefore, use the term Azerbaijan and Azerbaijani in his works on the history of the region from the sixteenth to the nineteenth centuries. Other Russian academics went even further and claimed that an Azeri nation had existed from ancient times and had continued to the present. Since all the Russian surveys and almost all nineteenth-century Russian primary sources referred to the Muslims who resided in the South Caucasus as "Tatars" and not "Azerbaijanis", Soviet historians simply substituted Azerbaijani for Tatars. Azeri historians and writers, starting in 1937, followed suit and began to view the three-thousand-year history of the region as that of Azerbaijan. The pre-Iranian, Iranian, and Arab eras were expunged. Anyone who lived in the territory of Soviet Azerbaijan was classified as Azeri; hence the great Iranian poet Nezami, who had written only in Persian, became the national poet of Azerbaijan." -- p. xvi. Bournoutian, George (2016). The 1820 Russian Survey of the Khanate of Shirvan: A Primary Source on the Demography and Economy of an Iranian Province prior to its Annexation by Russia. Gibb Memorial Trust.
  • "In fact, after Stalin’s failure to annex Iranian Azarbayjan in 1946, Soviet historians not only proclaimed that the khanates were never part of Iran and were independent entities, but began (and have continued to do so after 1991) to refer to Iranian Azarbayjan as south Azerbaijan, which had been separated from north Azerbaijan, see V. Leviatov, Ocherki iz istorii Azerbaidzhana v XVIII veke (Baku, 1948). Such absurd notions are completely negated by Article III of the Golestan Treaty and Article I of the treaties between Russia and the khans of Qarabagh, Shakki and Shirvan; see Appendix 4." -- Bournoutian, George (2021). "Georgia and the Khanates of South Caucasus in the Second Half of the Eighteenth Century" in From the Kur to the Aras: A Military History of Russia’s Move into the South Caucasus and the First Russo-Iranian War, 1801-1813. Brill. p. 249 (note 4)"
  • "In a book by Aziz Alakbarli, published by the Ministry of Culture and Tourism of the Republic of Azerbaijan in 2007 – and no less edited by Academician Budag Badagov, Prof. Vali Aliyev and Dr. Jafar Giyassi of the Azerbaijan National Academy of Sciences – the entire territory of the current Republic of Armenia is presented as Western Azerbaijan. The Monuments of Western Azerbaijan, reprinted several times in recent years and in different languages, opens with “The map [of ] the Ancient Turkish-Oghuz land – Western Azerbaijan (present day the Republic of Armenia)” [sic!]. According to this “study”, endorsed by the Azerbaijan Academy of Sciences, all monuments in Armenia are of “Turkic”, “Turkish” or “Arman-Turkish” origin, including the first-century Roman Temple of Garni, “referring to ancient Gargar Turks” [sic!], and the Cathedral of the Holy See of the Armenian Apostolic Church as a 7th-century “Arman-Turkish Christian temple Uchkilsa/Echmiadzin”.19 This kind of re-writing of “history” is based solely on sources produced by Azerbaijani authors, notably prominent academician and national figure Ziya Buniyatov, whom President Heydar Aliyev described as “the constructor of our identity and self-consciousness”.20 This constructed narrative is echoed in the political discourse of President Aliyev and is woven into state policies, diplomacy, public relations, identity construction and, critically, in the construction of extreme anti-Armenianism in Azerbaijan. -- pp. 586–587, Gippert, Jost and Dum-Tragut, Jasmine. Caucasian Albania: An International Handbook, Berlin, Boston: De Gruyter Mouton, 2023.
  • "From the mid-2000s the notion of western Azerbaijan converged with revived interest in the khanates in a wide-ranging fetishisation of the Erivan (Irevan) khanate as a historically Azerbaijani entity. Covering some 7,500 square kilometres and most of present-day Armenia (if not exactly coextensive with it), the Erivan khanate has undergone the same kind of transformations as Caucasian Albania before it. Contemporary Azerbaijani historiography depicts the Erivan khanate as an ‘Azerbaijani state’, populated by autochthonous Azerbaijani Turks and sacralised as the burial ground of semi-mythological figures from the Turkic pantheon.73 ‘Azerbaijani Turk’ and ‘Muslim’ are used interchangeably in this literature, although contemporary demographic surveys differentiate the latter into Persians, Shia and Sunni Kurds and Turkic tribes.74 Emulating the nationalist scientism of Samvel Karapetyan, catalogues of lost Azerbaijani heritage depict a Turkic palimpsest beneath almost every monument and religious site in Armenia – whether Christian or Muslim." p. 117, Broers, Laurence (2019). Armenia and Azerbaijan: Anatomy of a Rivalry. Edinburgh University Press.
The toponym Azerbaijan
  • "The name Azarbaijan is a pre-Islamic Persian name for a pre-Islamic province south of the River Aras. “Azarbaijan” was not used in any definite or clear manner for the area north of the River Aras in the pre- modern period. In some instances, the name Azarbaijan was used in a manner that included the Aran region immediately to the north of the River Aras, but this was rather an exception. The adoption of this name for the area north of the River Aras was by the nationalist, Baku-based Mosavat government (1918–20) and was later retained by the Soviet Union." p. 16 - Behrooz, Maziar (2023). Iran at War: Interactions with the Modern World and the Struggle with Imperial Russia. I.B. Tauris
  • "In fact, in medieval times the name ‘Azerbaijan’ was applied not to the area of present independent Azerbaijan but to the lands to the south of the Araxes river, now part of Iran. The lands to the north west of the Araxes were known as Albania; the lands to the north east, the heart of present-day post-Soviet Azerbaijan, were known as Sharvan (or Shirwan) and Derbend." p. 30, Fowkes, B. (2002). Ethnicity and Ethnic Conflict in the Post-Communist World. Springer.
  • "The adoption of the name “Azerbaijan” in 1918 by the Mussavatist government for classical Caucasian Albania (Arrān and Sharvān) was due to political reasons28. For example, the giant orientalist of the early 20th century, Vasily Barthold has stated: “… whenever it is necessary to choose a name that will encompass all regions of the republic of Azerbaijan, the name Arrān can be chosen. But the term Azerbaijan was chosen because when the Azerbaijan republic was created, it was assumed that this and the Persian Azerbaijan will be one entity, because the population of both has a big similarity. On this basis, the word Azerbaijan was chosen. Of course right now when the word Azerbaijan is used, it has two meanings as Persian Azerbaijan and as a republic, it’s confusing and a question rises as to which Azerbaijan is being talked about”. In the post-Islamic sense, Arrān and Sharvān are often distinguished while in the pre-Islamic era, Arrān or the Western Caucasian Albania roughly corresponds to the modern territory of republic of Azerbaijan. In the Soviet era, in a breathtaking manipulation, historical Azerbaijan (NW Iran) was reinterpreted as “South Azerbaijan” in order for the Soviets to lay territorial claim on historical Azerbaijan proper which is located in modern Northwestern Iran". p. 10, Lornejad, Siavash; Doostzadeh, Ali (2012). Arakelova, Victoria; Asatrian, Garnik (eds.). On the modern politicization of the Persian poet Nezami Ganjavi (PDF). Caucasian Centre for Iranian Studies.
  • "The case of Azerbaijan is interesting in several aspects. The geographical name “Azerbaijan” for the territory where the Republic of Azerbaijan is now situated, as well as the ethnic name for the Caucasian Turks, “Azerbaijani,” were coined in the beginning of the 10th century. The name Azerbaijan, which implies the lands located north of the Aras River, is a duplicate of the historical region of Azerbaijan (it is the arabized version of the name of a historical region of Atropatena) which is the north-western region of Iran. After the proclamation of the first Republic of Azerbaijan in 1918, the Turkish army invaded the Caucasus, and the name “Azerbaijan” was offered by a young Turkish regime to the Turkish-speaking territory" p. 253, After the Soviet Empire. Leiden, The Netherlands: Brill, 05 Oct. 2015.
  • "The Ottoman Turks coveted Iran’s province of Azerbaijan. Therefore following the Bolshevik revolution, in 1918 installed a pro-Turkish government in Baku and named it after the Iranian province of Azerbaijan" - p. xvii, The New Geopolitics of the South Caucasus: Prospects for Regional Cooperation and Conflict Resolution (Contemporary Central Asia: Societies, Politics, and Cultures), Lexington Books, Shireen Hunter
  • "Until 1918, when the Musavat regime decided to name the newly independent state Azerbaijan, this designation had been used exclusively to identify the Iranian province of Azerbaijan." - p. 60, Dekmejian, R. Hrair; Simonian, Hovann H. (2003). Troubled Waters: The Geopolitics of the Caspian Region. I.B. Tauris.
  • "The region to the north of the river Araxes was not called Azerbaijan prior to 1918, unlike the region in northwestern Iran that has been called since so long ago." p. 356, Rezvani, Babak (2014). Ethno-territorial conflict and coexistence in the caucasus, Central Asia and Fereydan: academisch proefschrift. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press
  • "The name Azerbaijan was also adopted for Arrān, historically an Iranian region, by anti-Russian separatist forces of the area when, on 26 May 1918, they declared its independence and called it the Democratic Republic of Azerbaijan. To allay Iranian concerns, the Azerbaijan government used the term “Caucasian Azerbaijan” in the documents for circulation abroad." - Multiple Authors, Encyclopaedia Iranica
  • "Originally the term Azerbaijan was the name of the Iranian historical province Adarbaigan, or Azarbaijan (from older Aturpatakan) in the north-west of the country. This term, as well as its respective derivative, Azari (or, in Turkish manner, Azeri), as “ethnonym”, was not applied to the territory north of Arax (i.e. the area of the present-day Azerbaijan Republic, former Arran and Shirvan) and its inhabitants up until the establishment of the Musavat regime in that territory (1918-1920)." - p. 85, note 1, Morozova, I. (2005). Contemporary Azerbaijani Historiography on the Problem of "Southern Azerbaijan" after World War II, Iran and the Caucasus, 9(1)
  • "Until the late 19th and early 20th century it would be unthinkable to refer to the Muslim inhabitants of the Caucasus as Azaris (Azeris) or Azerbaijanis, since the people and the geographical region that bore these names were located to the south of the Araxes River. Therefore, the Iranian intelligentsia raised eyebrows once the independent Republic of Azerbaijan was declared in 1918 just across the Iranian border. - pp. 176-177, Avetikian, Gevorg. "Pān-torkism va Irān [Pan-Turkism and Iran]", Iran and the Caucasus 14, 1 (2010), Brill
  • Keep and modify/rename. Since I am not the author of the article, but the translator, I asked from the original author on the other wiki. Now I see he's not allowed to edit here. If the naming is problem then we can rename it something like to "Turko-Mongolian cultural relations in Azerbaijan (area)" or "Turko-Mongoloan cultural relations in Caucasian and Iranian Azerbaijan" etc.
About the term "South Azerbaijan", to be honest I don't know how is it considered as irredentism, but anyway, I don't think it's a big deal. We can simply replace the term to "Iranian Azerbaijan".
About the concerns on a specific article in azwiki. To be honest I don't know what to do with this information. I just took a look, and it just says opinions of some authors. I didn't find the claim. Even if there's one, it's not related to our current topic.
Lastly, nominator didn't mention which sources are unreliable and why. And the sources are being published in a specific country doesn't make them unreliable. There's not such thing in WP:RS.
Conclusion: the article is huge and it has lots reliable sources (14 books, and tons of citations) including books by Mehmet Fuat Koprulu and Zeki Velidi Togan. It would be a big mistake to delete such a big article. It just needs to be renamed and modified. Peace out. Aredoros87 (talk) 12:22, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"If the naming is problem then we can rename it something like to "Turko-Mongolian cultural relations in Azerbaijan (area)" or "Turko-Mongoloan cultural relations in Caucasian and Iranian Azerbaijan" etc.
As mentioned, naming is just one of the issues, and your proposals aren't an improvement. Azerbaijan was not a nation at this time (and not used as a name in the Caucasus), and Azerbaijanis were not an ethnonym, this is unanimous in scholarship.
"Lastly, nominator didn't mention which sources are unreliable and why. And the sources are being published in a specific country doesn't make them unreliable. There's not such thing in WP:RS."
But I literally did, and with tons of proof a that. Wikipedia is not a place to sponsor historical revisionism/negationism.
"I asked from the original author on the other wiki. Now I see he's not allowed to edit here."
Even more concerning that the original author is indeffed here. HistoryofIran (talk) 13:49, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- I agree with nearly all of the points raised in the nom, but not with the conclusion. WP:DINC applies, as there is a clear body of scholarly work, much of it cited in the article and more in gScholar. The problem is that the article is a hot mess, from the title on down. Replace the admittedly ludicrous 'Azerbaijani' focus with the actual RS scholarship (Turkic peoples), and I believe there is a good article underneath. I think it needs to be renamed, stripped down, and substantially rewritten, but all three of those things can only happen if we keep the article. Cheers, Last1in (talk) 14:19, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for your input. Would it not be better for this article to get drafted then? We're basically talking a whole different article here. HistoryofIran (talk) 14:49, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I could support Draftify as an AtD, but what would be wrong with fixing these problems on the Talk and having more editors swarm the problem? The power of crowdsourcing article improvement is one of the reasons for WP:DINC and the extremely aggressive WP:BEFORE requirements, and it is a central question in the WP:ZEAL essay. Cheers, Last1in (talk) 16:29, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: per Last1in. This isn't so bad that it can't be cleaned up through collaborating on the talk page. Regarding renaming, I think that can be done boldly and then via RM if someone challenges the move. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:49, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Even though consensus to keep seems apparent at a glance, comment posters have expressed sufficient diversity in opinions regarding the nature of the keep that further discussion seems useful. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 05:34, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: As above.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seraphimblade Talk to me 02:09, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Article has a lot of text and notable sources. बिनोद थारू (talk) 05:24, 22 December 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. The analysis of sources indicates that no given source provides significant coverage as required for notability, and this is not substantially refuted. Seraphimblade Talk to me 02:04, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Gaby Jallo[edit]

Gaby Jallo (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 fails WP:GNG. Simione001 (talk) 23:22, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your standards seem different from other Wikipedians. Please also make note of this. More AfDs is usually not better. gidonb (talk) 13:30, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
How so? The standards are clear. Simione001 (talk) 21:49, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
See also below. gidonb (talk) 10:42, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure what i'm supposed to be seeing... Simione001 (talk) 01:07, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, passes GNG with significant coverage.--Ortizesp (talk) 07:53, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It's has been proven there are multiple online sources, although weak in nature, they do build a picture when combined. Govvy (talk) 08:44, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Really? I haven't seen anyway. The picture is of poor quality. Simione001 (talk) 11:07, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. 1 has two sentences of primary coverage about how Jallo "changed his mind" about "scolding" a referee Red XN. 2 is two sentences on the same event plus video and interview Red XN. 3, 5, 7, 9 are pure routine transactional coverage Red XN. 4 is pure routine transfer coverage + quotes from his coach and him Red XN. 6 is almost entirely quotes from Jallo Red XN. 8 has one sentence of injury updates on him Red XN. 10 is a routine, trivial suspension announcement Red XN. 11 is a pseudonymously-published transactional blurb that has all of this to say about Jallo: Due to injuries, La'Vere Corbin-Ong and Joey Groenbast are currently unavailable at Go Ahead, which means the club is urgently looking for a new left back. This could possibly be Gaby Jallo. The former player of FC Twente, Heracles Almelo, Willem II and FC Emmen is currently on trial in Deventer. The defender is transfer-free. Red XN. Literally nothing approaching SIGCOV, which is required for sports bios.
JoelleJay (talk) 02:41, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
For the sources in the article:
1 has a couple quotes from him Red XN. 2 is a routine transactional announcement with zero secondary analysis Red XN. 3 is a routine update with all of this to say about Jallo: Defender Jallo of FC Emmen is a doubt for the away match against the number 2 of the League tonight. The left back was taken off early in the 4-2 win against Jong Ajax on Friday evening and subsequently did not train with the group. Red XN 4 is his name in a list Red XN. 5 = 6 from above. 6 is the closest to SIGCOV, but is still mostly the author repeating what Jallo says in the interview, similar to #5 (from the same outlet, so not separate sources anyway). 7 = 1 from above. 8 is a passing routine injury report Red XN. 9 is routine transactional reporting (contract and injury update) + quotes Red XN.
WP:HEY doesn't count if the expansion is from trivial and routine mentions. The subject still needs to actually meet GNG. JoelleJay (talk) 19:01, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Subject does not meet the WP:GNG due to a lack of independent WP:SIGCOV. There are no guidelines saying an athlete is notable simply for appearing in a certain number of matches. Concur with the source analysis provided by JoelleJay. User:Let'srun 17:44, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:47, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Upon evaluating the sources presented, it is clear that the subject, Jallo, does not meet the general notability guideline (WP:GNG). The sources provided fail to offer significant coverage (WP:SIGCOV) and do not establish the subject's notability independently (WP:INDY). The majority of the sources are routine coverage of sports transactions, which do not contribute to notability as per WP:ROUTINE. The lack of in-depth coverage from reliable secondary sources (WP:SECONDARY) that are independent of the subject further undermines the case for notability.
As @JoelleJay mentioned, I don't think the mere number of appearances in professional games is not a standalone criterion for notability under Wikipedia's notability guidelines for sports figures WP:NSPORTS. Notability requires significant coverage in reliable sources that goes beyond mere statistics and databases. The current sources do not provide the substantive and detailed coverage required to satisfy WP:GNG.
In accordance with Wikipedia's policy on verifiability WP:V and the avoidance of original research WP:NOR, an article must demonstrate notability and information based on reliable, published sources. The references cited for Jallo do not meet these standards. Therefore, I think this article should be deleted as it stands – with possibility of re-creation should future coverage or WP:RS establish the subject's notability unequivocally. PD Slessor (talk) 00:01, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There is significant coverage of this person, as evidenced. GiantSnowman 19:43, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per SIGCOV as identified by GiantSnowman, which is enough to pass GNG. 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. There is enough non-trivial coverage here to put together a GNG pass. Frank Anchor 20:03, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Sources must also be secondary and pass NOTNEWS. Routine coverage, even when in-depth, does not meet those standards. JoelleJay (talk) 06:26, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
JoelleJay, why do you claim that this source has only two sentences of coverage and that this coverage is primary? gidonb (talk) 04:39, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A striking match during the match between AZ and Willem II on Saturday evening. Willem II player Gaby Jallo wanted to scold the linesman, but changed his mind. That had everything to do with the week that was dominated by the tragic death of linesman Richard Nieuwenhuizen.
Jallo did not agree with a decision by the linesman and wanted to make this known to him. Until he changed his mind and wanted to make a statement. "I wanted to show my emotion, but I held back. Of course that is difficult, but sometimes you have to use your mind. A linesman does not simply give the ball to an opponent through a protest."
Professional football observed the death of linesman Richard Nieuwenhuizen by observing a minute's silence before the start of all matches. Nieuwenhuizen died when he was attacked by young football players after an amateur match. As a result, all matches in amateur football this weekend were cancelled.

The coverage of Jallo is bolded. The latter two sentences are just regurgitating what Jallo said in the quote, and the first sentence is even more regurgitation. There is zero secondary contribution. JoelleJay (talk) 22:44, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, so now it is not two sentences but three sentences. That's 150% of the claim in your comprehensive review! And is that really all? Does the name Jallo really have to appear in each sentence in order for the coverage to be about him? The word "that", for example, clearly refers to Gaby Jallo not agreeing with a linesman decision and then changing his mind. This entire article is about Gaby Jallo and includes background. Not a different topic. You introduced very nice graphics to this page (kudos for that!), pulled people behind you with a -sorry I have to say this- imprecise presentation, and now a player who is a minority within a minority in the Netherlands can't be kept, like other players with far less games? That would be a very sad result of your imprecise analysis! gidonb (talk) 01:17, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Each article is judged on its own merit. Simione001 (talk) 01:58, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! This merit was unjustifiably discounted! Plus to know a bit of context hasn't yet hurt anyone. gidonb (talk) 02:04, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In this case the article doesnt pass WP:GNG. Sounds like another case of WP:ILIKEIT. Simione001 (talk) 08:16, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No, the problem here is that the sources were misvalued. The article deserves to be kept on its merits. I also have a question for you. Why did you start this AfD exactly 1 minute after you created the previous one, with almost no rationale, and now argue under already the opinions of three keep-sayers? Is that perhaps what Giant meant? gidonb (talk) 08:27, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, Simione clearly made zero effort to locate sources before nominating for deletion. GiantSnowman 11:58, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The spacing between nomination's doesnt prove anything, your purely speculatiing and in any case its not relevant anyway. The fact is that the article doesnt pass WP:GNG which was the original basis for the nomination. Simione001 (talk) 12:23, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The latter two "sentences" operate grammatically as one sentence, and the first sentence is a summary of them that provides zero additional info. Really I should have said we functionally have one sentence of coverage. And where exactly is this "background" on Jallo? What can we say about Jallo from that source? A couple sentences describing the death of a completely different person is not coverage of Jallo at all. Literally all we have is that he initially approached a ref to complain about a call, and then decided not to pursue it, and this action happened during a brief period of heightened awareness over ref treatment so a couple outlets noted it. This incident that generated at most 3 sentences mentioning Jallo has not been discussed whatsoever in the 11 years since. It's trivia. JoelleJay (talk) 20:10, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not speculating. I'm stating facts. Your entire - repetitive - defense under already three keep-sayers completely collapsed. If you had taken more than a minute you wouldn't have nominated an article for which it is impossible to write much of an intro and check for sources in one minute, an absolute must by the golden WP:NEXIST rule. Like wisely (!) Joelle, please stop arguing and nominate/analyze better next time. Just follow the rules. If you do, something good would have come out of this AfD debacle! I cannot stress this enough: everyone makes mistakes. It's ok as long as we learn from these. gidonb (talk) 14:09, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Let me get this straight: you're sniffily chastising me for counting Jallo did not agree with a decision by the linesman and wanted to make this known to him. Until he changed his mind and wanted to make a statement. as one sentence, as if that's some egregious delinquency that has misled subsequent !voters. And then you're further implying there's some conscious or unconscious element of racism in my discounting this and the other trivial sources? JoelleJay (talk) 20:36, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No no, the "racism", if this assumption is true at all, would be that of the press that covered him less. Also it's not clear if this should be called racism. A less accusatory way to look at this would be, for example, news consumption with language as a proxy. Hence the quotes. Just relating back to your text. Journalists always had a general idea what people read more and what people read less. Nowadays, with A/B testing, clicking has become science. 100 games in professional football leagues leads in other cases to a HUGE amount of coverage. Plus, in my observation thus far it's not just minorities. Footballers and others from Flevoland (Jallo is not among these) also receive less coverage because of a weaker regional identity culminating in, for example, no major regional press. These are impressions based on previous AfDs and a result of always analyzing data. Right above I said: I'm not speculating. I'm stating facts. It should be clear that this part is quite the opposite. gidonb (talk) 20:56, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You cant make up your own criteria to justify keeping an article. Simione001 (talk) 23:07, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely! That's why I checked that the WP:GNG is met. I gave this much more than a minute ;-) gidonb (talk) 23:10, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Why do you keep repeating yourself? Simione001 (talk) 01:57, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Meanwhile I have added references to the article. It can be kept as WP:HEY. 04:16, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
  • Keep. Clearly notable footballer in the top Dutch League with plenty of coverage in reliable sources. Eluchil404 (talk) 00:44, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 05:34, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - enough sources and coverage to pass WP:GNG. Inter&anthro (talk) 16:35, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I came by expecting to close this as "keep", but the arguments are weak enough that they pushed me to opine instead. The substantive coverage is simply not there, and I don't see a convincing rebuttal to the substance of JoelleJay's source analysis above. Vanamonde (Talk) 05:43, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete JoelleJay's analysis of the sources is excellent, and the attempts to rebut her analysis have only shown how weak they are. The existence of the Dutch Wikipedia article isn't evidence that there's room for improvement rather than deletion, since its sources are also not substantive (3 out of 4 sources are from the football club's official website). – FenixFeather (talk)(Contribs) 11:18, 21 December 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.

Yevgeny Sinyayev[edit]

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure)‎ InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 16:53, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yevgeny Sinyayev (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)

Unable to find coverage which endures notability. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 04:33, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep, nominator did not do WP:BEFORE B7. The Russian Wikipedia article ru:Синяев, Евгений Палладьевич has a wealth of sources and information that should be translated and placed into the English article as appropriate. --Habst (talk) 16:15, 20 December 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. This was a lot of discussion to parse through. But I believe there is a consensus to Delete this article. Liz Read! Talk! 02:16, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Artik[edit]

Battle of Artik (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)

Could find no sources online. It is not clearly in the single reference in the article. The quote is in the reference but not clearly related to Artik. gidonb (talk) 02:51, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I was thinking of a hoax. For example, an "artik" is a popsicle in Hebrew. The links to the article may have been created by the article creator. And even if not a hoax, why couldn't I find sources? Then still nonnotable. gidonb (talk) 05:38, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Nederlandse Leeuw: this is not a covert sollictiation for a !vote. Rather, it is an open (!) sollicitation for an expert opinion. I remember providing input once to your AfD on Turkic history and dynasties. Could you assess the authenticity of this battle? gidonb (talk) 05:57, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for calling this to my attention. I'll have to do some searching and reading first. It is indeed unlikely that "Artik" refers to Artik in present-day Armenia if the location of the battle was the Transcaspian Oblast in present-day Turkmenistan. There is literally a sea between them, and no direct land connection. However, no other "Artik" located in Turkmenistan is listed at Artik (disambiguation) either. Incidentally, the connected article Malleson mission is also poorly sourced, relying heavily on the same source (Sargent 2004), although it does have at least 3 other sources going for it. I'll tag that as more citations needed as well. Okay, now the searching and reading... NLeeuw (talk) 08:43, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We need to get time and place clear. A lot of toponymic spellings are outdated. "On 28 June General Malleson left Simla for Meshed." (Sargent 2004 p. 8). My guess is that these mean Shimla (in present-day Himachal Pradesh, northern India) and Mashhad (in present-day Central Khorasan, northeastern Iran). On 12 July 1918 a Menshevik (anti-Bolshevik) coup happened in Ashkhabad, modern Ashgabat, capital of Turkmenistan. Malleson arrived in Meshed/Mashhad on 16 July. 'On 19 July the military detachment, some 200 strong, left Meshed for Muhammabad, which it reached on 2 August and a platoon moved to Kuchan.' I'm not sure which Muhammabad it is, but it surely isn't Mohammadabad, Ghazipur in India as linked; we're somewhere on the modern Iran-Turkmenistan border between Mashhad and Ashgabat. Most likely it's a village in Central Khorasan, one of these: Mohammadabad#Razavi Khorasan Province. More importantly, I think I've already found our "Artik": Artyk, Turkmenistan (Coordinates: 37°33′17.28″N 59°19′32.5″E), right on the border. NLeeuw (talk) 09:30, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This 2019 research paper by Rakhmtova & Dzhamalova at least confirms the border crossing at Artyk on the given date, although they report no battle: "On August 12, 1918, the column of English military equipment led by General Wilfrid Malleson crossed the Persian-Russian border near Artyk station." NLeeuw (talk) 09:40, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There seems to be a suggestion that the battle didn't actually take place in Artyk itself, but that the British-Indian force (apparently consisting of some 19th Punjabis troops and 2 machine guns) merely boarded a train at the train station in Artyk, and went somewhere else where the actual battle took place. crossed the border to Artik and there entrained for Bairam Ali to help the Transcaspian forces meet a new Bolshevik attack. "Bairam Ali" (or "Bahram Ali" on p. 19) would be Baýramaly, a city 300 km to the east of Artyk. The railway was the means of transportation for both the British-Indian troops and Transcaspian Menshevik rebels; p. 12: The Transcaspian force, completely demoralised, retreated back along the railway line to Dushak, while the machine gun detachment returned to Muhammadabad “hors de combat from influenza and casualties”. p. 19: We finally return to the campaign itself. Following the retreat from Bahram Ali on 12 August Malleson moved some 500 men of the 19th Punjabis under Lieut-Colonel Knollys across the border, where they joined the Transcaspian force at Kaahka on 26 August. On satellite imagery today, I do see a railway line running from Artyk along Kaahka (Kaka, Turkmenistan, Kaahkha) and Dushak, turning several times and going all the way to Baýramaly. The speed of trains at the time would have made it possible to traverse the 300 km distance between Artyk and Baýramaly within just a few short hours, as well as retreating back to Dushak within the same day. I think we should be looking for sources indicating a battle at Baýramaly on 12 August 1918, because that seems to have happened. NLeeuw (talk) 10:30, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, here we go: it's the Trans-Caspian railway! NLeeuw (talk) 10:43, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you so much for all your expert input, NLeeuw! gidonb (talk) 10:57, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Damien Wright, Churchill's Secret War With Lenin (2017), p. 431: Through a series of events Malleson's men were soon in action against the Bolshevik-sponsored German-Austro-Hungarian troops near the ruins of the ancient city of Merv, 350 kilometres down the line from Ashkhabat. On 15 August at Bairam Ali, a section of machine guns under Lieutenant Walter Gipps, 19th Punjabis with her Havildars Ilam Din and Nand Singh, were left to face an overwhelming enemy attack and defend an Anglo-Indian armoured train without support after the local defenders abandoned their trenches. During a difficult withdrawal in which Singh was wounded, and with no rest and little food and water, the gallant Punjabis finally reached safety at Dushak three days later.
This is beginning to look more like what happened. Sargent 2004 is just not a very readable text, switching between time and place a lot without providing a coherent narrative of the battle in question, focusing more on the politics than on the logistics and military movements. This does leave us with several questions, namely whether the battle took 3 days (from 12 to 15 August), or whether either one of the sources got their dates wrong. I think they are irreconcilable, since Sargent claims the British-Indians both crossed the border, fought at Bairam Ali and retreated (or started retreating) therefrom all on the same day of 12 August, while Wright claims a battle took place in Bairam Ali on 15 August between the British-Indian machine guns and Punjabis against the G-A-H Bosheviks (before or during which the Transcaspian rebels fled), and it took them 3 more days to retreat to Dushak (which they would then have reached on 18 August).
My guess would be... that Wright is wrong (no pun intended), the battle took place on 12 August, the British-Indians were unable to use the train to return to Dushak, and instead had to march over land for 3 days. That would explain the "difficult withdrawal (...) with no rest and little food and water". If you can use the train to get an entire army from Artyk to Bairam Ali within a day, why would you need 3 days to get back from Bairam Ali half-way to Dushak while you're on the run from an enemy who has defeated you at Bairam Ali with overwhelming numbers? The logistics of getting an army on the train don't work well when you're under attack and trying to flee. I think they never managed to board the train and had to walk back to Dushak. But that's speculation; I'd have to read more. But I think we can conclude by now that the battle happened at Bairam Ali (Baýramaly) and not at Artyk/Artik. NLeeuw (talk) 11:12, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
PS: Mohammadabad, Mashhad is most likely our "Muhammabad" or "Muhammedabad". It's a village in Mashhad County, northwest very close to Mashhad (Meshed), the British-Indian based of operations in East Persia throughout the campaign. NLeeuw (talk) 16:53, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If you believe that no such event occurred and want to delete it on that basis, that's fine. But just for the record, I got everything on that article from that source, which does in fact talk about the battle on pages 11 and 12. As was cited.
But if as is said later that Artik doesn't exist, then that's fine and would mean the source is wrong.
Not saying keep or delete though, since these concerns seem reasonable enough. With Juhor al-Dik at least there was *someone* on one side making the claim Genabab (talk) 09:32, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm glad that you as the creator of the article have also responded now. The information does seem to be somewhat accurate and historical, although in need of correction and clarification. I'm currently considering whether it is just better to merge it into Malleson mission, because it does not appear to be notable enough for a standalone article. But I'll try to find more reliable sources and see whether it is relevant enough. NLeeuw (talk) 09:44, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Genabab, in both cases, you have made up historical events out of -at best- little more than thin air. We do not find stuff in one source (at the other page the source is Hamas), then start fantasizing around that, and invent new histories, misleading our readers. It's not how a serious encyclopedia works. Wikipedia is not some kind of historical fantasy blog. Wikipedia is a serious encyclopedia where people write about topics basing themselves on a multitude of reliable sources that wrote clearly and in depth about events, people, places, phenomena, objects, organisms, etc before we summarize! gidonb (talk) 10:57, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well @Gidonb, I think Genabab has just made several mistakes in reading a text that is not very clear, especially if one's English reading and writing skills limited, and one has not been educated as a historian (as I have been). I've been trying to understand what did happen for the past 3.5 hours, and even I still don't know what happened exactly. Some of these mistakes are beginner's errors, but I could have made them as well. Genabab has indicated that they could have made mistakes and that those should be corrected, which is a good thing. It doesn't mean things have been made up on purpose. NLeeuw (talk) 11:17, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
User:Nederlandse Leeuw I reread the relevant parts of the article and found something I missed:
"The crucial date for the invasion was 11 August when two machine guns of the 19th Punjabis left Muhammadabad, crossed the border to Artik and there entrained for Bairam Ali to help the Transcaspian forces meet a new Bolshevik attack."
When I was reading the paper I must have missed that it said entrained, and thought the battle occured at Artik. That was my mistake.
Perhaps we should change the name of the article to 'Battle of Bairam Ali'? The other source that was shared also seems to say this Genabab (talk) 11:30, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Genabab Yeah, I also read that sentence wrong at least 5 times until realising what it meant, haha! Renaming sounds like a good idea, I was thinking the same. But maybe we should first come to a consensus whether to
  1. keep and improve this article (including renaming it), or
  2. merge it into Malleson mission, or
  3. delete it?
I think deletion is off the table by now, because although the information needs to be corrected, it is based on historical events which do appear to be relevant enough to be mentioned on Wikipedia. The question for me is mostly whether it has WP:SIGCOV for a stand-alone article (in which case we should definitely rename it), or should be merged into Malleson mission if it is not notable enough for its own page. What do you think? And what does @Gidonb think? NLeeuw (talk) 11:39, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well that would depend. What is the criteria for 'notability'. The sources used in the article and the sources mentioned here both appear to be reliable, and questions about multiple reliable sources backing something up were the first things I saw on the WP page you linked.
Personally I'm ambivalent, even if I wrote the page. But, I would lean towards renaming it to be the Battle of Bayram Ali with a brief mention of the army disembarking from Artik. Genabab (talk) 11:43, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
WP:SIGCOV would be necessary but insufficient to keep as a seperate article under another name. Important is that both the Malleson mission and Battle of "Artik" articles are short. If the cleaned up text would fit into Malleson mission without a clear situation of UNDUE it would sill need to be merged there as a premature SPINOFF. In addition, if a battle of Artik never happened, it would be better if Genabab would copy his text into Malleson mission, NLeeuw would clean it up there, and we'd go ahead and not create a redirect at a non-event. I.e. still delete gidonb (talk) 11:50, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your feedback, both of you! I'm inclined to agree with gidonb's suggestion, namely that we move the text of this article into Malleson mission and clean it up there; both pages are relatively short. It does not make sense to keep a redirect named "Battle of Artik/Artyk", which didn't happen.
What we could do is rename this article to "Battle of Bairam Ali" and then redirect it to Malleson mission, so that Genabab keeps "credit" for creating it and the edit history is preserved, and then deleting the current title as it would be a double-redirect. But that seems overly complicated and unnecessary. This AfD will be kept, and the edit history of Malleson mission will be kept, so it's okay if we just move the relevant text there and delete this page. NLeeuw (talk) 12:05, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
NLeeuw, via my route we will refrain from redirects of events that haven't happened at the location indicated. (Note that as a geographer I will always have this spatial accent in any historical discussion.) Genabab is ready to move, it is his own text, and then we can close as delete. gidonb (talk) 12:14, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. @Genabab Do you also agree? If so, you are free to merge the text of this page into Malleson mission. NLeeuw (talk) 12:30, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
should I just copy paste it into Malleson and make the more detailed edits afterwards? Again, I'm impartial. somewhere inbetween keeping it seperate and merging. But I have no strong feelings either way. Genabab (talk) 12:49, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Genabab Yeah you can copypaste it and make some more edits afterwards. I can also do the edits afterwards if you'd like me to. NLeeuw (talk) 13:02, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
ok Genabab (talk) 13:23, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Nederlandse Leeuw ok done. Please do correct any possible mistakes I may have made on the merger at Malleson Mission Genabab (talk) 13:39, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Genabab Thank you! Glad we all agree. It's a piece of history I knew nothing about, and now a whole lot more. Hopefully the rest of the world will be better informed as well once we are done. :) NLeeuw (talk) 14:15, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Genabab @Gidonb  Done for now. Any additional edits or corrections can always be done later, but the merger into Malleson mission is now essentially complete, and we can proceed to Delete this article. NLeeuw (talk) 15:23, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
User:Gidonb What has been made up? I provided a citation with page references too. If you want to claim that the source made a mistake, then that's different. But it doesn't mean I made anything up. I'd understand your point if what I wrote was something that the source doesn't say, but it does on both accounts.
Do keep in mind that Artik is an actual city in Turkmenistan, as Nleeuw was able to find. I don't see what is being made up here.. Genabab (talk) 11:27, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Very well but that is not how articles should be created. gidonb (talk) 11:28, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Genabab made a mistake, and should provide several reliable sources (instead of just 1) and read them carefully when creating a new article, but they also admitted the mistake and are open to correcting it. I think we shouldn't be too harsh, and help them develop their Wikipedia skills, especially since they are a relative newcomer. Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers. :) NLeeuw (talk) 11:44, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's exteremely amateuristic and brings WP quality down. Elsewhere he uses a Hamas movie as his source. Even the Hamas movie did not clearly support the story he inserted in WP. Neverthless, I have suggested a route forward. See above. gidonb (talk) 11:53, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I did see other issues at Genabab's talk page, but those are not at issue here. I think we all agree Sargent 2004 is a reliable source, but one that is easily misinterpreted, even by an experienced Wikipedian and historian like me. I think Genabab has shown good faith here, and we should encourage that. Your route forward also sounds good, I'll reply above. NLeeuw (talk) 11:57, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, NLeeuw! It's another current debate. gidonb (talk) 11:59, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename and then redirect per the consensus outcome of this. Malleson Mission now seems a satisfactory article. It is unsatisfactory to have a battle article for every minor skirmish. It is often good for a new editor to gain experience by improving existing articles, rather than creating new ones where the available information only permits the existence of a stub. Peterkingiron (talk) 11:26, 24 December 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 01:33, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Progressive Victory[edit]

Progressive Victory (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 appears to fail WP:NGO, namely that the organization itself does not appear to have significant coverage in multiple reliable sources that are independent of the organization. An evaluation of the sources in the article (below) show that none of the sources cited contribute towards the group's notability.

Source assessment table:
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
Progressive Victory (1) No This is the organization's website, so it is not independent of the organization ~ WP:ABOUTSELF ? Moot as clearly non-independent ✘ No
Progressive Victory (2) No This is the organization's website, so it is not independent of the organization ~ WP:ABOUTSELF ? Moot as clearly non-independent ✘ No
The College of Wooster No This is an alumni profile by a University that is posted on the university's website. press releases, press kits, or similar public relations materials are not considered to be independent sources for organizations. ~ This is an alumni profile by a University; it appears to be a self-published blogpost. No There's significant coverage of Hans Johnson in the article, but the organization itself is given only trivial mention. ✘ No
Tubefilter Yes Why not? Yes Per WP:NPPSG and for sake of argument. No "Progressive Victory" is not so much as mentioned in the article. ✘ No
The Washington Post Yes Why not? Yes WaPo is a WP:NEWSORG. No "Progressive Victory" is not so much as mentioned in the article. ✘ No
YouTube No This is the YouTube channel of "Progressive Victory". ~ WP:ABOUTSELF. ? Moot as clearly non-independent. ✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

I conducted a further search online for sources about the group, which (per the article) was founded in 2022. I was only able to come up with trivial mentions and non-independent sources:

More trivial mentions and non-independent sources
  • Spectrum 1 gives the organization as the employer of Hans Johnson, but doesn't cover the organization itself significantly.
  • Pasadena Star News has an op-ed written by Johnson, which is clearly a non-independent source.
  • Los Angeles Blade mentions the group only in passing.
  • Cincinnati Enquirer hosts an opinion piece by the group's president, which is non-independent.
  • CalMatters has a guest commentary by Johnson, but that's non-independent.

The name is fairly generic, and the article creator notes the existence of a different group with the same name on the talk page (the group linked from the infobox self-describes itself as being largely a discord server). Even with that confounding factor of multiple groups with the same name, a source search makes me conclude that this group fails WP:NGO and should be deleted in line with WP:DEL-REASON#8 for failing to meet the relevant notability criteria. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 01:49, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Politics, Internet, and United States of America. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 01:50, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment as nom. Article creator has since removed reference to Hans Johnson from the article, implying in an edit summary that he's related to a different group also called "Progressive Victory". The reference to Hans Johnson was first inserted into the article in the first revision. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 03:40, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi Red-tailed Hawk:
    I agree that this article has few reliable sources. (In fact, I removed the Wooster College one -- Hans Johnson appears to be completely unaffiliated with this Progressive Victory).
    Although Progressive Victory is not mentioned by name in the WaPo or TubeFilter sources, my thinking is:
    1. WaPo is reliable and indicates the stream occurred, but provides no direct link
    2. TubeFilter is less reliable, but directly links the Progressive Victory embed
    3. Streamer & attendee Destiny reposted that stream and described it as "a special event organised by Progressive Victory".
    More broadly, notable streamers Vaush and Destiny worked with PV in 2022 and will in 2024 -- but due to the nature of streaming, their announcements (eg) tend to be WP:SELFPUB.
    If this article needs to go back to draftspace, so be it! SocDoneLeft (talk) 19:25, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    To respond point-by-point:
    1. WP:ORGDEPTH notes that significant coverage provides an overview, description, commentary, survey, study, discussion, analysis, or evaluation of the product, company, or organization. Such coverage provides an organization with a level of attention that extends well beyond brief mentions and routine announcements, and makes it possible to write more than a very brief, incomplete stub about the organization. The WaPo piece is about a particular livestream, and, while the NGO may well be involved, there's really nothing in that article that's about the NGO (not even a mention of the NGO's name).
    2. Largely the same as point #1. Additionally, merely linking/embedding a particular YouTube video does not provide significant coverage of the NGO article subject, particularly when that group is not so much as given a passing mention by name in the text of the article about the event.
    3. WP:INHERITORG states that An organization is not notable merely because a notable person or event was associated with it... [t]he organization or corporation itself must have been discussed in reliable independent sources for it to be considered notable. In other words, just because some popular streamers have attended an event or worked with the group does not mean that the organization has been conferred notability.
    The fact that we don't have significant coverage in any reliable source that so much as mentions the name of the group is the ultimate nail in the coffin for me. The only alternative I can think of would be to have an article on the particular livestream, but such an article would likely fail to meet WP:NEVENT based off of the sourcing here. I don't think there's anything to do here at this time but to delete this from the mainspace.
    — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 19:58, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, I'd like to hear opinions/arguments from more editors.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 02:14, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: Plenty of use of the term, nothing found for this group. Agree with the source assessment table, nothing we can use for sourcing. Oaktree b (talk) 02:24, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I looked online and found little to nothing of note. There are two pages that link to this article and mention that two streamers were part of a stream sponsored by Progressive Victory but when I checked the sources they never mentioned the org. Dr vulpes (💬 • 📝) 05:14, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 00:08, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Embassy of Ghana, Kinshasa[edit]

Embassy of Ghana, Kinshasa (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 basically a list of ambassadors and not actually about the embassy. LibStar (talk) 01:17, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lord Roem ~ (talk) 01:37, 20 December 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! 00:40, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Rainwave[edit]

Rainwave (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)

Couldn't find any reliable secondary sources. QuietCicada - Talk 01:34, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Fails GNG. No hits at all in WP:VG/S's search. A broader Google News search finds a couple of mentions on unreliable sites for an Android app to listen to the streams, which may not be official and simply says "There's an app for this". Most other results are for an unrelated product. -- ferret (talk) 06:15, 20 December 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. I see a consensus to Keep this article. Liz Read! Talk! 00:27, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Joshua P. Kolar[edit]

Joshua P. Kolar (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)

Subject does not meet the WP:GNG as a judicial nominee due to a lack of independent, significant coverage. Originally sent this back to a draft after it was originally created but someone else decided to move it back to mainspace so here we are again. Let'srun (talk) 15:45, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Law, United States of America, and Indiana. Let'srun (talk) 15:45, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I vote keep. I am someone who has an interest in the legal system and has an interest in politics. These judicial nominees receive a lot of press and news coverage and I the first place I turn to read up or refresh my memory about the nominees is Wikipedia. As a user, it is incredibly frustrating to not have these pages available. I don't understand why any contestant on a reality tv show can get a wikipedia page but a person nominated to our highest courts (Fed III) has to jump through a ton of hoops. What exactly is the harm of keeping the page. If for some reason, he doesn't get confirmed, delete it then. Cazer78 (talk) 23:22, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree, as Kolar has been a magistrate judge for the Northern District of Indiana since 2019. He also serves as a lieutenant commander in the U.S. navy reserve.
I generally agree judicial nominees don't meet notability, as merely being a nominee is insufficient, but there are cases where judicial nominees are already judges on lower courts (or magistrate judges) including this one. They can also have similar notability due to military leadership or prior legal work that has received independent coverage. JohnAdams1800 (talk) 15:49, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Might you point me to the notability guideline that says a magistrate judge or lieutenant commander in the U.S. navy reserve is notable? Kolar has never been a judge on a statewide court, so WP:JUDGE does not apply. Let'srun (talk) 16:59, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:USJUDGE: "Magistrate judges and bankruptcy judges are appointed by the court of the district in which they sit. Such judges are not inherently notable, but holding such a position is evidence of notability that can be established by other strong indicia of notability." I believe Kolar's military service along with being an incumbent magistrate judge indicates his notability.
US Navy Records Indicating Kolar was a lieutenant commander:
[51]https://www.navy.mil/Resources/ALNAVs/Message/Article/2235726/fy-19-navy-reserve-lieutenant-commander-line-selections/ JohnAdams1800 (talk) 17:44, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
WP:USCJN is an essay, not a notability guideline. Let'srun (talk) 17:50, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:USJUDGE. Kolar holds a "sub-national (statewide/provincewide) office". Jaireeodell (talk) 23:16, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm just trying to figure out the logic here. This article gets created as a draft in September and bounced around between draft and main. And then this month, gets nominated as an AfC and ultimately approved and reviewed/patrolled by a different editor. And then within three hours of being moved to main (again) today gets nominated for AfD? I need someone to explain to me the standard practice to follow if and when a draft gets moved and patrolled, but still apparently doesn't meet WP:GNG per the current AfD discussion. Snickers2686 (talk) 17:44, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. He meets WP:JUDGE. It would be incorrect to interpret federal judicial service in a state that subdivides its federal courts (like in Indiana) any differently from those states that don't (such as New Jersey, for example.) I don't know why a couple of people keep tying themselves in knots over this. Valadius (talk) 22:04, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The states don't divide (or not divide) their federal courts. Congress does that. Irrespective of whether there is such a division, judicial service as a magistrate judge (basically a glorified assistant to an Article III federal judge) does not constitute "state/province–wide office" any more than does service as a bailiff or law clerk to an Article III judge. BD2412 T 22:59, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think you misunderstand the role of a magistrate judge. Magistrates frequently rule on substantive issues. Their rulings are precedent is. That a district judge can overrule them is besides the point — the comparison to a clerk is inappropriate. 165.82.238.249 (talk) 22:19, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Kolar will be appointed to the 7th Circuit (any day now) or, if not, he will become the subject of a lot of consternation in the news ... right? In either case, he will be notable. I think it would be a mistake to delete this and then hope that editors will recreate it. -- Jaireeodell (talk) 23:16, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You are probably right, but that is WP:CRYSTAL. That is why draft space exists, but some editors have to rush things. Let'srun (talk) 01:47, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep They meets WP:JUDGE. ~~ αvírαm|(tαlk) 03:08, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There is absolutely no reason to take down a wikipedia page for a judicial nominee. We should be focusing on expanding Wikipedia, not contracting it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.211.154.91 (talk) 07:55, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Policy-based input would be helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 01:13, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, I would be willing to argue that this article might not be notable for being a magistrate judge. But he's about to become a circuit judge and that clearly passes WP:JUDGE. Also he has enough coverage to pass WP:GNG at this point so it's all moot anyway. Dr vulpes (💬 • 📝) 10:26, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify until confirmation He does not meet notability requirements for a judge until confirmed, but deleting while his confirmation is pending is probably counterproductive. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 20:55, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The guidelines at WP:JUDGE specifies that it applies to people who have been elected to such offices but have not yet assumed them so even he is not assuming the position yet, I think he has been "elected" as they have voted him in as well. ✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 02:08, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Not how it works. Kolar has never been elected as a judge, he was appointed to fill a judicial vacancy by President Biden but has yet to be confirmed (and as such is WP:CRYSTAL to assume he will be confirmed). Let'srun (talk) 05:29, 26 December 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 undeletion of these articles. ✗plicit 00:06, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Embassy of the United States, Sofia[edit]

Embassy of the United States, Sofia (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)

Yet another installment in the embassy series. No content about the embassies; each article duplicates the one on bilateral relations. Biruitorul Talk 01:03, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages:

Embassy of the United States, Guatemala City (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Embassy of the United States, Port-au-Prince (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Embassy of the United States, Amman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Embassy of the United States, Baku (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 00:07, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Natekarwada[edit]

Natekarwada (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)

NBUILD fail. I could not find any sources at all covering the building online (all hits appear to be wikis/travel websites of sorts). Fermiboson (talk) 00:35, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus‎. I don't see a consensus here. Liz Read! Talk! 00:23, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kristen Lawrence[edit]

Kristen Lawrence (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 challenged since 2012. Given the subject's BLP status and possible issues regarding quality of sources, there are several moving parts here and I think it would be best to open this to the community for discussion. AfD participants should consult talk page for arguments made therein. Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 04:57, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Women, and Music. Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 04:57, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Source 19 and 28 are fine. It's not a slam dunk, but that's just enough coverage to build an article. Oaktree b (talk) 14:59, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The "arguments" given on the talk page are over 10 yrs ago, I wouldn't count the online chart as notable. I'll give them the paper sources existing (I can't confirm or deny), but the rest don't seem to help the discussion here... The last point in particular doesn't seem to hold true (I don't see this person has become notable for Halloween music, a decade after the comment was made), and it was iffy then... Oaktree b (talk) 15:02, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note that source #19 for Keyboard Magazine is now defunct and the link just goes to the mag's general website. If it once had a precise article on Ms. Lawrence, I cannot find it online. Source #28 is functional and it is a local newspaper article; it's reliable but one of very few such sources. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 15:41, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keyboard Magazine archive link. Hameltion (talk | contribs) 16:53, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - The "Keep" vote above is based on about 1.5 reliable sources (see my comment above) and I cannot find anything else significant and reliable beyond the Daily Pilot article that is currently at footnote #28. Regarding the talk page discussion, the named chart does not qualify, and Ms. Lawrence could be considered "one of the most prominent representatives of a notable style" under WP:NMUSICIAN, **IF** Halloween Carols are a notable genre, and that is not convincing. Otherwise she is a working musician with various symphonies and has focused on some unique personal interests, but that does not make her notable enough for an article here. This article is dependent on personal and self-promotional sources, and tries to fill space with desperate leaps of notability, such as being mentioned in the same magazine as someone loosely affiliated with Iron Maiden or being asked to comment on someone else's book. She clearly does some unique things, but sorry no cigar. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 15:51, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Oaktree b. Yes, too many primary sources are used, but independent profiles in the Orange County Register and Los Angeles Times a decade apart (plus Keyboard Magazine) are enough for BASIC. Hameltion (talk | contribs) 16:53, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    By BASIC, do you mean GNG? If so, GNG's not enough. She also needs to meet WP:NMUSICIAN. GNG is only for topics which don't have their own notability guidelines. Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 20:15, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    No, I mean WP:BASIC (basically GNG for people), which is sufficient for notability: People who meet the basic criteria may be considered notable without meeting the additional criteria below. Hameltion (talk | contribs) 23:32, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    That is untrue, GNG applies to every single topic not covered by a SNG which is stricter than the GNG (mostly NCORP and NEVENT). Mach61 (talk) 05:22, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Um...that's what I said: GNG is for topics which don't have their own guidelines. This article, being about a musician, would fall under WP:NMUSICIAN. Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 21:48, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That is not correct. WP:NMUSIC does not overrule WP:GNG. Any music artist can be kept by passing GNG. In any case criteria 1 of WP:NMUSIC is exactly the same as GNG. The only SNGs that overrule GNG is WP:NCORP which is stricter, WP:ACADEMIC which is looser, and WP:NEVENT that may be stricter in some circumstances, imv Atlantic306 (talk)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as I don't see even a rough consensus here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 04:42, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Excessive reliance on sources like PR Newswire and Facebook. If kept, take a flamethrower to the unencyclopedic language and poorly sourced content. BD2412 T 02:16, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 15:15, 12 December 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, Daniel (talk) 00:15, 20 December 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_December_20&oldid=1192210426"