Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 December 22

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< December 21	December 23 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete‎. Daniel (talk) 22:53, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Calvin Maglinger[edit]

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

Largely unsourced article with numerous COI edits by a family member. An online BEFORE search reveals nothing except places to buy his prints, but no SIGCOV in reliable, independent published sources. The subject does not meet WP:GNG nor WP:NARTIST. Netherzone (talk) 22:45, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists, Businesspeople, Visual arts, Indiana, and Kentucky. Netherzone (talk) 22:45, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I am not finding RS for this artist. I am only finding the local obituary. Fails WP:NARTIST, not in notable collection or exhibitions The article reads like an obituary and I am do not see a way to improve it. --WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 18:16, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Verification tag unhandled for more than a decade, too. And orphaned apart from a pair of lists. Suitskvarts (talk) 13:47, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Soft Delete, but, for the record, Maglinger's art work was the subject of a solo exhibition at the Evansville Museum ... discussed in the Evansville Courier & Press, 2005. This story notes that his "paintings are in private and public collections throughout the region." One of his paintings also illustrated the cover of a local history book about the city of Evansville.[1] Deleting would mean that the solo show in the Evansville Museum is NOT per WP:ARTIST 4. "(b) ... a substantial part of a significant exhibition, ..." and that its holdings are not "(d) ... several notable galleries or museums." -- Jaireeodell (talk) 00:08, 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 redirect‎ to Request for quotation. Daniel (talk) 22:53, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sales quote[edit]

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

Delete Another article that consists solely of a WP:DICTDEF with no sources. Tooncool64 (talk) 22:41, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Owen× ☎ 22:44, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Request for quotation: no more than a DICDEF by itself. Owen× ☎ 23:46, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As far as redirect, the landing page doesn't look much better. Suitskvarts (talk) 13:51, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Request for quotation, per User:OwenX, a common-sense WP:ADT proposal. A "sales quote" is, obviously, a thing that exists, and one that a reader might want to look up in an encyclopedia. The article, Request for quotation, stands to be improved, but deletion isn't cleanup—even for adjacent articles. BD2412 T 14:04, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect: Per Suitskvarts and BD2412, the best target is Request for quotation. XxTechnicianxX (talk) 18:25, 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. There seem to be WP: BLP violations.‎. Cullen328 (talk) 02:27, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Whittaker family[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Whittaker family

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

I nominated the article for proposed deletion, but an IP removed the template without giving any reasoning. My thoughts on this are fairly simple, so I'll just quote the proposed deletion: "This article consists entirely of primary sources, tabloids, and podcasts. I can not find any RS covering it. See WP:SBST" Cpotisch (talk) 21:38, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 December 15. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 21:52, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of West Virginia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:12, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Project:Biography of living persons demands a more immediate requirement for sourcing on this, not the weaker requirement that the content could be sourced. It's currently sourced to several YouTube videos, the Daily Star, the Daily Express, and the New York Post. All of those are on Project:Reliable sources/Perennial sources as bad sources that should not be used. Uncle G (talk) 02:18, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have a stance on deletion then? Again, I can't find any RS to replace those junk sources, so in my view this points pretty strongly towards that. Cpotisch (talk) 21:54, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: here from WikiProject West Virginia. This seems like tabloid exploitation and little else; arguments about "inbreeding" point to pseudoscience—it would be relevant only if there were evidence of specific genetic traits or abnormalities being concentrated or magnified to cause the members physical difficulties, but here all that is alleged is that they're "inbred" and grotesque. I'd say it seemed defamatory, but I suppose if family members were voluntarily interviewed, then it's only defamatory to peripherally-associated people—perhaps West Virginians or Appalachian folk generally—which wouldn't violate BLP.

Even if we take the sources at face value, verifiability does not demonstrate notability, and the only evidence of notability is a high number of YouTube views—which might just be due to the volume of the channel. But since the YouTube channel also seems to be of marginal notability at best, I'm not convinced that these views demonstrate notability any more than clickbait does. I'd like to say "delete", but I don't feel completely impartial due to my feelings about what this story says about West Virginians. Would like to hear from more people, perhaps from outside the project. P Aculeius (talk) 11:49, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- Outside the tabloid notariety, I can find no sources that give secondary, analytical treatment to this subject. On a non-policy note, it's an extremely distasteful and derogatory treatment of the subject. The latter is not a reason for deletion, but the lack of RS and lack of GNG are certainly valid reasons. Cheers, Last1in (talk) 15:22, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. It's crass and exploitative material based on a crass and exploitative YouTube series. Cpotisch (talk) 22:58, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Since this was PROD'd before (please next time state this in your edit summary), it is not eligible for Soft Deletion. Lots of critique here but only one editor specifically advocating Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:37, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I'd say it's pretty clear all three of the editors who've weighed in so far think this subject is not notable and not supported by particularly good sources. I only held back from voting because I was concerned about my ability to be impartial, since I'm a West Virginian and I think this article plays up stereotypes about West Virginia. The proposed deletion was noted in the nomination, and the editor who deprodded it gave no explanation and has not participated in this discussion. So it seems unlikely that holding the discussion open will produce any different result. P Aculeius (talk) 23:44, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Maybe @Cullen328 could close and delete it? Cpotisch (talk) 02:17, 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 merge‎ to Dormer. Daniel (talk) 22:54, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wall dormer[edit]

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

Delete Doesn't seem a notable enough difference from Dormer to warrant it's own article, especially one without any sources showing a distinct difference. Perhaps we can redirect or merge with parent article. Tooncool64 (talk) 22:27, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 22:30, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Dormer: where the term is already defined. Owen× ☎ 00:07, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as above. Suitskvarts (talk) 13:53, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Dormer: as material from here can be added to the proper subsection. बिनोद थारू (talk) 16:24, 29 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 with the concern that the subject is shown to be used but not studied in itself. Therefore, it would be best for there to be a continued search for additional sourcing that focus on the subject itself and not just demonstrating its use. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:39, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Allosexuality[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Allosexuality (2nd nomination)

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

Continues to fail WP:NEO, and see the previous deletion discussion. Two of the sources on which notability might be based are dictionary.com and Cosmopolitan, neither of which is reliable for this scientific/biological topic. ByVarying | talk 21:59, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 December 22. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 22:19, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 22:31, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The previous deletion discussion indicates that the only sources being used were user generated/Tumblr blogs, and that at the time the term was basically absent from google scholar. The current iteration of the page notes multiple academic studies which have groups of "allosexual" participants. If we think those sources are insufficient, we can perhaps find more robust sources from Google Scholar ([2]), which has over a hundred uses of this term from 2023 alone. If the use-mention dimension is what's concerning, there may be further discussion of the term itself in one of those academic sources. I included the Cosmopolitan reference to show that the term is being used in non-academic contexts, but if we feel it's detrimental to the page then it can be removed. ForsythiaJo (talk) 22:47, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There are multiple scholarly sourcesl

like Research Gate as well as many non scholarly uses. 216.174.76.189 (talk) 17:45, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- I find plentiful RS that use or mention Allosexuality, but none about allosexuality. It is almost less a term in itself than a convenient antonym to asexual, or a catchall for researchers who can't bother being specific about 'miscellaneous' sexualities in their subject pool. It also does not seem to be used consistently, or with a consistent definition; for some it is a true antonym meaning 'not asexual', where other, equally-qualified RS use it to indicate a person is 'not heterosexual'. To be clear, I fully agree that the term is real, and that is it used pretty widely. What I can't see is a path to a good article about the term. Pending at least a few secondary sources that specifically discuss allosexuality qua allosexuality (not as a contrast, and also including a single, effective definition), I don't think that it passes WP:GNG. I am leaning toward a merge to Asexuality. Cheers, Last1in (talk) 21:38, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. monosexuality was coined Karl Maria Kertbeny with a different definition, yet the common definition is used in Wikipedia. Though allosexual had different definitions, especially regional and uncommon, the most common and global is that it's the counterpart of asexuality. Is allo the best prefix? Probably wikt:eu- or wikt:com- would fit better. Anyways, it's a slang, it has at least two decades. MikutoH (talk) 00:53, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There are a lot of yesterday's coined unstated terms in the field, but this is not one of them. Suitskvarts (talk) 13:56, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per those above. Well-enough supported by use in the literature. BD2412 T 14:06, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well-enough supported by use in the literature.

See use-mention distinction, as required in the policy WP:NOTNEO. बिनोद थारू (talk) 15:59, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep you can't suggest it continues to fail and cite an AfD 8 years ago. A google scholar WP:BEFORE check would have demonstrated notability. microbiologyMarcus ^{(petri dish·growths)} 20:35, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
But does it? I am still on the fence because I cannot find sources that talk about allosexuality, even though I find myriad ones that use the term. I am not the nominator and avoid reading previous AfDs to prevent bias from obsolete facts, but I'm still not convinced that there is anything other than a DICTDEF to be written here. Can you give me some insight, please, into how we would get from where the article is now to an encyclopaedic treatment of the subject (or subjects, since it appears the term is used variously)? Cheers, Last1in (talk) 21:05, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Asexual per WP:CONTENTFORK. If a term has an article, that does not grant stand-alone notability for its opposite. Also WP:NPOV concerns since the vocabulary "allosexual" is only used in marxist/anarchist circles (from what I understand for I am not the most learned on this topic). Regardless, its Google trend is much lower than asexual, so keeping both under the article Asexual seems appropriate. बिनोद थारू (talk) 15:46, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Could you provide a source for allosexual only being used in marxist/anarchist circles? That hasn't come up at all when I've done research/from personal experience, and I don't think any of the current sources in the article support that. ForsythiaJo (talk) 17:30, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- It was a hypothesis written on the spot to illustrate my WP:NPOV concerns, which may as well be false. Though the base argument, WP:NPOV, still likely applies as the Google Trend say it is well underused compared to asexuality (even though they are semantic opposites of each other). So higher likelihood of it being non-notable "theory" jargon.
- I have the Google Trends chart provided below to justify my point:
https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?date=all&geo=US&q=Allosexual,Asexual&hl=en बिनोद थारू (talk) 17:38, 29 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. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 22:59, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bolixo[edit]

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

Zero independent sources to indicate any notability. Just an advertisement which does not belong to Wikipedia. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 21:31, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Internet, Software, and Websites. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 21:31, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:SPA-created orphaned unsourced spam. Suitskvarts (talk) 13:58, 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 delete‎. Daniel (talk) 22:54, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bibledit[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:NSOFT. Zero independent reliable sources covering the subject. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 21:13, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 21:13, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I've noticed that the creator of this article tried to delete article by blanking it, but other editors didn't let him. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 21:15, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Christianity and Websites. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:03, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: My search yielded no sources that allow this subject to clear NSOFT. Checking the article history and the article creator's talk page, they agreed that this subject did not meet Wikipedia's notability standard in 2016 while regretting the failure of a PROD. Their blanking in 2022—nine years after creating the article—suggests someone with subject-matter expertise believes this article should be deleted but didn't know how to go about doing that. ~ Pbritti (talk) 22:28, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
After so many years the article still does not meet the guidelines set by Wikipedia, so yes, I tried to delete it by blanking it, but that didn't work out. The article still does not meet the guidelines now, so my opinion on deletion has not changed since. Teus (talk) 07:50, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The article fails the relevant notability requirements (WP:GNG, WP:NSOFT, WP:NCORP). Given the age of the software it is possible that there is significant coverage in reliable sources that aren't easily accessible, but I couldn't find anything by looking on Newspapers.com, archive.org, GBooks, or through any similar searches. All of the websites that discuss the subject are associated with the subject or are discussing the subject because they use it (or are simple database entries for Linux distro's repos). I did find a 2007 PC World article but it was a trivial mention of the software as an example of the types of software that could be installed on Ubuntu that provided no real information other than the name. It's possible sources exist, but if so I have not been able to find any. - Aoidh (talk) 02:08, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Probably Delete -- Bible translation is an important subject, as the Bible is the most widely translated book of all. Accordingly, software designed to assist in translation ought to be notable, if widely used. Its use will probably mainly not be related to English but to languages with little or no native literature. A leading body in this is SIL international, a link to whose log in page is among the references. However this page does not mention this program, which makes me think it is obsolete. If so, the question is whether to keep it as historical or to delete as obsolete. Peterkingiron (talk) 12:18, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If sources can be found that shows that it was at one time widely used (in a way that meets Wikipedia:Notability (software)#Inclusion) and that information can be verified with third-party sources I'm all for keeping the article, but I couldn't find any third-party references that discussed this software in any significant way. - Aoidh (talk) 13:28, 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!} 04:15, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thierry Sacco[edit]

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

This one sentence biography has a single reference that fails verification. Article needs reliable source citations to establish notability. After searching, found several social media and one personal fan-based website, but no in-depth content about the person. Article was created on 10 November 2006 JoeNMLC (talk) 21:38, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. ~ฅ(ↀωↀ=)neko-chan^nyan 22:06, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:47, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:SPORTCRIT. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 05:01, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already PROD'd so not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:02, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Even in .fr sources, it's simply match reports. [3]. Delete for no sourcing. Oaktree b (talk) 21:13, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as I do not see compliance with NSOFT. With regards, Oleg Y. (talk) 00:15, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If compliance with WP:NSOFT was a deletion criterion for articles generally then the denizens of AFD would have realised by now and mass nominations would have reduced Wikipedia to a rump. This will now probably have to wait until next year. Thincat (talk) 09:24, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – The article summarizes showing that the athlete in question was 12th in the 2006 ranking. Frankly... Svartner (talk) 19:48, 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 Move to List of ships named Charlotte‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:17, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of Age of Sail ships named Charlotte[edit]

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

This seems to have been a bad disambiguation page converted into a set index many years ago, but there doesn't seem to be particular interest in it, traffic has always been minute and has only gone down. Is there perhaps a potential to expand it into a coherent story, and about more ships? If not, then it seems to me that Charlotte#Ships and the articles themselves should suffice. --Joy (talk) 12:08, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and United Kingdom. Joy (talk) 12:08, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect or just delete. The suggested target is as much as we need. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:11, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and Lists. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:53, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as it would be an unlikely redirect. The only two ships listed have their own articles, so the details are redundant, and the dab page has a far more complete listing. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:19, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Move to broader List of ships named Charlotte to which can be added content from Charlotte (and some other current pages absent from there), as well as other Charlottes not yet covered (there are some French naval ships, a US Civil War blockade runner and a long-lived US coastal passenger steamer, for example). That would provide a much more useful one-stop-shop set index. Davidships (talk) 01:57, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Can you draft something like that first? Because I'm not sure I'm seeing the value of having a separate list. What's the value a separate list of ships provides to the readers over just having them listed at the disambiguation page? --Joy (talk) 09:15, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A set index is not the same as as a disambiguation page - please read WP:SETINDEX. There is some variation in format/content amongst the existing ~7000 articles in Category:Set index articles on ships, but if I were drafting one it might look something like List of ships named Cherokee. - Davidships (talk) 13:06, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well, funny you should mention that, as it says explicitly: Being a set of a specific type means that the members of the set have some characteristic in common, in addition to their similarity of name. What would be this characteristic common to all of these ships named Charlotte? I suppose there's some inherent value in the inclusionist act of listmaking, but it would be nice to have it spelled out, as opposed to this "RTFM noob" attitude. --Joy (talk) 13:58, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry if I inadvertently gave the wrong impression, but trying to avoid multiple cut and paste quotes, and I hesitate to answer your question directly. Readers coming to look for information on a ship Caroline are helped better than through a dab, by virtue of more information, and particularly on ships that do not, as yet, have an article of their own or a section in another article - for me, adding a red link suggests that the ship may well meet the criteria for something more specific. All of those, as well as unlinked (black) entries at least point the reader to a reference or two. Most such lists do not attempt to be fully inclusive (there have been well over one hundred ships named Charlotte in the UK alone over the last 200 years), so comprehensivity is naturally tempered by utility and referencing. - Davidships (talk) 17:43, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I suppose that number of over a hundred sounds like there's much more potential than just +4 or so on top of those that we already have documented. As it is, though, it's just duplicating the disambiguation list without showing that potential, so maybe this should be incubated in the Draft namespace? --Joy (talk) 19:53, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Joy: Doesn't having the same name plus all of them being ships satisfy the "some characteristic in common" criterion? I might note that one of the examples given at WP:SETINDEX is "List of ships of the United States Navy named Enterprise", which is more specific than David's proposal even though they are also all listed at the dab Enterprise as well. Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 22:23, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that's the thing, if the type is "ships of the United States" or "Age of Sail ships" then these seem clearly defining, but with just ships I don't know. It's like splitting off a name list into "List of women called Charlotte", somehow it doesn't seem right offhand. --Joy (talk) 08:23, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Move per Davidships. Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 05:16, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Disambiguation -- There isn't a particularly good policy upon which to hang any decision for this one, so I thought about how a user would likely interact with Wikipedia. Would it ever occur to a reader to search for 'List of Age of Sail...' or would they start with 'Charlotte'. I think that is exactly where any rational user would start, then might drill down further from there. There is already a Ships section in that Dismb with both ships listed, and a fine home (dependent from that list) for all 200 UK Charlottes at HMS Charlotte, various Royal Navy ships. I'd suggest subheading on both articles for Age of Sail if that seems helpful, but no separate stand-alone lists. Cheers, Last1in (talk) 20:45, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to disambiguation. NavjotSR (talk) 15:43, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a pointless title that nobody's ever going to search on and redirect Charlotte (ship) to disambiguation. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:26, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've redirected Charlotte (ship) to the dab page. Regardless of this Afd outcome, that's the proper target. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:32, 20 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!} 20:29, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Move and expand per Davidships. There are a lot of ships with that name, many of which would pass notability guidelines. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:01, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Move and expand per Davidships Lyndaship (talk) 06:55, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Move and expand per Davidships Murgatroyd49 (talk) 10:31, 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 delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:19, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

AI for Good Specialization[edit]

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

Lack of notability. Looks live an attempt to create a walled garden by the creator of DeepLearning.AI TheLongTone (talk) 15:41, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Technology, and Internet. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:44, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable. Lewcm Talk to me! 20:47, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, looks promotional and is (currently) not notable. Artem.G (talk) 16:41, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

keep, I have changed the language to make it more neutral. This is from Andrew Ng (one of the most well known AI educators) and Robert Monarch (author of the book "Human-in-the-Loop Machine Learning"). It is notable for those reasons, as well as for the number of participants. Caitlyn 191.102.59.2 (talk) 191.102.59.2 (talk) 17:44, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to improve the article I suggest looking for reliable independent sources discussing the programme, which is what's required by WP:N. Ligaturama (talk) 17:56, 17 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!} 20:27, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable, written as an advertisement. Being associated with someone notable as mentioned above isn't enough. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ligaturama (talk • contribs) 08:16, 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 delete‎. ✗plicit 23:24, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kerameikou 28[edit]

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

Concerns in the templates on the top. The author bypassed AfC (after ~~two~~ failed attempts) by submitting a significantly shortened version and, after the approval, readding the controversial parts. I would draftify this, but WP:DRAFT prohibits this on articles older than 90 days. Janhrach (talk) 16:27, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Arts and Greece. Janhrach (talk) 16:27, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Given that it was just moved to mainspace last month, I'm not sure the draft prohibition applies, but better to get consensus here. I think there's enough to meet N:ORG, but this article would need to be gutted and eyes kept on it for it to survive. Would a p-block for the creator who clearly has a COI help? Star Mississippi 16:30, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It seems that there are no editors, apart from the creator, who are interested in improvement of the article. On the other hand, there is a problem with how the article is written, and I think that the author should not be allowed to edit the article if they do not demonstrate a significant improvement of their tone. I am against keeping this in mainspace. An alternative to draftification is reverting to the AfC-accepted version. Janhrach (talk) 08:15, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The article was initially composed in a different tone than Wikipedia's standard and was accepted only after Qcne (talk) agreed and accepted the writing tone.

The "concerns" raised about Keramikou 28 appear to be more personally motivated than reflective of adherence to Wikipedia rules.

With regard to the observation that the page seemingly lacks editors, it is important to clarify that this does not contravene Wikipedia rules. It is also essential to recognize that the page is only a week old.
Additionally, concerns raised about the article's writing style have been addressed and accepted by a nativespeaker of the english language Qcne (talk), in contrast with Janhrach who lacks proficiency in the English language and is at an intermediate level, NOT PROFICIENT. Errico Boukoura (talk) 13:05, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As you can see in the links below, it was not Qcne who did approve the article, nor it was moved to mainspace a week ago. I mentioned a low potential editor count in the context of moving back to draft namespace and a partial block, as unmaintained drafts are deleted after some time. And I do not have to be an advanced speaker of English to recognize that phrases like "a variety of exhibitions [...] within its historic walls", "[...] took a dramatic turn", "embodying its radical spirit through countless exhibitions [...]", "the legacy [...] endures as a testament to [...]" are not appropriate in a encyclopedia. Janhrach (talk) 19:54, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Qcne (talk) confirmation was about the tone of Keramikou 28 was written upon, and conformed appropriately for Wikipedia.

That being said, Janhrach intermediate level of English does not allow the effective understanding of the writing tone. Thus, for non-native English speakers, it is required to be proficient in English for such corrections.

Breakdown of the mentioned phrases by by Janhrach:

"A variety of exhibitions [...]"

Stating that a variety of exhibitions took place is surely not in any way in violation of any Wikipedia protocol.

"Within its historic walls [...]"

The building is more than 100 years old, which categorizes it as historic.

IMPORTANT NOTE: The Greek Ministry of Culture mandates that any building or structure within Greek territory more than 100 years old to be considered a historic site.

"Took a dramatic turn[...]"

A dramatic turn indeed occurred. I am not sure why this would be the wrong word to use.

"Embodying its radical spirit through countless exhibitions [...]",

There is a reference by BBC regarding the Athenian art scene that has been EXACTLY copied and pasted from that article.

"The legacy [...]"

This could spark a debate, but it still follows the rules of the Greek Ministry of Culture.

"Endures as a testament to [...]"

??

Morever, as metioned by Star Mississippi there's enough to meet N:ORG. Errico Boukoura (talk) 11:55, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
NOTE: The mentioned parentheses have been temporarily changed until it is confirmed that Janhrach emphasis are wrong. Errico Boukoura (talk) 12:33, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure, but you are probably referring to your two edits to the article. ~~As far as I know, the phrase "take a turn" is not meaningful is this context.~~ (Edit: my mistake, it is.) The second edit was useful and constructive, but you have maybe misunderstood me, I referred to a different phrase. (The above list is not exhaustive.) Janhrach (talk) 15:07, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Addressing your arguments:
~~Please post the diff number of Qcne's confirmation.~~ (Edit: my bad, I didn't understand that you meant that you responded to Qcne, not the other way around.)

The word variety was not of particular issue. What I had an issue with is the usage of "within [...] walls" as a metaphor for "inside the building". It is unencyclopedic.

"to take a dramatic turn" is an informal phrase. The whole phrase is a problem, not just the word dramatic.

When you make a verbatim quote, you should use quotation marks, it didn't look like being quoted. What is worse, however, is that there is no reference on the statement, so it may constitute a copyright infringement. I could not find the said phrase at the URL you supplied, could you please write in which paragraph it is? Thank you.

Please clarify why do you consider the last phrase ok. I didn't understand. The words testament and endures are particularly off-tone.

The fact that the subject passes WP:NORG doesn't mean the article couldn't be draftified or deleted.

Janhrach (talk) 15:00, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Addressing the addressing issues:
No worries

The phrase "within its historic walls" has been changeed to "within its walls".

The phrase "to take a dramatic turn" has been changeed to "underwent a significant transformation".

I am not sure which quote you are referring to (Please share it so it can be handled).

The phrase "testament and endures "has been changed to "stands".

As mentioned by Star Mississippi; Given that this page was just moved to mainspace last month, NO draft prohibition applies. There's enough to meet N:ORG, meaing there is enought N:ORG to keep the page and NOT draftified or deleted (N:ORG is currently not a reason for draftification or deletion so far).

As you are more concerned about the tone, please reply regarding issue 4, and let me know which other words you believe should be changed. The issue regarding N:ORG is currently not a point of contention, as both Star Mississippi and I are in concurrence on this matter. This alignment results in a collective agreement of 2 versus 1.

Note: If a third party agrees that the tone did not need to be changed and did not break any rules of Wikipedia, it will be changed back to how it was originally written. Errico Boukoura (talk) 23:07, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Important Update:

CONTEXT:

I am a professor of Fine Arts with a focus on Greek-American art and the Greek contemporary art scene.

Kerameikou 28 was a project I recently started researching because I believe it could serve as a good example for social centers in the United States.

Research Update:

While researching for further information regarding Kerameikou 28 due to Janhrach's concerns for N:ORG, I found the phone number of one of the previous owners.

It appears that the new owner complained to the previous owners about the Kerameikou 28 Wikipedia page, expressing a desire to transform the building into an Artist Residency.

The previous owner I spoke with on the phone mentioned that the new owner threatened them regarding the Wikipedia page of Kerameikou 28 if they didn't address this matter.

While this is hypothetical, Janhrach might be associated with the new owner, implying a potential conflict of interest. Errico Boukoura (talk) 11:14, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: four sections were removed from the article several hours ago. Janhrach (talk) 07:57, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

Keramikou 28 initially had two failed attempts when submitted, but this was solely due to the incorrect writing tone ( AND NOT due the submitting a significantly shortened version as mentioned above). It is important to note that after the first failed attempt of publishing Keramikou 28, the writing was reexamined and adhered to Wikipedia rules.

Additionally, more information was added to the page as additional proof (reference link) was found regarding Keramikou 28. However, we have deleted this added information after Keramikou 28 went live, as user Janhrach believes there was insufficient evidence (reference links) and did not approve of the written tone.

Janhrach note was taken seriously, and we have removed the added information. We will make efforts to find more information or proof to comply with Wikipedia's rules.

All the best,

Errico Boukoura Errico Boukoura (talk) 11:21, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I claimed not that the article didn't pass AfC because of being shortened, but that it did pass AfC because of that. The article still isn't well-referenced, nor has its tone been fixed. Relevant AfC review diffs (I was mistaken, they are more than two.): Special:Diff/1176695262, Special:Diff/1177158473, Special:Diff/1177960977, Special:Diff/1183832995, Special:Diff/1187303157, Special:Diff/1187708015. Janhrach (talk) 19:32, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please share with us which exact parts are not well-referenced. Errico Boukoura (talk) 11:56, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Every non-trivial claim should be sourced. For example, the Community scetion is completely unsourced (ignoring the refences that do not seem to have much to do with this article, except being about the said people). Many other claims do not have references. If they are supported by already used sources, you should reuse them, not let the reader search for the correct reference. Janhrach (talk) 14:33, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Community has four different references that back up most of the things said. It is impossible to have a reference for every line, and about 90% of the information said on the Community can be found in the references mentioned. Additionally, the other five references on the page can also support everything that is being said in the Community section. Errico Boukoura (talk) 22:39, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE: A new reference has been added in the Community section with further information that delves deeper than what this section says. It backs up not only the claims in the Community section but also the activities. Errico Boukoura (talk) 23:22, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment this is an absolute mess, because we now have no idea what article we're actually deleting. The comments that unacceptable text will be replaced, above, are really unhelpful because they mean that anyone voting keep will potentially find themselves voting to keep something other than what's there. When we discuss changes to articles, they shouldn't be temporary, conditional changes, made to secure a keep at AfD, with the clear understanding that they'll be undone as soon as the article is kept!

To summarise my point of view: the building or commune within it may be notable, but when challenged, editors writing in Wikipedia are utterly obliged to find sources independent of the subject to back up what they say, and confirm notability. Too many of the current sources appear to be press-releases. Unless proper sources appear, the article cannot be in main-space in its present form. Draftify would be kind. TNT and start over would be an alternative. Elemimele (talk) 00:22, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you, great argument. I lean towards draftification, because the article isn't irreparable. The above discussion should probably left in its current state as you said. This ANI thread should be mentioned, as ~~it is relevant~~ the discussion shifted to the article at once (edited 08:07, 23 December 2023 (UTC)). Janhrach (talk) 14:15, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This discussion is hard to make sense of. We are discussing what should happen with this specific article and that should be the focus. Also, there is no need to bold or CAPITALIZE any words, it is just distracting and doesn't help win over editors to your argument, it is just irritating.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:26, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: At the time of the nomination, Special:Diff/1189925650 was the latest revision. Janhrach (talk) 08:14, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't an encyclopedia article about an artistic community. It's an essay about them. I think it's quite possible that we should have an article about the artists, but I don't think that this is a useful starting point for that article. I also don't think that we can work with the creator to fix it -- his behaviour shows that he's not willing to adapt to Wikipedia and he expects us to adapt to him. Delete as WP:TNT.—S Marshall T/C 10:25, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@S Marshall: Could you please clarify why do you consider this article an essay? Otherwise, I more or less agree with your arguments. Janhrach (talk) 12:26, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
(1) The WP:TONE is unencyclopaedic; (2) its style is WP:EMPHATIC; and (3) it isn't WP:TERSE. It's full of needless modifiers (adjectives and adverbs), some of which border on peacocking. Someone really passionate about Kerameiko28 might write the content we're considering on an information leaflet -- we, as dispassionate and objective encyclopaedia writers, need to be succinct, direct, and clear. Take the following totally uncited paragraph:

The transformation of the building into an artists hub elevated its status in the Athenian subculture art scene. It provided a venue for both emerging and established artists to exhibit their work and engage in creative pursuits outsied traditional galleries and museums. The building came to symbolize the vibrant artistic community of the city, hosting a variety of exhibitions, performances, and initiative projects.

Well that's three sentences. The facts they're trying to convey are: (First sentence) The building became a hub for artists and performers. (Second sentence) Artists and performers could exhibit their work there. (Third sentence) Many did.

How would you write that in simple, clear, direct English that would be accessible to a curious child or a person whose first language wasn't English? There are quite a few ways but none of them have anything to do with what this author wrote.

From reading what they say, I think the author expects us to follow him around fixing this, and, no, we won't -- absolutely not. We simply don't have the volunteers to do that. If this person wants to write for Wikipedia, they need to become competent at writing articles before they start.—S Marshall T/C 13:50, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, you wrote exactly what I think about the tone, I just didn't understand this specific sense of the word essay. Janhrach (talk) 14:18, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:TNT. If there can be an article on this, starting from scratch would be cleaner than trying to fix the brochure language here. XOR'easter (talk) 15:18, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:TNT. I agree with S Marshall that this article is not encyclopedic in tone, and we'd need to remove so much of it to get down to the core facts it might as well be done over from scratch. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:43, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per TNT, I agree with S Marshall and the two editors above. This article is a trainwreck, and the editor bludgeoning this debate should be restricted from contributing to it further and also from being involved in any potential re-creation. This is not how Wikipedia editing processes work. Daniel (talk) 22:45, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Happy holidays, everyone!

I apologize if it seemed like I was unwilling to correct this Wikipedia page.

As mentioned above, please write all of your concerns regarding this page in one comment so I can review them and make the necessary changes.

As there are more than two editors in this discussion at this point, it's a bit chaotic. So, I invite each one of you to comment with all of your concerns under this comment. Errico Boukoura (talk) 14:44, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's not how this works. At this point, we are in discussion about whether or not to delete the article outright. The arguments have been presented above. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 15:03, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is now the fifth time that Errico Boukoura has tried to dictate the location and formatting of discussions incorrectly - [4] [5] [6] [7]. It's starting to get a little bit dull, and is verging on disruptive. Daniel (talk) 00:03, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note, @Janhrach and Errico Boukoura:, please be aware of WP:BLUDGEON and allow other editors to weigh in. Errico Boukoura, please do not dictate how participants can provide feedback. That is not how it is handled. Star Mississippi 15:37, 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 merge‎ to Studio Hibari. Daniel (talk) 22:54, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lerche (studio)[edit]

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

I wouldn't describe the Lerche page as contentious, but it seems to cause confusion for the layman and editor. I believe twice now it's been changed from "Lerche (studio)" to "Lerche (brand)" or other; but nonetheless: it is not an animation studio or company, it's simply a brand name of one (namely, Studio Hibari). No source exists proving that Lerche is its own company, and Hibari's own website located here indicates that it is simply an animation brand name. A source provided on the page in a prior version I've removed, a 2014 recruitment notice, also only lists Studio Hibari and its 3D-animation subsidiary Larx Animation as companies--"Lerche" is instead given mention only as a name which certain works were produced under the name of. The about page likewise lists Hibari, LARX, Hibari Vietnam, and AZ Creative. On its own, "Lerche" is not exactly notable enough to have an entire page dedicated to it, either. Ignoring the above points, it's a list of works by Lerche that has no possible expansion as a company article; and especially given that it is a brand name, which Studio Hibari already associates to itself, I think the contents should instead be merged with its owner, Studio Hibari, much like how the Japanese Wikipedia team has handled the issue; or to use another EN Wikipedia example, the Bakken Record brand. This would largely remove unneeded confusion with the article itself, but also more concretely indicate that "Lerche" and "Hibari" are not two different companies, teams, or studios; but rather the exact same thing with different names, with brands between them distinguishable on the page itself.

I'm not sure what would be done with the associated category, but the associated template could be combined with Hibari's and simply split between the two. Sarcataclysmal (talk) 09:20, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Sarcataclysmal (talk) 09:20, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Anime and manga and Japan. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:05, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Studio Hibari to match the nom's Bakken Record example. The article is just a list of works they created accompanied with an infobox and a barebones lede of the article subject's name, what it's an instance of, when it was founded and by which company, and the nom's findings show that it's not a company but instead a brand. ミラP@Miraclepine 00:15, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 16:52, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Is there any more support for a possible Merge?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:22, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to aforementioned Studio Hibari. Suitskvarts (talk) 14:00, 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. —Ganesha811 (talk) 23:12, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Otto Spoerri[edit]

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

Otto Spoerri is not notable. Almost 100% of the Google results for him are of his obituary. There is only one Google result from before his death, a passing mention in a 1999 Entertainment Weekly article. There have been only three passing mentions of him (1, 2, 3) in reliable sources since his death per Google. There is absolutely no depth to any of this "coverage," if it can be called that. Dennis C. Abrams (talk) 16:59, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Film, and Entertainment. Dennis C. Abrams (talk) 16:59, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:39, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:51, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. Who said obituaries did not count??? Substantial coverage in Los Angeles Times, The Denver Post, The Times, The Wall Street Journal, The Philadelphia Inquirer, The San Diego Union-Tribune, Variety (magazine).....and that’s only a one-click list.... Please....-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 00:25, 21 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!} 20:21, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It's not the first time I've seen complaints about obituaries, but in my opinion there is nothing wrong with them (at least in the context of notability). Especially when it's a RS. Suitskvarts (talk) 14:04, 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 delete‎. ✗plicit 00:31, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Communication-enabled business process[edit]

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

This is not a notable concept. There is no meaningful coverage of this in independent reliable sources. This was coined by a consulting company to advertise its services. Thenightaway (talk) 18:43, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:43, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Google scholar indicates the term is in sustained use in academic papers. Mccapra (talk) 20:54, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This does not seem like sustained use in academic work to me. As far as I can tell, most of the references are to papers mostly published in the period 2008–2012 and authored by two people: "Wu Chou" and "Marcos Báez". The other academic references are in obscure publications that have barely any cites. Thenightaway (talk) 21:13, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 17:03, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The user who created the article, initially copypasted it, and has no edits outside the article and its disambiguations/redirects. 21 google scholar results in total is not enough considering there is no significant coverage outside Chou and Báez. It is just a buzzword. Darcyisverycute (talk) 08:16, 22 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!} 20:21, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Yeah, that sounds like a buzzword. It's also practically orphaned. Suitskvarts (talk) 14:07, 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 merge‎ to Alternatives to general relativity. There were mixed opinions about the Merge target (perhaps there are two?) but that discussion can move out of AFD and onto the talk page of the article in question. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:44, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

GRSI model[edit]

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

This model is not notable: it has very few citations outside of Deur's group and no secondary sources covering it. I'm not sure it's technically WP:FRINGE, but it doesn't seem worthy of its own article, or of anything more than a cursory mention (if that) elsewhere. I don't think any of the "full GR" models have been considered successful at removing the need for dark matter. Parejkoj (talk) 19:15, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. Parejkoj (talk) 19:17, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Non-standard cosmology: where it deserves a paragraph or two, based on existing fringe academic literature. Owen× ☎ 22:41, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Alternatives to general relativity The GR-SI model is a computational extension of General Relativity. It uses the GR field theory exclusively, it does not modify the Standard Model, it does not challenge the role of GR or the Standard Model in Big Bang theory. When cosmology is discussed it is only to explore the impact of the alternative calculations. Thus it is not suitable for Non standard cosmology. (Replacing my anti-delete with an argument for a different merge target: The argument for deletion is not strong. The first reference in the article is a review so the claim above of no secondary sources is not upheld. Multiple peer reviewed papers and citations mean this is not fringe. The status of other models with respect to removing the need for dark matter is not relevant. The name of the article is puzzling even after reading it and some of the cited articles; this acronym is not used AFAICT and should not be a title. In any case I think work by an recent American Physical Society Fellow (https://www.jlab.org/news/releases/parsing-puzzle-nucleon-spin) should not be considered WP:FRINGE. This is simply another physics theory. Unfortunately the article Non-standard cosmology is an unnecessarily negative title )Johnjbarton (talk) 23:56, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I see nothing negative about the title Non-standard cosmology. Anything other than ΛCDM is "non-standard". This isn't pseudoscience, it's just not the leading theory at the moment. But if you have a better target for this merge, or a better name for the target page, let's hear it and discuss. Owen× ☎ 00:02, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I think that discussion would be better here: Talk:Non-standard_cosmology#Alternative_organizations Johnjbarton (talk) 01:26, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into an appropriate target like Alternatives to general relativity (1st choice), Non-standard cosmology (2nd choice), etc. ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf) 00:39, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge selectively into an appropriate target, as suggested above. The available secondary sourcing is just too thin. The citations to reference 3, for example, run the gamut from MDPI (unreliable) to self-citation (not independent) to arXiv preprints (typically unsuitable). The review cited by the article is by someone who also promotes their own replacement for dark matter, involving a "second flavor of hydrogen", that others seem rather indifferent to. Indeed, that review spends 21 paragraphs on the author's own "second flavor of hydrogen" idea, versus 6 on Deur's proposal. It is not an evaluation from a mainstream position. XOR'easter (talk) 17:35, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment We're setting our selves up for a problem: I guess there may be many such "merge" candidates. Say for example Einstein-aether theory. Our readers need an overview and paragraph on each, rather than a mashup of articles we'd prefer not to have stand alone. I guess we can view the mashup as a resource for future work ;-). Johnjbarton (talk) 17:42, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I made the wikipedia page for this model for two reasons:

1) The GR-SI model is a frequent topic of discussion on physics and astrophysics forums as well as in blogs. A Google search for the author's name (Deur) along with the subjects 'Deur "dark matter"' or 'Deur "dark energy"' returns 71,600 or 51,800 hits respectively. I am aware that it is also widely debated in Germany; for instance, a search for 'Deur "Dunkle Materie"' yields 4,200 hits, or the reference by Prof. T. Moeller in this month's issue of Leserbrief Physik Journal (12 2003). This general interest is one reason I thought a dedicated wikipage would be useful.

2) The other reason is because the model addresses numerous dark matter and dark energy related phenomena whose corresponding wikipages cite alternative solutions, such as MOND or the work by Cooperstock and Tieu concerning rotation curves (which are also strongly criticized by dark universe proponents). Hence, a specific GR-SI page seems logical rather than providing a brief descriptions of GR-SI in each of those Wikipedia pages (dark matter, dark energy, galactic rotation curves, and Microwave Background Anisotropy...)

Merging the GR-SI page with a more general one like "Non-Standard Cosmology" would still serve the two purposes above, so I think it is a good solution if we do feel that having a dedicated wiki page for this model is not warranted. Peterjol (talk) 22:43, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Peterjol, your article is very well written, and the academic sources you provided support verifiability. The only question here is whether the model has received enough secondary coverage to make it notable enough for a standalone article.

For all we know, new measurements next year will push out Lambda-CDM in favour of GRSI, Dr. Alexandre Deur will rise to worldwide glory, and your article will be dug up from the depths of wikihistory beneath the redirect (although my money is on a variant of MOND...). But until then, we're stuck with a shortage of secondary coverage, as you already acknowledged. Owen× ☎ 23:44, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Alternatives to general relativity with a summary-style entry in Non-standard cosmology. Perhaps it belongs at the end of the Modern theories section? Praemonitus (talk) 16:51, 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 delete‎. ✗plicit 00:32, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Intelligent document[edit]

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

Article has been tagged as unsourced for over a decade - I did a Google search and the subject does not seem to be notable. Chidgk1 (talk) 19:31, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Chidgk1 (talk) 19:31, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Article has been tagged as unsourced for over a decade - I did a Google search and the subject does not seem to be notable. Chidgk1 (talk) 19:31, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Article has been tagged as unsourced for over a decade - I did a Google search and the subject does not seem to be notable. Chidgk1 (talk) 19:36, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Electronic document: or Merge if sourcing can be found for any of the contents. Owen× ☎ 21:38, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Disputed prod so don't want to take a 'soft-redirect' approach, better to relist to form consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 19:39, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The discussion seems to have migrated to E-paper and various iterations of the PDF format, now using e-signatures and the like. I don't think this caught on as a concept, I can only find things about PDF. Oaktree b (talk) 21:30, 15 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!} 19:06, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Also, the article would be orphaned if not a few See also listings. Suitskvarts (talk) 14:08, 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 per sources provided by OwenX. (non-admin closure) Schminnte^{[talk to me]} 01:47, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fighting Antisemitism Together[edit]

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

Previously survived Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/FAST - Fighting Antisemitism Together in 2006 based on what by modern-standards is a bunch of passing mentions or non-independent content. Cannot find the required in-depth, independent coverage to establish notability * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:21, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Canada. Shellwood (talk) 23:09, 15 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!} 18:57, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I just added three RS from mainstream news, including what appears to be SIGCOV from the Globe and Mail. Coupled with the non-local, non-trivial coverage from the Jerusalem Post, I believe this qualifies as notable. Owen× ☎ 19:10, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep since with the new sources, FAST seems notable. Cortador (talk) 20:05, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and remove the notability tag. Suitskvarts (talk) 14:10, 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 delete‎. If someone editor wants to work on this article in Draft space and submit it for AFC review, contact me or WP:REFUND Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:54, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

BetterMed[edit]

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

Fails WP:NCORP. Sources are press releases and mentions. CNN coverage is not in-depth. My WP:BEFORE did not show a presence of NCORP-compliant sourcing. There is seemingly in-depth coverage in the Grit Daily article, but that web page strongly resembles sponsored content and is, in terms of form, a press-release/interview hybrid with the claims obviously being sourced to the company with no outside, journalistic, analysis, scrutiny or contextualization; includes tell-tale promotional verbiage such as What’s next for BetterMed?. —Alalch E. 17:44, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Medicine. —Alalch E. 17:44, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not a PR repository. I concur with the nominator's evaluation of the available sources. XOR'easter (talk) 18:09, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: CNN is a trivial paragraph mention. Rest of the sourcing used is PR. I can't find anything about this organization, there was a string of medical clinics with the same name that was bought out. I don't think it's related to this; rest is entirely PR items that I find. Oaktree b (talk) 19:43, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Advert for NN company posing as article. --Tagishsimon (talk) 21:53, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:04, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The company doesn't have that much coverage in major outlets but it is very notable. The CNN source alone should be enough to consider it notable. CNN is a reliable source as per Wikipedia guidelines. Evanzoe (talk) 10:45, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That was already addressed: CNN coverage is not in-depth. It is not in-depth because it only contains one short paragraph about the subject. There's a second paragraph but it is a quote of someone from the company, and that doesn't count. Coverage must he in-depth for a source to count toward notability. There must be multiple such sources, not just one, and there are none. If there is no significant coverage in multiole sources about a company, it is not notable. So it can't be "very notable". It can't be non-notable due to insufficient coverage and very notable at the same time. "Notability" has a specific meaning on Wikipedia. —Alalch E. 12:33, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify. Given that notability is not ruled out, but there are problems with WP:SIGCOV. Also, the page is new. Suitskvarts (talk) 14:53, 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 Warsaw Metro. Hey man im josh (talk) 20:14, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

M5 (Warsaw)[edit]

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

Per the article's sole source, this is planned to be operational by 2050. This should be a redirect to Warsaw Metro until there is something more substantial to say. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 17:38, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and Poland. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 17:38, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - probably a case of WP:TOOSOON, as with M4 (Warsaw). Jonathan Deamer (talk) 18:47, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Warsaw Metro: until the line achieves independent notability. Owen× ☎ 19:24, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as WP:TOOSOON. S5A-0043^Talk 06:51, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per TOOSOON. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:17, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect per nom and others. Andre🚐 06:30, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as above per WP:TOOSOON. Suitskvarts (talk) 14:54, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. A solid case could be made for delete (way out, dabbed title, just created) and redirect (ATD, CHEAP). So how to decide? Well, nominator suggested a redirect. ATDs in nominations are appreciated and encouraged. So respecting the intro and nom with a tie-breaker seems a fair choice! gidonb (talk) 22:33, 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 redirect‎ to Warsaw Metro. Hey man im josh (talk) 20:14, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

M4 (Warsaw)[edit]

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

Per the article's sole source, this is planned to be operational by 2050. This should be a redirect to Warsaw Metro until there is something more substantial to say. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 17:37, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and Poland. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 17:37, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - probably a case of WP:TOOSOON, as with M5 (Warsaw). Jonathan Deamer (talk) 18:48, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Warsaw Metro: until the line achieves independent notability. Owen× ☎ 19:24, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as WP:TOOSOON. S5A-0043^Talk 06:51, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per TOOSOON. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:17, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect per nom and others. Andre🚐 06:29, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. A solid case could be made for delete (way out, dabbed title, just created) and redirect (ATD, CHEAP). So how to decide? Well, nominator suggested a redirect. ATDs in nominations are appreciated and encouraged. So respecting the intro and nom with a tie-breaker seems a fair choice! gidonb (talk) 22:34, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as above per WP:TOOSOON. Suitskvarts (talk) 14:56, 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 List of castles and fortresses in Azerbaijan. Daniel (talk) 22:52, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of forts in Artsakh[edit]

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

Article has been stub for over 10 years, has questionable notability for an independent article, and mostly duplicates content from the much more comprehensive and useful (and better sourced) List of castles and fortresses in Azerbaijan article. Originally prod'd the page tho per User:RadioactiveBoulevardier, I'll put this up to AfD. As an WP:ATD, I'm also open to turning this page into a redirect though I think the article title leaves room for confusion (I think its just as likely that a user would search for a list of forts in the ancient Artsakh empires/entities as for a list of forts in the soon-to-dissolve Republic of Artsakh (both topics are also not co-extensive). Dan the Animator 17:31, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and Lists. Dan the Animator 17:31, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Azerbaijan-related deletion discussions. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 17:32, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Armenia-related deletion discussions. Archives908 (talk) 17:39, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Most are non-notable. Orientls (talk) 06:24, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect -- Now that the Armenian republic of Artsakh has been conquered and dissolved, there is no merit in the existence of this article. Peterkingiron (talk) 11:45, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of castles and fortresses in Azerbaijan. Suitskvarts (talk) 15:00, 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 delete‎. ✗plicit 14:57, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Intetics[edit]

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

Sources are largely interviews, directories, or not independent. Notability challenged since 2012. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 17:14, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Software, and Florida. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 17:16, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Belarus-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 17:41, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: An article on a company, with the lead paragraph a close paraphrase of this item by the CEO. There was a COI warning to the original editor in 2018; subsequently the article was been heavily edited by a succession of IP and subsequently-blocked sock accounts. At present, the article is a timeline of relocations, certifications, industry awards, and product propositions; earlier article versions were more succinct, but still didn't demonstrate attained notability; nor are searches finding better sources. AllyD (talk) 15:06, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Seems to be a promo case. Almost orphaned. Suitskvarts (talk) 15:07, 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 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. Daniel (talk) 22:52, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

FirstMeridian[edit]

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

Fails to meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines for corporations, as explained in WP:NCORP and WP:ORGCRIT. Charlie (talk) 16:59, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and India. Charlie (talk) 16:59, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Karnataka-related deletion discussions. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 17:02, 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 merge‎ to List of defunct airlines of Tonga. Note that consensus is for merged article title to exist at this title (List of airlines of Tonga). (non-admin closure) 2pou (talk) 20:06, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of airlines of Tonga[edit]

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

A list with exactly one entry is both not a list and useless. This should be redirected to Lulutai Airlines or deleted. It serves no encyclopedic purpose as-is. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 16:48, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 16:48, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oceania-related deletion discussions. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 16:57, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Here's an article from the the New Zealand Herald that confirms that Tonga does, in fact, only have a single operational airline, making the need for this list void at this point. That said, there was Royal Tongan Airlines, Fly Niu Airlines, Peau Vavaʻu, Real Tonga, and supposedly one called Reef Air. So if we include all Tongan airlines in this list, operational and defunct, I think we should keep the article. Input is welcome. Cortador (talk) 20:13, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We could include those, but it would still have to pass NLIST, it think (unless there's some SNG clause...?) Cremastra (talk) 20:46, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Aviation, and Lists. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:06, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge List of defunct airlines of Tonga into this list. All of the similar lists could be consolidated to avoid duplication, considering a while ago I prodded seven lists of this type that had zero entries, including List of airlines of Liberia. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 03:25, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I support this merge. Cortador (talk) 11:29, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support merge. S5A-0043^Talk 06:49, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support this merge - Tonga generally has only one active airline at a time, due to royal monopolies, so there's not much need for a list of active airlines. But the past list isn't long enough to be unwieldy, so combining the two makes sense. IdiotSavant (talk) 23:12, 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 delete‎. ✗plicit 14:56, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mandagua[edit]

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

Association football BLP which, based on a before search, lacks enough WP:SIGCOV to meet WP:GNG. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:10, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Brazil. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:10, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, undistinguished career so not likely with significant coverage. Geschichte (talk) 21:47, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 10:05, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 10:06, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Per WP:GNG Svartner (talk) 16:58, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Also, almost orphaned. Suitskvarts (talk) 15:10, 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 delete‎. Daniel (talk) 22:51, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Gwynn Valley[edit]

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

This article doesn't have any reliable sources, it doesn't meet the WP:GNG, it was created by someone that probably works there (Abbybooklover), and therefore it's fundamentally written like an advertisement. Meteorname (talk) 16:07, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. Meteorname (talk) 16:07, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I could not find any sources online other than the camps own social media and website. Appears to be an advertising page. GeorgieL (talk) 20:17, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I've tried to find sources too, but no luck.

Jonathan Deamer (talk) 19:43, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I've tried to find sources too, but no luck.
Delete - None of the sources showed any kind of notability. ✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 00:18, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of watermills in the United States. Suitskvarts (talk) 15:11, 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 delete‎. ✗plicit 14:55, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Túlio (footballer, born 1987)[edit]

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

Association football BLP which, based on a before search, lacks enough WP:SIGCOV to meet WP:GNG. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:05, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Brazil. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:05, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, hardly played games so why would there be any coverage. Geschichte (talk) 21:41, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 10:05, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 10:06, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Looking at the website ogol.com.br, the athlete had a short professional career, playing only in clubs without a national division from 2008 to 2013. He undeniably failed in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 13:34, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Thought about redirecting (to Sport Club do Recife, but no mention there) or draftifying (but no perspective). Suitskvarts (talk) 15:14, 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 keep‎. Daniel (talk) 22:51, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Netiv HaAsara massacre[edit]

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

Like with many other similar pages, this page does not stand up to basic scrutiny. Very few sources. Not a single one refers to a "Netiv HaAsara massacre" or even a "massacre in Netiv HaAsara". Virtually no coverage as a standalone event. All coverage discusses the broader October 7 attack and how it partly took place in Netiv HaAsara. Claiming a Netiv HaAsara massacre goes against WP:OR, WP:POV, and WP:VER. Dylanvt (talk) 15:51, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 December 22. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 16:02, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Terrorism, Israel, and Palestine. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:06, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: It's an obvious WP:GNG. Here are just the first 25 of the many sources:

מצמרר: הקצין שנפל ניבא את אפשרות הטבח בנתיב העשרה
בעלה והבן נרצחו, שני הבנים פצועים קשה: "לא נשאר לי כלום, אבל אחזור לנתיב העשרה"
צה"ל חיסל את בכיר החמאס שפיקד על הטבח בנתיב העשרה וארז
ניצל מהטבח וחשף: "אבא שלי קפץ על הרימון – והציל את שנינו"
"רוצים לדעת שלא נצטרך ממ"ד כשנחזור": משפחת דרור מנתיב העשרה מתגעגעת הביתה
לפחות 250 ישראלים נהרגו מהבוקר, בהם שישה ילדים
מלחמה בדרום | לפחות 250 הרוגים: אזרחים וחיילים מוחזקים בעזה, מחבלים מחזיקים בני ערובה בעוטף
צה"ל ושב"כ: חיסלנו את מפקד גדוד בית לאהיה של חמאס | צפו
‘There was no air force, no soldiers, we were alone,’ says Hamas massacre survivor
אנשי חמאס צנחו וטבחו; בנה של נאוה חיסל מחבל בבית - כשהבנות בממ"ד: "היינו שעות עם גופה במסדרון"
מלחמת פתע: כאלף מחבלים חדרו מעזה לשטח ישראל, למעלה מ-350 נרצחים
ליל הבדולח של נתיב העשרה: הגבורה העילאית של אנשי המושב צמוד הגדר - שנתקלו ראשונים
Нетив а-Асара, граница с Газой: местные жители о 7 октября и будущем
12-й канал: в Натив-ха Асара террористы сожгли дом с семьей внутри
Inside an Israeli village attacked by Hamas: ‘Today, nobody lives here’
Igal and Amit Wachs, 52 & 48: US-Israeli brothers killed defending town
Danny Vovk, 45: ZAKA diver ‘fended off 20 terrorists’ before death
Arieh, Ruti & Or Akuni: 68, 67, 32: Parents, daughter slain at home
Evacuated musician Micha Bitton sings about life near Gaza
2 Israeli-American brothers were among several Netiv HaAsara residents who were killed
‘It’s a Miracle We’re Alive’: Netiv HaAsara Resident Recalls Her Family’s Harrowing Survival of Hamas Attack
Claroty CEO copes with loss: Wife's mother murdered by Hamas, soldier son injured
As They Mourn Their Loved Ones, These Families Are Pleading for Peace
Survivor of Hamas terror attack refuses to leave Gaza border home after husband and son murdered
Opinion: Hamas’ barbarity broke my heart. Some of my friends are breaking it a second time

With regards, Oleg Y. (talk) 18:36, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Did you actually read a single one of these 25 "sources" before posting them? You've just posted a list of news articles that do not, in fact, provide support for a "Netiv HaAsara massacre" in the hopes that nobody will check them to verify. There are virtually no references to this as a specific event, separate from the broader October 7 attack. Especially in English-language sources, the word "massacre" is pretty much never used, especially in reference to this specific event.

One IDF officer simply predicted there would be a massacre if he weren’t there.
Per WP:COMMONNAME, English sources should be used for determining how to name something on English Wikipedia. This source says (in translation, which can be fickle): "One of the survivors of the severe massacre in the Netiv Hathara Moshav..." So it kind of supports your stance, but again, this is English Wikipedia, not Hebrew Wikipedia.
Again, in Hebrew. Says both massacre and attack in translation.
Sort of implies a separate event from the broader attacks, but again in Hebrew so can't be used for WP:COMMONNAME.
No mention or implication of a "Netiv HaAsara massacre".
Again doesn’t specify a distinct “Netiv HaAsara massacre”, just that some victims of a broader October 7th massacre were in Netiv HaAsara.
No mention or implication of a "Netiv HaAsara massacre".
No mention of a "Netiv HaAsara massacre". Refers to "murderous attacks in Kibbutz Erez and the Moshav Netiv HaThara".
No mention or implication of a "Netiv HaAsara massacre".
No mention or implication of a "Netiv HaAsara massacre". The only use of the word that is translated as "massacre" is from primary sources (i.e. the opinion of a resident, not a third-party source).
No mention or implication of a "Netiv HaAsara massacre". Barely even mentions Netiv HaAsara at all.
No mention of a "Netiv HaAsara massacre". Unclear if they're referring to a distinct “Netiv HaAsara massacre” or just a broader “October 7 massacre”.
No mention or implication of a "Netiv HaAsara massacre", or in fact any massacre.
No mention or implication of a "Netiv HaAsara massacre", or in fact any massacre.
No mention of a "Netiv HaAsara massacre". Vaguely implies a massacre with the line "He said he has been told they stopped 80 attackers just east of Netiv HaAsara and prevented an even bigger massacre", but again this is a primary source. Can't be used to establish notability.
No mention or implication of a "Netiv HaAsara massacre", or in fact any massacre. The word "massacre" doesn't even appear in the source.
No mention or implication of a "Netiv HaAsara massacre", or in fact any massacre. The word "massacre" doesn't even appear in the source.
No mention or implication of a "Netiv HaAsara massacre", or in fact any massacre. The word "massacre" doesn't even appear in the source.
No mention or implication of a "Netiv HaAsara massacre", or in fact any massacre. The word "massacre" doesn't even appear in the source.
No mention or implication of a "Netiv HaAsara massacre", or in fact any massacre. The word "massacre" doesn't even appear in the source.
No mention or implication of a "Netiv HaAsara massacre", or in fact any massacre. The word "massacre" doesn't even appear in the source.
No mention or implication of a "Netiv HaAsara massacre", only a broader "October 7 massacre".
No mention or implication of a "Netiv HaAsara massacre". Only a vague reference to "Hamas's massacres" (not in the context of Netiv HaAsara), and a mention of the "massacre at the music festival at Re'im." Not even about the attack broadly.
No mention or implication of a "Netiv HaAsara massacre", or in fact any massacre. The word "massacre" doesn't even appear in the source.
No mention or implication of a "Netiv HaAsara massacre". Also an opinion piece and thus useless for demonstrating notability.

Nobody is arguing that people didn't die in Netiv HaAsara. But the sources simply do not support a standalone article on a "Netiv HaAsara massacre", no matter how atrocious you think the attack was. Even if the article were stay, against the policy of Wikipedia, there is absolutely no way to justify calling it a "massacre" when English language sources do not refer to it that way. Dylanvt (talk) 20:58, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Then do a rename or retitle discussion. Not an AFD. Andre🚐 21:07, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's not that the name is wrong, it's that these sources don't even refer to this as a distinct event. Having this article is WP:OR. If the sources don't talk about a "Netiv HaAsara massacre", then we can’t have an article on the "Netiv HaAsara massacre". Dylanvt (talk) 21:19, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

They do mention exactly this event in the amount that is well required for GNG. With regards, Oleg Y. (talk) 21:21, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That’s simply not true. Dylanvt (talk) 21:28, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Do you understand the difference between GNG, delete and rename? With regards, Oleg Y. (talk) 21:17, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - plenty of third party reliable sources. WP:GNG.BabbaQ (talk) 18:45, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Are we going to have an article for every skirmish in the war? I can't see this as being any different than the other hundreds of battles all over Ukraine and Israel that have happened. Sure it happened, but having an article for every time an attack happens seems pointless. The article is less than a few paragraph, but we've been given over 25 sources at this point, telling me they are largely just repeating the same limited facts over and over. Oaktree b (talk) 19:47, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, we will. As far as it complies with GNG. No one limits many many articles Jews or Ukrainians are allowed to have. With regards, Oleg Y. (talk) 21:19, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's a battle, not Jews or Ukrainians or anything like that. Oaktree b (talk) 05:48, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep meets GNG, there should be a moratorium on further AFDs of similar articles and user warned for tendentious pointy nominations Andre🚐 19:49, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to 2023 Hamas attack on Israel, as this just doesnt get the level of coverage that the independently notable attacks like Be'eri and Reim get. You might think having all these little trafficked articles is useful, but it is substantially less useful than having a comprehensive main article with split out articles for the topics that have the depth of information that merits it. There just isnt enough here, but this is pointless, as people who are going to take a merge as a position on the importance of the topic, as opposed to a view of where it is best covered, are going to choose number of articles over the usefulness of articles. This article is going to get next to no views, and you would be much better off having the main article on the attack be more polished and comprehensive than spending time on these ancillary articles that dont do anything but repeat what the main article should have in it. nableezy - 21:11, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't have necessarily opposed a merge or at least I consider merge to be a good faith, reasonable argument that I would strongly consider. But this user instead decided to propose deletion and tag all the articles with POINTy notability and POV tags. Andre🚐 21:29, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
100%. With regards, Oleg Y. (talk) 21:33, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not opposed to a merge either. From what I understood, AfDs often lead to merges, and I think that's a reasonable outcome. Dylanvt (talk) 21:35, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well, in this case it will most likely lead to "Keep" if the trend keeps up. You can propose another merge in the future. Andre🚐 21:46, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - A massacre of twenty civilians by terrorists deserves an article. דוד שי (talk) 10:57, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Let alone 21 dead, and many dozens of wounded, in this very small community. Such large number of casualties is detrimental to this community, and its way of life. 93.173.65.132 (talk) 14:08, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep . No valid reason for deletion was given; Oleg Yunakov provided clear evidence of notability above. At most, grounds for a rename discussion were given. Marokwitz (talk) 13:58, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep . "Like with many other similar pages, this page does not stand up to basic scrutiny. Very few sources. Not a single one refers to a "Netiv HaAsara massacre" or even a "massacre in Netiv HaAsara"." - did whoever said do looked into the sources? They all related directly to the Netiv HaAsara massacre. Agmonsnir (talk) 10:23, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A significant event and covered in many sources in many places.Eladkarmel (talk) 13:05, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. AfD debates often focus on the trivial, here notability. Notability, however, is insufficient for a keep. An article also needs to be long enough, unique enough, and with meaningful texts in order not to be redirected or merged. This is often the more challenging test to pass, especially when a topic is part of a larger event or other thing. Netiv HaAsara massacre also passes that test. Hence the keep. gidonb (talk) 22:37, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep [I can’t keep creating a new format for each of these similar AfDs so you’ll forgive me if I use the template used at another AfD, customizing for this one’s details] I’m not going to address the naming issue as that belongs to a rename Move not an AfD. I agree with the nominator that this article is not is not sufficiently wikified, nor does it have sufficient resourcing. I assume it was written by someone unaware of wikipedias policy. But I don’t agree that the subject isn’t worthy of if it’s own article:

The OP’s reference to OR relates I believe to the naming issue, which isn’t relevant here. The determinant of notability is wide coverage in reliable resources. The sources in the current article don’t show this. But the superficial analysis I did of google search results for "Netiv HaAsara", and the overwhelming number of Oleg Y.’s sources, do show such resources (see below).
in terms of POV if the source is RS it’s bias should be determined by consensus on an item-by-item, article-by-article basis. If bias exists it also doesn’t mean discarding a resource, it’s substance should be reported in neutral wiki voice and balanced by other resources as appropriate.
My superficial google search found the following references which include Netiv HaAsara as 50+ % of the coverage (some less like the names of those killed, but that is a necessary source for an enlarged article). I stopped once I determined that there was enough diverse coverage to make this article notable and NPOV. I’m not guaranteeing that all are reliable, but given how small a sample this is, they indicate the existence of sufficient sources for notability and npov:

Tour of Netiv HaAsara after bombing, article and video Global News Canada
3 eye-witness accounts from Netiv HaAsara NYTimes
Names of 15 killed at Netiv HaAsara Times of Israel
2 Israeli-American brothers killed at Netiv HaAsara CNN
Hamas commander who led attack on Erez and Netiv HaAsara killed USA Today
Aftermath in Netiv HaAsara Irish Times
Video report on Hamas Paraglider attack on Netiv HaASara 11Alive
Article on Netiv HaAsara based on two elderly residents who had been interviewed 6 months before being killed in attack Haaretz

in terms of Oleg Y.‘s references there are many which establish notability for a Netiv HaAsara article (again ignoring the red herring for AfD of what such an article should be called). Before I review these I want to point out a translation (actually transliteration) issue. The full name of the place in Hebrew is מושב נתיב העשרה (Translit: Mosahav Netiv HaAsara, en: (loosely) Village of the Path of the Ten). Google Translate sometimes seems to transliterate the Hebrew word for HaAsara as Ha’Thara/HaTara etc, but this is wrong and the Hebrew word refers to the place under discussion.

I indicate below which of the 25 resources support notability for the article:

~~The IDF soldier is talking about a previous (before 7/10) battle in the area where if he had not been there a massacre could have occurred. Not related to this article.~~
Whole article and video about mother from Netiv HaAsara who lost husband and son, with other two sons heavily injured during attack.
Reporting on killing of Hammas commander who lead attack on Netiv HaAsara (similar to USA Today above but different source)
Mother and son who survived the Netiv HaAsarah attack when father jumped on grenade to save them. Details of how the battle unfolded.
Survivor of Netiv HaAsara attack discussing her experience and whether she will return.
Names 15 people killed at Netiv HaAsara (similar to Times of Israel above, but different source)
Same as previous (15 names). Not required because of previous 2 resources. But does show widespread reporting.
Report on killing of Hamas commander who led attack on Erez and Netiv HaAsara. Surplus to requirement because of other two sources, but does give give slightly more info on use of paragliders.
Whole article about interviews with Netiv HaAsara survivors at hotel they were evacuated to. Details of how attack unfolded
~~Only one short comment from resident of Netiv HaAsara~~
~~Mention of 15 killed. Not as detailed as others~~
Very long and detailed article on attack on Netiv HaAsara. Discusses entire battle how it unfolded etc.
(Russian so dependent on Google Translate) Whole article on visit to and interview with survivor of attack on Netiv HaAsara.
~~(Russian) Short article on Netiv HaAsara. Already covered in other sources~~
Same as article I found above (Global News Canada).
Similar to article above re Israeli-American brothers killed, different source.
Details of ambulance driver living in Netiv HaAsara who was killed defending the Moshav
Details of parents and daughter killed at Netiv HaAsara
Musician who survived Netiv HaAsara attack
Same (2 brothers) as article I found above.
Netiv HaAsara survivor describes her experience.
CEO of the cybersecurity company Claroty’s mother-in-law killed at Netiv HaAsara. Most of article not relevant but would support line in deaths section.
Son of parents killed at Netiv HaAsara calls for peace. Also one line in article.
Same family mentioned in (2) in Hebrew. This English article has some additional detail
~~Article mentions Netiv HaAsara but not directly,related to current attack~~

As I have with a couple of articles, if the decision is keep I will investigate resources in depth and use them to wikify the articles. Happy editing. Ayenaee (talk) 03:36, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Per Ayenaee. There are plenty of independent sources. Dovidroth (talk) 07:02, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - sorry, don't know how to add as stand-alone, so I'm using "reply".

This repeats itself, see Holit massacre AfD further up the page. My opinion stays the same: it wasn't a "Hamas attack", it was a pre-planned, intentional threefold terror action of killing, taking hostages, and "humiliating" (a big issue in the perpetrators' mentality), the latter including rape, mutilation of the living and the dead, and definitely filming and posting it "for the world to see". This was a separate task, even if simultaneous and intertwined with the attack on military (IDF, police) targets. So 2 distinct tasks, not one.

As long as there's no "October 7th Hamas massacres" article, there is nothing to merge these mini-articles with. Allow for that, and we can gladly talk! Discard the "massacres" concept, and any rational, self-respecting editor should fight you tooth and nail, no matter where he stays on "the conflict", or I/P. Conversely, the same rationale can be applied to any events where the Israeli side inflicted suffering of one type or another on the Palestinian side: let rational thinking & analysis prevail. Arminden (talk) 21:46, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The sources above show this more than meets GNG. // Timothy :: talk 07:00, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per @Ayenaee and the above. By the way @Ayenaee, excellent research (I saw also on another AFD that you did thorough research so well done!). I agree there is room to improve article. Homerethegreat (talk) 17:38, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep!!! The horrendous massacres that day (Re'im music festival massacre, Be'eri massacre, Kfar Aza massacre, Nahal Oz attack ...) and the monstrous atrocities committed out by Hamas terrorists - rapes, beheadings, torturing, burning people alive - overshadowed this "small massacre" in terms of media coverage. Not plenty of sources but enough to solidly support the claims. Finally - an intentional killing of more than twenty civilians by Hamas is clearly a massacre - and deserves an article. GidiD (talk) 15:37, 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. Daniel (talk) 22:51, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Amro El Jawich[edit]

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

Nothing in news and RS, only passing mentions here and there. Current citations are primary sources. dxneo (talk) 15:52, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Sportspeople, Sports, and Lebanon. dxneo (talk) 15:52, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Doesn't meet WP:NCHESS. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 15:56, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I am the author of this article. I agree with you. History6042 (talk) 14:43, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Since the author History6042 fully agrees with the nom, I think speedy deletion should be applied. dxneo (talk) 16:16, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Chess World Cup 2023 or delete. Suitskvarts (talk) 15:16, 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. Daniel (talk) 22:50, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nir Yitzhak massacre[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Not a single source refers to a "Nir Yitzhak massacre". All four sources provided by user:Homerethegreat in the previous discussion do not include any mention of a "Nir Yitzhak massacre", but rather just discuss how part of the broader October 7 attack took place in Nir Yitzhak. All sources in the article likewise discuss it as simply a part of the larger October 7 attack. Not a single one calls it a massacre or even singles out Nir Yitzhak. At the bare minimum this needs to be moved to Nir Yitzhak attack. But even that is tough to justify on the merit of the sources. Best to merge into 2023 Hamas-led attack on Israel or delete. Dylanvt (talk) 15:33, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 December 22. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 15:45, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime, Events, Israel, and Palestine. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 15:54, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:08, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - previous AfD was closed as Keep less than a month ago. Clearly several notable and good sources. WP:GNG.BabbaQ (talk) 17:21, 22 December 2023 (UTC) [reply]
Keep: It's strange to re-launch the deletion of an article that was maintained on November 26... Does this article bother anyone??? also against the merger proposal... Sg7438 (talk) 18:24, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep: It's a clear WP:GNG (BBC, Times of Israel, New York Times, Jerusalem Post, Vatican news and many more). With regards, Oleg Y. (talk) 18:55, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not a single one of the sources on the page mentions or even implies a "Nir Yitzhak massacre". Just because there are sources there doesn't mean it's notable. Per WP:SIGCOV and WP:COMMONNAME none of the sources there support this as a standalone article. Please limit your reasoning to actual Wikipedia policies, not to your feelings about the matter. Dylanvt (talk) 21:06, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You are trying to delete with an invalid reason and not to rename. With regards, Oleg Y. (talk) 21:14, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The options are keep, merge, delete. No sources refer to this as a distinct event. It is thus WP:OR to have a standalone article on it. Information you think should be kept should be merged into the parent article 2023 Hamas-led attack on Israel. Dylanvt (talk) 21:16, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You had the option to start a move or merge proposal but instead you proposed a deletion. Even though the last AFD was closed keep a month ago. Andre🚐 21:17, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep meets GNG, there should be a moratorium on further AFDs of similar articles and user warned for tendentious pointy nominations Andre🚐 19:49, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
See my comment above. Dylanvt (talk) 21:14, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Don't reply to every comment. That's WP:BLUDGEONing. Andre🚐 21:17, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I don't understand why this is back after less than a month; regardless, I still don't see the need for an article on every attack that ever happens in this or the war in Ukraine. They occur, but that's the nature of war. The news cycle will cover hundreds of similar attacks for as long as the conflicts happen. This doesn't seem particularly notable amongst the long list of battles. Oaktree b (talk) 19:50, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There are plenty of articles on battles and massacres during the Russian invasion of Ukraine.[8][9][10] Hence the opposite question is more relevant: why would such SPINOFFs not be allowed once the casualties are Israeli, be AfDd already for a second time over a very short time span, and still receive two rare supportive opinions? gidonb (talk) 14:33, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep - changing my stance to Speedy Keep. previous AfD was closed as Keep less than a month ago. Clearly several notable and good sources. WP:GNG.BabbaQ (talk) 20:46, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
See my comment above. Dylanvt (talk) 21:14, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Don't reply to every comment. That's WP:BLUDGEONing. Andre🚐 21:17, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep. Recent AfD closed as keep; No arguments were given to justify deletion per Wikipedia:Deletion policy. At most this is a rename proposal. There was significant coverage of this battle as an independent event in reliable sources. By the way, according to Wikipedia:Notability, 'Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material'. Marokwitz (talk) 14:06, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep. "Not a single source refers to a "Nir Yitzhak massacre"." - did whoever said do looked into the sources? They all related directly to the Nir Yitzhak massacre. Agmonsnir (talk) 10:27, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A significant event and covered in many sources in many places.Eladkarmel (talk) 13:07, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a valid SPINOFF in terms of notability, length, uniqueness. I had just expressed this opinion. Why was it nominated again right after it was kept by community consensus? gidonb (talk) 22:42, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Significant and covered by many sources. And not clear what has changed since the previous AfD which determined to keep it. Dovidroth (talk) 07:05, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Sources in the article show this meets GNG. Nothing has changed since the last AfD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nir Yitzhak massacre which closed only 30 days ago; closer should consider the results of this closed AfD. // Timothy :: talk 07:18, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep [Once again I’ll be using the template from a previous similar AfD} I’d firstly like to point out to the OP that they are making these several AfD’s they have raised difficult for themselves and for those those who respond by combining a move and/or an AfD. It seems that the OP is of the opinion that these articles should not include "massacre" in their names. This is a valid opinion which should be tested by a move request. Mixing up a move and a delete request only makes it complicated to respond. Based on that I’m not going to address the naming issue as that belongs to a rename Move not an AfD.

My !vote on the previous AfD was "Keep per notability comments of Homerthegreat, and my previous comments on similar articles: notable, verifiable and neutral articles of this nature from both sides of the combat broaden Wikipedia knowledge of the combat. If any civilians can be shown to verifiably have died then this article would be as notable as the others reporting Israeli or Palestinian casualties. I do think the article can do with some additional referencing and copy editing, so I’ll add it to my to-do."

I still believe that. The article itself has sufficient sources for notability, but the are jumbled up and not fully utilized in the text to provide a broader view of the attack. Unfortunately I did not notice that the AfD had closed as keep, otherwise I would have done the updating I mentioned. As per my previous !vote I continue to believe that the subject worthy of if it’s own article:

The determinant of notability is wide coverage in reliable resources. The sources in the current article are probably sufficient for this, but as I said previously, more can be added and the article written more broadly to properly utilize the resources. But Homerethegreat’s resources and others I found during my superficial search clearly support notability (see below).
in terms of POV if the source is RS it’s bias should be determined by consensus on an item-by-item, article-by-article basis. If bias exists it also doesn’t mean discarding a resource, it’s substance should be reported in neutral wiki voice and balanced by other resources as appropriate.
Homerthegreat’s sources:

The economic damage done to industrial plant in Nir Yitzchak
The names of the nine civilians kidnapped or missing from Nir Yitzchak
Couple from Nir Yitzchak who refused to be taken to Gaza and were eventually allowed to stay by the militants
Five minute Video interview of defenders of Nir Yitzchak, including security camera footage of the militants, and discussion of deaths. Detail on how attack unfolded.
Discussion of attack, killings and those kidnapped from Nir Yitzchak.
~~Doesn’t mention Nir Yitzchak, but does discuss peace activists taken from Holit, and Netiv HaAsara the other AfDs so can be added to their sources~~
Same story as above Re couple who refused to be kidnapped from different source.
Message from Nir Yitzhak that militants still inside at 14:15 7/10/23
More details of how the attack on Nir Yitzchak unfolded and deaths

Instead of listing the resources I found (You can AGF that I’ll list them if I update a kept article) I turned them into the following table for inclusion in the article. All cells of the table are supported by either Homerthegreats’s sources or about 3 others I found. This table would form part of an aftermath/deaths/captives section. The resources have further information around the table which would fill out the rest of the body.

Deaths and Abductees
Name	Age	Gender	After Attack	Current (25/12/23)
Ofek Arazi	28	Male	Killed 7/10/23	-
Yaron Shahar	51	Male	Killed 7/10/23	-
Ofir Melmam (IDF)	21	Male	Killed 7/10/23	-
Boaz Avraham	61	Male	Captive	?
Lior Rudaif	61	Male	Captive	?
Tal Chaimi	41	Male	Captive	Killed 7/10/23. Body in Gaza
Oren Goldin	33	Male	Captive	killed 7/10/23
Clara Marman	62	Female	Captive	Released 28/11/23
(Norberto) Louis Har (Clara’s partner)	70	Male	Captive	?
Fernando Marman (Clara’s brother)	60	Male	Captive	?
Gabriela Leimberg (Clara’s sister)	59	Female	Captive	Released 28/11/23
Mia Leimberg (Clara’s niece)	17	Female	Captive	Released 28/11/23
Unnamed militants ("dozens")	-	-	?	?

The Leimberg family dog, Bella, was with Mia during her captivity and was released with her. Her mother runs a home for Arab and Jewish low functioning autistic children.

As I have with a couple of articles, if the decision is keep I will investigate resources in depth and use them to wikify the articles. Happy editing. Ayenaee (talk) 09:04, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well done for the thorough research :). Homerethegreat (talk) 17:35, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are sufficient sources which portray itsnotability. Ali Ahwazi (talk) 14:35, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above as well as previous discussion. Homerethegreat (talk) 17:36, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

IP user, please revert your comments. I don’t agree with the OP‘s opinion but they have a right (by the same first amendment you quote - which doesn’t apply here) to raise them in ways sanctioned by Wikipedia, which they have done. We then discuss our conflicting opinions politely and come to a consensus (which is the point of the first amendment - free debate to resolve differences). Your ad hominem attack on the OP who is acting in good faith is totally inappropriate and can be sanctioned in terms of WP:No personal attacks. If you don’t self revert these comments, I will take the comments to WP:AN/I where I’m sure an administrator will remove them and sanction you. I will copy this message to your talk page as well. Ayenaee (talk) 21:02, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

For completeness:

It is appropriate and encouraged to list your biases as the OP has done on their user page.
No the site you quote would definitely not be an unbiased reliable source usable on wikipedia. It is a site created to inflame emotions rather than restore peace. It is also highly disrespectful to the dead (especially under the laws for respecting the dead in both Judaism and Islam) to use picture and videos of them in the way the site does.

Ayenaee (talk) 21:08, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The IP user responded to my message on their talk page and self-reverted their comments. So I’ll consider the matter closed from their side. I will however request RevDel as the comments and especially the source linked are not appropriate to remain in Wikipedia history. I’ll let the administrator decide what do with my comments which are now hanging without a referent. I’m sorry that this happened Dylanvt. Ayenaee (talk) 21:54, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Everything rev del’d. Ayenaee (talk) 22:49, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I didn’t actually manage to see what they wrote before it was stricken, so thank you for your diligence in resolving this right away. Dylanvt (talk) 22:55, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep!!! As per Marokwitz, Gidonb, Homerthegreat and others GidiD (talk) 15:36, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Since this article is frequently nominated, I suggest setting a period during which it cannot be renominated. gidonb (talk) 02:19, 29 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 14:55, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Cream (software)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:NSOFT, because there are no independent reliable sources to support notability. It's just a configuration of the Vim (text editor), definitely doesn't deserve a standalone article. Yeah, it's not even a software, merely settings for another text editor. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 15:43, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 15:43, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I've just noticed it was nominated before (in 2007, 16 years ago). I'm completely dissatisfied with how it went (keep - info useful, keep - informative, keep - per someone). Definitely worth it to discuss again. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 15:48, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
OK, now I'm just confused. I've definitely checked for previous deletions in the history before nominating, and after I nominated I saw the previous AfD, just thought I missed it in the history. Looked again - nothing, probably this article indeed was deleted before, but someone reintroduced it. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 15:52, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No, I've checked again, this article was created before the first nomination. OK, I just assumed that if it was previously nominated, then it should've been in the summary, looks like it is a wrong assumption. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 15:59, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The name is now used by a dieting app for smartphones. This software was last updated in 2011 and doesn't seem to have been notable then, or now. Lack of any kind of sourcing, what's given now in the article is a download link/repository. Oaktree b (talk) 19:52, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: "Keep because it's informative" was the result of the last AfD, Bonkers. Oaktree b (talk) 19:53, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Article fails WP:GNG, WP:NSOFT, WP:NCORP. While I can't find any specific examples, I can imagine a situation where a bundle of config scripts could be notable. However this article's subject does not appear to be notable as it fails even the most basic notability criteria. - Aoidh (talk) 03:24, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No good place to redirect. Suitskvarts (talk) 15:18, 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 merge‎ to Trinity (role-playing game). Hey man im josh (talk) 20:19, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Trinity Universe (setting)[edit]

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

I do not believe this topic is standalone notable or passes WP:GNG. Already explained in Trinity Continuum: Æon (role-playing game) to a sufficient degree. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 15:16, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Science fiction and fantasy, and Games. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 15:16, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Trinity (role-playing game) if no other sources are found. BOZ (talk) 08:25, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - As far as I can see, all of the information in this stub is already present at Trinity (role-playing game), including the one source being used, so there is nothing to merge, and I don't really see this as a particularly plausible search term for a redirect to be useful. Rorshacma (talk) 02:26, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Trinity (role-playing game) per BOZ. The title can be made into a useful section redirect to the "Setting" section of that article. BD2412 T 14:10, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to the main game article. This doesn't appear to have WP:SIGCOV, but can be covered in context with the game. Shooterwalker (talk) 17:14, 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 speedy keep‎. There is already Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pankaj Sanghvi, which is open. Please contribute to that. (non-admin closure) Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:10, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Pankaj Sanghvi[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails to meets WP:NPOL, He has not wons any election for his political career and I searched on google but I cannot find any reliable source who indicates clearly notability about the subjects, so, I nominated of discussion. ~~ αvírαm|(tαlk) 15:15, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. ~~ αvírαm|(tαlk) 15:15, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Madhya Pradesh-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:09, 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 keep‎. This has boiled down to an argument about whether the sources refer to the incident or not, and overwhelming consensus is they do. Potential renaming if desired can be explored on the talk page. Daniel (talk) 22:50, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Holit massacre[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Holit massacre

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

As with several other pages on less prominent components of the 2023 Hamas-led attack on Israel, including the Ein HaShlosha massacre, which has already been merged, this page is also unnecessary. It is not notable as a standalone event and should be merged into the parent article. As previous discussions have noted, this attack has led to far too many unnecessary child articles. Moreover, this article has very poor-quality sourcing. None of the included sources even refer to a "Holit massacre" by name, and none provide significant coverage. They merely assert in passing that some of those killed during the wider massacre were killed in Holit. All sources are news (WP:NOTNEWS) and all are primary, Israeli sources (WP:PRIMARY, WP:POV. Dylanvt (talk) 14:56, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 December 22. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 15:11, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime, Events, Israel, and Palestine. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 15:12, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:08, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: WP:GNG (The New York Times, CNN, Detaly, NewsRu, The Guardian, Mako and more). With regards, Oleg Y. (talk) 19:13, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Oleg. Not a single one of these sources mentions a massacre in Holit. The only mentions of a massacre or резня are about the broader October 7 attacks. None of these sources refer to the portion of the attack that took place in Holit as a distinct massacre. This should thus obviously be merged. Dylanvt (talk) 21:13, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You don't seem to understand the difference between GNG, delete and rename. With regards, Oleg Y. (talk) 21:26, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The Guardian article isn't about Holit, its about the journey of the Matias family, including their work in Israel's peace movement, mentioning Holit only in passing. The CNN source also mentions Holit only in passing and focuses mainly on the experiences of Thai workers, but during Hamas's general attack and for years before that. I didn't read NYT because its behind a paywall. The rest of the sources don't look RS.VR _talk 00:08, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oleg Y.’s sources:
New York Times: Several paragraphs about resident of Holit who survived the Holocaust but was killed in the Holit attack

CNN: The first third-ish of the article is about a Thai worker from Holit describing how he fought off his attacker and was left for dead. I wasn’t aware that Thais were involved in this attack, which is definitely an issue to include.

Detaly: (Russian so dependent on Google Translate) Story of three Russian families who survived the Holit attack, gives more detail of how the attack unfolded

NewsRu: (Russian) How mother and son survived Holit attack, details of unfolding attack

Guardian: Mother uses here body to shield her son during Holit attack. She and husband killed but son survives injured and spending 7 hours with parents‘ bodies (we seem to have read different articles here)

Mako: Long article on attack on Holit, how it unfolded and aftermath
All of Oleg Y.’s articles talk to the Holit attack, most only about the attack. I’m not sure about the Russian articles but the others are RS. So notability is achieved here as well - including a diversity of sources. Ayenaee (talk) 01:21, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Another attack article in the war, I feel like we're building a play-by-play book for future historians. This one had even less casualties than the last two articles I've commented on; again, I can't see why each and every battle in an ongoing war gets an article. Yes they're covered in RS, but they're just like every other attack. I think we should put some sort of edit limit on this topic until the war is concluded, otherwise we're going to see a large amount of these articles come in...Each and every battle isn't notable, that's just the nature of war. Battles happen; they're all tragic, but this isn't a news repository. Oaktree b (talk) 19:58, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Read WP:NOTPAPER. There is no upper limit to the number of articles that can be created. As long as the topic meets our notability guidelines, it should be kept. Marokwitz (talk) 14:14, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A) This wasn't a "battle". B) Massacres with less victims are dealt with as - massacres. C) I'm not aware of any "Massacres perpetratwd by Hamas in 2023" article, so there isn't any "parent article". If there were one, I'd be happy to discuss this. Conclusion: disingenuous? Strongly oppose. Arminden (talk) 12:34, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep and a moratorium on further such nominations which lack any merit, Andre🚐 20:04, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Any reasoning to back that up? Dylanvt (talk) 21:10, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Of course. Per Oleg and others. meets GNG easily. Andre🚐 21:18, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I support the moratorium. As nomination of multiple article including the ones closed a month ago and trying to argue absence of notability is absurd here. With regards, Oleg Y. (talk) 21:24, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - plenty of reliable sources. Massacre received international attention. WP:GNG.BabbaQ (talk) 20:39, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
How are there plenty of reliable sources? Where are the reliable sources? Not a single source on the article mentions or even so much as implies a "Holit massacre". None of the sources there are even about the portion of the October 7 attack that was on Holit. Per WP:SIGCOV this is absolutely not notable. Please limit your argumentation to actual Wikipedia policies, not to the vibes you get about the matter. Dylanvt (talk) 21:10, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep. As in the other proposals by the same nominator, there seems there to be a misunderstanding of our Wikipedia:Deletion policy. At most this is a rename proposal. There was significant coverage of this event in reliable sources as shown by Oley Y. Marokwitz (talk) 14:12, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There have been doubts raised about whether those sources are about this particular event. VR _talk 00:08, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I’ve responded to those doubts showing that the impugned sources are about this event Ayenaee (talk) 00:39, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A significant and covered event. Eladkarmel (talk) 13:03, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree with the nominator that this article is not is not sufficiently wikified, nor does it have sufficient resourcing. I assume it was written by someone unaware of wikipedia policy. But I don’t agree that the subject isn’t worthy of it’s own articles;

The determinant of notability is wide coverage in reliable resources. The sources in the current article don’t show this. But the superficial analysis I did of google search results for "Kibbutz Holit" do show such resources (see below).
The example of Ein Hashlosha (and others) is not sufficient to delete all articles of this kind. The Keep/delete/merge on these kinds of articles are dependent on a case by case analysis. There are many well written and resourced "child" articles of this nature, which exist on this event from various points of view. They give further information which can’t necessarily be summarized in a large parent article
Reference to NOTNEWS (made up of Not OR, Not written as news reports / Not Who’s who / Not gossip) isn’t relevant. None of its definitions are relevant to the intentions of this article, which itemds to gives additional notable information related to the war in wiki voice with appropriate RS. We should t throw away a notable article just because it isn’t written the best way, we should improve it.
The references to PRIMARY and POV seem to suggest that references written in the country of a combatant are automatically PRIMARY (which is not the case, primary/secondary remains irrespective of geography) or POV. I understand that that sources in a particular combatants region could be potentially biased, but this isn’t a given and if the source is RS it’s bias should be determined by consensus on an item-by-item, article-by-article basis. If bias exists it also doesn’t mean discarding a resource, it’s substance should be reported in neutral wiki voice and balanced by other resources as appropriate. In any event there are other resources which can be used from other sources as mentioned below
My superficial google search found the following references which include Holit as 50+ % of the coverage. I stopped once I determined that there was enough diverse coverage to make this article notable and NPOV. I’m not guaranteeing that all are reliable, but given how small a sample this is, they indicate the existence of sufficient sources for notability and npov:

At least 29 killed incl. 8 babies: Politifact
3 tanks involved in suppressing: Haaretz
Winn news (and others). Walkthrough of kibbutz after event: Winn News
Roya news. Hamas video of kidnapped children from Holit being coddled, treated well and fed after being taught to say grace before eating: Roya News
Al Jazeera. Cleaning up Holit. Al Jazeera

As I have with a couple of articles, if the decision is keep I will investigate resources in depth and use them to wikify the articles. I haven’t reviewed Oleg Y.’s references but I assume they are also useful for enlarging the article. Happy editing. Ayenaee (talk) 20:33, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

These sources don't appear to be about the Holit massacre. The politifact source doesn't give SIGCOV to the Holit massacre, and instead focuses on Col. Golan Vach's statements. The Haaretz article is not about the Holit massacre but about All-woman Israeli tank crew fight (2023) (which is also currently at AfD). The Al-Jazeera article is indeed about Holit (although it doesn't call it massacre), but mainly mentions that 13 people were killed, there's not much SIGCOV there. VR _talk 00:17, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Politifact source is correcting an incorrect allegation made about the Holit attack. It provides detail of what actually happened in the attack: "In an emailed statement to PolitiFact, an Israel Defense Forces spokesperson said Vach was explaining the Oct. 7 Hamas attack on Holit kibbutz in southwestern Israel. A longer version of the same footage makes it clear that Vach is referring to the scene the Israeli military encountered."
The article on the Israeli all woman tank crew discusses how they participated in the defense of Holit: "The IDF has come under intense criticism for its initial slow response to Hamas' attack on October 7, but one unit that jumped into action almost immediately was a group of women tank operators from the Paran Brigade that helped turn the tide and clear dozens of terrorists from the kibbutz of Holit." A wiki article in the woman tank crews is up for AfD, but is irrelevant to this AfD where the article is being used to provide information on the Holit attack, not the fact that they’re woman tank crews.
We can disagree on what’s considered sufficient SIGCOV when these are used in the article. One complaint was that there were to many Israeli sources, this is one of two non Israeli sources (after a superficial search as I’ve noted). We are not debating here what the name of the article should be.

Ayenaee (talk) 00:38, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have to support Ayenaee's interpretation that this is clearly all about this event and constitutes sufficient coverage for such a thing. Note that although it feels like a long time ago, Oct 7 was still quite recent. These events will only continue to grow in prominence over time, I can't see that it doesn't already meet GNG. Andre🚐 00:57, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Per Oleg Y. and Ayenaee. A significant event with media coverage. Dovidroth (talk) 07:09, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - but only because no RS with SIGCOV have been presented. If someone can find multiple such sources, ping me, and I'll change my !vote. VR _talk 00:18, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Oleg Yunakov sources listed above and Ayenaee analysis above show this meets GNG, there are sufficient WP:IS WP:RS with WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth to support a stand alone article. Article needs to be improved/expanded, but it meets WP:N. // Timothy :: talk 07:11, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per @Oleg Yunakov Abo Yemen ✉ 12:58, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above, Pretty sure we already had an AFD on this article recently so not sure why this was raised again. Homerethegreat (talk) 17:39, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Merging" is better

Keep. No notability problem. Legitimate SPINOFF of the attack on Israel at large. gidonb (talk) 19:39, 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 Dhaka Premier Division Cricket League. Daniel (talk) 22:47, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

2023–24 Dhaka Premier Division Cricket League[edit]

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

An article completely based on future predictions, literally nothing has been confirmed (WP:TOOSOON). No coverage about the announcement of fixtures/dates of the competition, clearly fails WP:GNG, WP:CRYSTAL and WP:NEVENT. Robo^Cric Let's chat 15:07, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Cricket, and Bangladesh. Robo^Cric Let's chat 15:07, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Dhaka Premier Division Cricket League WP:TOOSOON. Redirect to the parent article until there is suitable coverage for a season article. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 10:40, 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 redirect‎ to National Cricket League. Hey man im josh (talk) 20:24, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

2024–25 National Cricket League[edit]

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

An article completely based on future predictions, literally nothing has been confirmed (WP:TOOSOON). No coverage about the announcement of fixtures/dates of the competition, clearly fails WP:GNG, WP:CRYSTAL and WP:NEVENT. Robo^Cric Let's chat 15:05, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Cricket, and Bangladesh. Robo^Cric Let's chat 15:05, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to National Cricket League WP:TOOSOON. Redirect to parent article until there is enough coverage to warrant a season article. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 10:41, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to National Cricket League That is WP:TOOSOON by a long shot as we haven't even completed the 2023-24 season yet to think of actually starting the following season. HawkAussie (talk) 23:34, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as WP:TOOSOON, the current information on this page is speculation or WP:OR. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:12, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to National Cricket League as WP:TOOSOON.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 14:32, 29 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. Daniel (talk) 22:47, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

BridgeWay Station[edit]

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

Non-notable development. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NBUILD. SailingInABathTub ~~🛁~~ 15:04, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Carolina-related deletion discussions. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 15:09, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nomination. This development is only notable at the local level. TH1980 (talk) 23:31, 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 delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:32, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Pankaj Sanghvi[edit]

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

Non-notable politician, who has never won an election. Fails WP:NBASIC and WP:NPOL. SailingInABathTub ~~🛁~~ 15:00, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and India. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 15:08, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Madhya Pradesh-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:11, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete - fails to meet WP:NPOL he do not won any election in your political career, so, this article can removed. ~~ αvírαm|(tαlk) 16:23, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As always, people do not get Wikipedia articles just for standing as candidates in elections they didn't win, but this makes no other claim that he has notability for other reasons. Bearcat (talk) 17:46, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Serving the congress, but never having been elected, is puffery. There is no sourcing that supports even GNG/BASIC to warrant keeping an article here. Oaktree b (talk) 19:55, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Creation of articles for un-elected politicians is very common, the subject doesn’t passes WP:NPOL and not even WP:GNG as Oaktree b mentioned. — Syed A. Hussain Quadri (talk) 06:27, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per above. 𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐕𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐭𝟕𝟐𝟖🧙‍♂️^{Let's Talk !} 11:43, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all above arguments. Toadette ^{(Merry Christmas, and a happy new year)} 07:44, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:NPOL and WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 10:46, 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 delete‎. ✗plicit 14:53, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Menthogen[edit]

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

Promotional article. Created by a user with almost no edits outside the article, and who uploaded an image stating that they own copyright to the same image on the company's website, suggesting possible undisclosed COI. Citation 1 is primary, 2,4,5,6 are broken, and 3 is irrelevant. DDG news turns up no results, and DDG search is filled with Amazon and other storefronts only. Darcyisverycute (talk) 14:58, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Products and Medicine. Darcyisverycute (talk) 14:58, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all sources are either not independent of the subject, or are about subjects other than Menthogen. Nothing else found. This is a better-than-average attempt to make a promotional article appear well-sourced and neutral, but it still fails. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 01:30, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. I would treat this as a commercial product line needing to meet WP:NCORP, which it does not. BD2412 T 14:13, 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. Daniel (talk) 22:45, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Friedrich Weber (veterinarian)[edit]

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

unsourced biography. not much found in a quick preliminary search, except for mentions of his name. ltb d l (talk) 10:39, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, History, and Germany. ltb d l (talk) 10:39, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Being a participant in the Munich putsch might be enough to make him notable. This is not a BLP case, so that the lack of references is not fatal. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:14, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The German article on Weber is much more in-depth and has additional sources. BeanieFan11 (talk) 19:28, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Sufficient sourcing to meet WP:GNG on German Wikipedia. Leading conspirator in the Munich Putsch, SS-Gruppenführer, Reich veterinary chief and leader of a major Freikorps. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:17, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 11:19, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 11:19, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: A few paragraphs in Animals in the Third Reich: Pets, Scapegoats, and the Holocaust by Boria Sax seem to indicate that Weber, as the "president of the newly formed Chamber of Veterinarians, which combined all German veterinarians into a monolithic bureaucracy", personally led the removal of Jews and dissenters from the veterinary practice and eliminated kosher slaughter (exsanguination). Curbon7 (talk) 17:23, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 14:41, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Weak keep, there are some discussions in books [11] and [12]. Oaktree b (talk) 14:51, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The Fr wiki article is translated from the German wiki article and they have two extensive sources from period books. I think it's good. Oaktree b (talk) 14:52, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Unsourced here, but extensively sourced in the French and German Wikipedias relating to such page. Their page talks about how he played a key role in the Nazi leadership. HarukaAmaranth ^春 _香 03:43, 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 soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 14:52, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mommy's Bliss[edit]

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

Promotional article. Cannot find any independent, reliable sources with significant coverage on DDG or DDG news. Found [13] but it is not independent.

Regarding sources in the article: 1, 3 are not independent. 2, 7, 8 do not mention the company. 4 and 5 are arguably not significant coverage. And 6 does not seem independent or reliable to me. Darcyisverycute (talk) 14:36, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Health and fitness, Medicine, and California. Darcyisverycute (talk) 14:36, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: PROMO. Some discussion of their products on various sites, but nothing extensive. Most are PR items. Oaktree b (talk) 14:53, 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 keep‎. —Ganesha811 (talk) 23:10, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Melanie Arndt[edit]

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

Non-notable academic, fails WP:NBASIC and WP:NACADEMIC SailingInABathTub ~~🛁~~ 14:20, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and Germany. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 14:22, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 14:23, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless confusion with the biochemist can be resolved. Reference 3 seems false. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:48, 22 December 2023 (UTC).[reply]
Keep. I added six reviews of two books, enough I think for a pass of WP:AUTHOR. The fact that she shares a name with someone else or that soon after article creation some drive-by editor added a bad reference (which I removed) should be irrelevant. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:45, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Do we know what her GS profile is? She ought to have got some cites. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:41, 23 December 2023 (UTC).[reply]

This is a book field, not a journal field. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:49, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Even authors of books get citations. Xxanthippe (talk) 09:17, 23 December 2023 (UTC).[reply]

Keep Looks like a WP:AUTHOR pass. XOR'easter (talk) 16:33, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — Six reviews of two books seem significant enough for me to meet. WP:AUTHOR. Shoerack (talk) 00:27, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This article seems to be identical with one in the German WP, which has higher standards than the English WP (or used to). Peterkingiron (talk) 11:40, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think their notability standards are strong. Their sourcing sometimes can be inadequate (for instance I was unable to confirm the birthplace listed in their article), but then so can ours. Anyway, this article was initially created as a translation of theirs, but has undergone significant edits subsequently to that. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:12, 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 Snow keep‎. It appears unlikely for this to reach any other result without a better articulated reason for deletion. (non-admin closure) Reywas92^Talk 19:09, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of common misconceptions[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Some editors on Chinese Wikipedia (user:SunAfterRain, user:T45614631, user:Newbamboo) believe that the inclusion criteria for this article is unclear and the definition of "common" is unclear([14]).So I think English Wikipedia also needs to discuss whether this article should keep or delete. 日期20220626 (talk) 13:59, 22 December 2023 (UTC) 日期20220626 (talk) 13:59, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 14:04, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. This is enwiki, not zhwiki. zhwiki issues should be addressed on zhwiki, not enwiki. Kinopiko ^talk 14:16, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural speedy keep. No valid reason has been given for nomination. There is no mention of any policy that the article might be contravening. There is a list of inclusion criteria on the Talk page which seem reasonable to me, so there is no way that a claim that this is an indiscriminate list can prevail. Any ambiguity concerning the inclusion criteria, or any issues with any of the existing entries, can be discussed on the Talk page. --DanielRigal (talk) 14:43, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, that's a bizzare idea to bring Chinese wiki editor's discussion as a rationale for deletion of any article in en wiki. Artem.G (talk) 15:15, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Check the talk page, there a note up top for the Inclusion Criteria. Dream Focus 15:17, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Unclear on why concerns of three editors of the Chinese Wikipedia is justification to delete the English Wiki's article. Mr Fink (talk) 15:27, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The reason behind the deletion is invalid in my opinion. I think this article is very valuable, because it debunks many misconceptions that unfortunately are very frequent. JagodowyLis (talk) 17:12, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep because no valid deletion rationale has been provided. XOR'easter (talk) 17:58, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep, the inclusion criteria are pretty much as clear as they could be (of course, we can discuss changing them if anyone has a proposal), and problems with the fuzziness of the definition of "common" or of anything else are dealt with, as is normal on Wikipedia, by referring to reliable sources. W. P. Uzer (talk) 18:43, 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 soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 14:11, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Visual Component Framework[edit]

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

Not notable. All the reference provided are dead links and the project seems abandoned since 15 years. Internet search shows one book (but claims on its cover page to be sourced by Wikipedia article, and mostly blog entries and tutorials. Christophe (talk) 13:46, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Computing and Software. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 14:05, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Project activity shows that last update was 9 years ago. It's not 15 years but still superdead. Project has a generic name which you would expect from big entities like Microsoft, but it was developed by some random programmer. No independent (and reliable) sources to show notability. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 14:14, 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 speedy delete‎. CSD G5 Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:32, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ankita Mallick[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:NACTOR. Macbeejack ☎ 13:46, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, Women, and India. Macbeejack ☎ 13:46, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of West Bengal-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:20, 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 draftify‎. ✗plicit 13:23, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Brack[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

There are some passing mentions in RSes but nothing that seems like it meets the requirements of WP:GNG. BuySomeApples (talk) 11:59, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 12:04, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. Just tagged it under WP:G11. Was speedy deleted previously. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 12:07, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Move to draft to provide an opportunity for improvement, as an WP:ATD. The article was deleted five years ago, and a great deal can happen in a person's career in that time span. The current version does not appear to be a copy of any previously deleted version, and the Harvard Business Publishing reference appears to be, at least, a better reference than anything from the previous versions. Many of the other refs are paywalled. Pinging @CNMall41: you accepted this via WP:AFC, but also tagged it for notability, presumably to allow for exactly this kind of discussion? BD2412 T 14:28, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@BD2412:, Thanks for the ping. This was a borderline case based based on what appears to be two of the references going more in-depth about him rather than any of his companies. Moved it from AfC while cleaning out some old submissions (those that sit in AfD that long usually tells me other reviewers were on the fence as well). I think draft would be a good option here. --CNMall41 (talk) 19:21, 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 delete‎. Daniel (talk) 11:45, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Priyanka Maurya[edit]

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

Fails WP:NPOL. — Syed A. Hussain Quadri (talk) 10:59, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Women, India, and Uttar Pradesh. Syed A. Hussain Quadri (talk) 10:59, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Doesn't meet WP:NPOL. Macbeejack ☎ 13:58, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NPOL. - FitIndia ^{Talk (Admin on Commons)} 15:00, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Not enough to show WP:NPOL is met Ravensfire (talk) 20:56, 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 delete‎. Vanamonde93 (talk) 11:41, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Don Kulasiri[edit]

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

Not notable, fails to meet WP:NACADEMIC. No available sources to establish general notability. IdiotSavant (talk) 10:16, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oceania-related deletion discussions. IdiotSavant (talk) 10:21, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Sri Lanka. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 10:29, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Citation record does not support WP:PROF#C1 and I didn't see evidence of any other form of notability. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:40, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Kulasiri has been a full professor at Lincoln University since 1999. My understanding is that full professors at NZ universities meet criterion 5. Schwede 66 20:26, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No. There are thousands, if not millions, of full professors. Being a full professor alone is not significant enough for WP:NPROF. Shoerack (talk) 00:30, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the number in NZ is considerably smaller than that, of course. Waikato appears to have roughly 100 full professors, for instance. Multiply that by the 8 universities in NZ, and ignore the fact that they're not all the same size, and you get probably less than 1000. That said, I agree that full professor alone should not be considered enough. —David Eppstein (talk) 08:06, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Full professors in NZ are equivalent to distinguished/endowed professor in most Asian and North American universities and to a professor of a discipline in British universities, according to Academic ranks (Australia and New Zealand). Nurg (talk) 09:05, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

When I look there I see that it is tagged as dubious. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:03, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — per David Eppstein's rationale. Shoerack (talk) 00:30, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets WP:PROF#C5 per Schwede66 and Nurg. Lincoln is a major institution of higher learning and research, and named chairs / distinguished professor appointments are rare in New Zealand. Paora (talk) 11:01, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I do not see that it is significant enough to remain a Wikipedia article. Villian Factman (talk) 11:36, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:ANYBIO, also do not see why a NZ professor should be treated any differently from professors elsewhere. Dan arndt (talk) 01:18, 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 delete‎. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 03:47, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Malawi–Spain relations[edit]

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

This article is largely based on a primary source of the Spanish foreign ministry. Very little actual relations, trade is very low at 5 million euros in 2015. And Spain's assistance to Malawi is through multilateral organisations. Virtually no third party coverage of these relations. LibStar (talk) 10:11, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations, Africa, and Spain. LibStar (talk) 10:11, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- This is becoming tiresome, just another example of a standalone article for every combination of two nations, no matter how insignificant their connexion may be. I think this makes six nearly-identical, non-encyclopaedic articles of this stripe in a month. As per usual, the sources presented are all WP:PRIMARY (Spanish government press). I can find no scholarly treatment of this relationship nor mentions in reputable journals. There is no info particularly worth merging. Cheers, Last1in (talk) 14:35, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Foreign_relations_of_Spain#Bilateral_relations. Per Last1in, I agree that having a lot of these non-notable stubs is kinda annoying but might make sense to just turn these articles into redirects on-sight without AfDs? The content from stubs like this could be helpful in their parent foreign relations article imo, especially given how bare-bone some of those articles could be. Alternatively, a larger discussion could be held on whatever articles are remaining and get them over with in one sweep. Dan the Animator 18:09, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
My only problem with merging is that we should hope for secondary sources even in the parent articles, and this one (and the others like it) are just paraphrasing foreign ministry press releases. If there is any value, though, I agree that a merge is good. Of course, one of the issues is the merge target. Do we pick the larger country and get accused of Eurocentrism? Or the one with the best press releases (ditto)? Or the most mature article (dit-ditto)? Or have duplicative info in both? Secondary sources will have a focus and that will usually guide us to one article or the other. I expect just such a discussion led folks to metastasise the plague of X+Y stubs. Cheers, Last1in (talk) 19:57, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Last1in. There is inherent bias in merging to a particular target country. I dont believe that merging is the solution to all these bilateral stubs. LibStar (talk) 01:44, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Last1in: True and great points and agree that secondary sources are very helpful for these sorts of articles. In the case of this particular article, I was thinking of merging to Spain's article just because it's the Spanish FM's press releases yk. Per your points above though, I don't see the harm in including the (duplicated) info in Malawi's article too. The only content I think that's valuable from the article at-present is the info about trade under "Economic relations" (which probably could be condensed quite a bit) and the Memorandum sentence under "Cooperation" which is genuinely interesting and valuable information (these sorts of agreements usually take time to negotiate and are noteworthy in themselves for signifying the start of a deeper partnership). Usually the dependence on primary sources is only a notability issue and still is perfectly valid for meeting WP:V (so content-wise, depending on primary refs shouldn't necessarily be an issue for merging imo).

About secondary & primary sources though, the mere existence of secondary refs can't be used as the litmus for deciding whether to keep an article. In the last bilateral relations stub AfD I took part in, which was for the article on Micronesia–Ukraine_relations, it was similar to this where coverage was limited (article was almost completely about Micronesia's reaction to the Russian invasion) but that one relied exclusively on secondary refs.

After thinking a bit over what you said though, if it's alright with you and LibStar, I might just start a mass-deletion discussion with all the bilateral stubs with questionable notability. Definitely don't expect all of them to get the same result but at least it'll be a much more efficient way in getting through them and figuring out which ones should be kept, merged, or deleted yk. Probably would be similar in a sense to this discussion I took part in a while back which, while not directly successful, helped pave the way for how to effectively handle the RMs in the topic area. Anyways, sorry for not replying sooner on this and would be interested to hear y'all's thoughts. Cheers, Dan the Animator 19:44, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
re: I might just start a mass-deletion discussion with all the bilateral stubs with questionable notability. You now have my undying devotion. I would so very deeply appreciate seeing a once-and-done on this. Thank you! Cheers, Last1in (talk) 20:06, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: as violating WP:OR. बिनोद थारू (talk) 01:56, 30 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 Romanization of Chinese. Clear consensus as to a merger, less clear consensus as to the target. The one I've chosen has marginally more support, but this does not preclude merging content to both places and/or retargeting later. Vanamonde93 (talk) 11:40, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Daoism–Taoism romanization issue[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Not a standalone encyclopedia topic; fails WP:GNG. Should be merged into Romanization of Chinese and Taoism#Terminology. The entire article could be written in one sentence: "Tao" is the Wade–Giles (1892) spelling and "Dao" is the Pinyin (1950s); Wade-Giles was once the pre-eminent romanization method, but has mostly given way to the Pinyin as the government's official method.

As a talk page comment from 2008 states, the existence of this article is simply "an outgrowth of several-year-old arguments here on Wikipedia". In other words, this was a move-war over the article Taoism, using the same arguments now set out at WP:TRANSLITERATE, which says Established systematic romanizations, such as Hanyu Pinyin, are preferred. However, if there is a common English-language form of the name, then use it, even if it is unsystematic (as with Tchaikovsky and Chiang Kai-shek). We don't have articles called "Tchaikovsky – Čajkovskij romanization issue" and "Chiang Kai-shek – Jiang Jieshi romanization issue" for good reason, but if we did they would look like this one. Onceinawhile (talk) 09:33, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language and China. Onceinawhile (talk) 09:33, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Romanization of Chinese -- I find nothing in this article or its sourcing that sets Tao v Dao apart from every other Romanisation discussion. There is no policy basis for this to be a standalone article. For policy rationale on delete/merge, I'd use WP:GNG via WP:CONTENTFORK (and a very stale one at that). Note for closer: If merge is not the consensus, please consider these as my reasons supporting deletion. Cheers, Last1in (talk) 14:53, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Tao – This is an article I feel like we have purely so that a footnote on Taoism isn't too long, yes. I would recommend merging with Tao because that article already has an extensive etymology/orthography section, and I doubt there's even any material here that should be here that shouldn't be there. Remsense留 15:34, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Romanization of Chinese. No WP:GNG. The only source that comes somewhat close to covering the topic of this essay-like article is Carr (1990). That's obviously not enough for a standalone article. Most parts of the article are about general transliteration issues and simply exemplify them with what happens to 道. The last paragraph of the section "§Romanizations" has two sources where the authors/editors explain why they prefer "Daoism" over "Taoism". This content could be merged to Taoism#Spelling_and_pronunciation. –Austronesier (talk) 20:39, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Yes, the present article was partially a WP:SPINOFF, archived at "Done; I've moved the diatribe for now to Daoism versus Taoism. --Brion 22:41 Sep 3, 2002 (PDT)"; but it wasn’t "a move-war over the article Taoism". According to the page Diffs, anonymous IPs started both articles in the same month (in the first WP-year of low-hanging articles). The Daoism versus Taoism page originated on "18:10, 1 October 2001‎ 157.178.1.xxx:" and the Taoism one on "00:11, 20 October 2001‎ 63.192.137.xxx:" It's understandable why some readers might think this article is "pointless" while others may disagree. In my admittedly subjective opinion, there's no constructive advantage in merging. Haven't researched the Daoism/Taoism debate in years and will look for some new references. Best wishes, Keahapana (talk) 02:27, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Is this really a "strong keep", then? How many independent sources are there specifically discussing the romanization issue for this specific word? Specific sourcing seems scant on the article as is, and a few quick Google searches solely return what seem to be offhand parenthetical mentions of the discrepancy. There's no "debate", it's just a bit of confusion over two distinct Chinese romanization schemes. Articles shouldn't be kept because their existence is useful to some clique of editors, they should be kept because their subjects are in themselves notable. Remsense留 02:32, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. What clique? Inclusionist? Keahapana (talk) 21:06, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keahapana, apologies, "clique" in the loosest sense of "those who feel they have to keep gesturing to it"/"those who find it has utility specifically among Wikipedia editors, rather than the article having its own encyclopedic merit". Remsense留 17:55, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You appear to have !voted twice, which is against the rules. Please change to a comment. Imaginatorium (talk) 09:24, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(I see how it could look that way, but I think their intent was to clarify for me, who was confused by the original edit summary.) Remsense留 09:26, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Tao. The article suffers from extensive original research, probably a side effect of the lack of substantial secondary coverage of the issue, though there seems to be some (e.g. Carr 1990). I can't think of a compelling reason to spin it off rather than keep it as at most one or two paragraphs in the Tao article. (I don't think a merger to Romanization of Chinese would make as much sense, since this is about how Tao specifically is romanized, not about romanization per se.) WhinyTheYounger ※ Talk 15:38, 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 delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:28, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Antul Teotia[edit]

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

Looks non-notable as a politician fails WP:NPOL and also non-notable as a doctor. Times Now Hindi article is an Interview. — Syed A. Hussain Quadri (talk) 09:20, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politicians, Women, India, and Uttar Pradesh. Syed A. Hussain Quadri (talk) 09:20, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There are 7 links i have added. How much media links does an editor needs to create a article? Shivamco19 (talk) 09:56, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Shivamco19 Just media links does not make an individual Notable, the subject should pass the Notability guidelines. For a politician pls read WP:NPOL. — Syed A. Hussain Quadri (talk) 11:04, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and India. Owen× ☎ 14:10, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. She has not held any role that would constitute a pass of WP:NPOL, and simply having a smattering of run of the mill campaign coverage is not sufficient to make a person in local politics more notable than everybody else in local politics, since everybody in local politics can always show a handful of campaign coverage. At this level of significance, the key to notability is not "she exists", but "she's a special case of significantly greater importance than most other people in local politics", and that hasn't been shown at all. Bearcat (talk) 17:50, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails GNG and politicians of district council doesn't passes NPOL. 𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐕𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐭𝟕𝟐𝟖🧙‍♂️^{Let's Talk !} 11:44, 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 delete‎. One of the few cases where editors have persuasively argued that the current article is non-compliant with policy to the degree that it should be deleted with no prejudice against future recreation with sources. Vanamonde93 (talk) 11:26, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

John Baker (Baker Brook)[edit]

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

entirely unsourced article about a person. fails general notability guideline. quick preliminary search finds nothing. ltb d l (talk) 08:11, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Canada. ltb d l (talk) 08:11, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Maine, and Massachusetts. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 08:32, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I found this source that confirms that Baker Brook was named after Baker. However, there's so little information that it should just be merged into the history section of the Baker Brook article. I also found this website, which has a whole lot more information. That is just some random website - it does, however, cite two news articles. I don't have time to search for those, and since they are from 200 years ago, we'd have to dig through archives of old Canadian news articles to find them, and then determine how much information they have. Generally, however, I tend towards a merge with the history section of the Baker Brook article, as Baker really only seems to be notable as the guy after whom the place was named. Cortador (talk) 09:17, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP John Baker was not simply a person who gave a name to Baker Brook. He was a driving force in an independence effort for the putative Republic of Madawaska. He was a perennial thorn in the side of the British authorities in New Brunswick, leading several altercations against them, helping to instigate the Aroostook War. Accused of crimes against King George IV, Baker caused several international incidents between the U.S. and Great Britain. It is partially because of his provocations that the 1842 Webster–Ashburton Treaty was enacted, which settled the northeastern U.S. boundary between Britain (Canada) and the U.S., which had been in dispute since 1783. In fact, one of the articles of that international treaty applied only to John Baker and his neighbor. The state of Maine later constructed a "Memorial commemorating the Patriotism of John Baker". See also ^[1], ^[2], and ^[3] and its 132 footnotes, including:

Two thorough treatments of John Baker are important for understanding the man and his role in Maine's history between 1820 and 1842. The first is an article by Roger Paradis, "John Baker and the Republic of Madawaska: An Episode in the Northeast Boundary Controversy," The Dalhousie Review 52 (Spring 1972): 78-95. The article deals with Baker's actions during those difficult years. Paradis is a skilled story teller, and Baker's story is gripping reading. Moreover, he stays close to his sources, which range from original documents like the Maine Resolves to an article in the short-lived newspaper, Journal de Madawaska (1902-1906). If readers want only one article to read about Baker, this is the one. The second thorough treatment is a book by Geraldine Tidd Scott, Ties of Common Blood: A History of Maine's Northeast Boundary Dispute with Great Britain, 1783-1842 (Bowie, MD: Heritage Books, 1992). Her focus is on the story of the border controversy, but she does not shy away from describing in detail John Baker's role as it comes up. Her treatment of Baker is neutral and solidly anchored to original documents. Readers wanting to read a recently done history of the Northeast border conflict will find no better than Tidd Scott's book. A briefer treatment of John Baker actions described in this article is available in "John Baker's Rebellion and the Subsequent Deadlock," Chapter VII of Charlotte Lenentine Melvin, Madawaska: a Chapter in Maine-New Brunswick Relations (Madawaska, ME: Saint John Valley Publ. Co., 1975). Originally a thesis done at the University of Rochester, NY, in 1956, it has been republished by the Madawaska Historical Society. Her work focuses on Baker's impact on the relationship between Maine and New Brunswick and between the US and Great Britain.

^ Paradis, Roger (1972). "John Baker and the Republic of Madawaska" (PDF). The Dalhousie Review. 52 (1): 78–95. Retrieved 2017-05-04.
^ Day, Clarence A. "Aroostook, the first sixty years: a history of Maine's largest county, from its earliest beginning up through the bloodless Aroostook War". first published serially in the Fort Fairfield Review from December 26, 1951, to February 27, 1957.
^ Findlen, George L., "Under His Own Flag: John Baker's Gravestone Memorial in Retrospect", English translation of an article published in Le Revue de la Société historique du Madawaska (French language), issue 30, January/March 2002, 5-55.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeff in CA (talk • contribs) 05:39, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:TNT, without prejudice against recreation if somebody can write and source a new article properly. This is completely unreferenced, and has deep problems in its writing tone as I don't think I've ever seen this many "dubious" tags in one article at one time — and no matter how notable a person may have been in theory, we simply can't keep an article that's written and sourced this badly in fact. This calls for the blow it up and start over plan. Bearcat (talk) 04:03, 20 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!} 07:54, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete without prejudice to recreation as a proper article per Bearcat. One would expect this sort of article to be a magnet for Revolutionary War cruft, and so it proves. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:26, 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 soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:20, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

AkelPad[edit]

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

I haven't found any reliable independent sources covering this text editor. It's just a random non-notable text editor, fails WP:NSOFT. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 07:04, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 07:04, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Best I can find are reviews on download sites. I don't imagine a text editor gets much critical notice; I couldn't find any reviews in RS. Oaktree b (talk) 15:00, 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 merge‎ to Norwich City Council. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:10, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Norwich City Services[edit]

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

Fails WP:NCORP. No WP:INDEPENDENT sources. A412 (Talk • C) 06:53, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and United Kingdom. A412 (Talk • C) 06:53, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 07:09, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Norwich City Council. Not independently notable, but sufficiently important and verifiable for a mention as part of a larger article. Thryduulf (talk) 11:00, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge: A primary-sourced new article on a Council's service company. I agree with Thryduulf about its lack of specific notability, and suggest its existence and a summary list of the additional services is better under a new Services section in the Norwich City Council article itself. AllyD (talk) 15:47, 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. (non-admin closure) Dr vulpes ^{(💬 • 📝)} 22:23, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The ClueFinders 4th Grade Adventures: Puzzle of the Pyramid[edit]

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

Merge with The ClueFinders. Article does not have enough sources to support notability. I checked Google and the Newspaper archives and was unable to find any notable sources. Dr vulpes ^{(💬 • 📝)} 05:35, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Thanks @Zxcvbnm for the great resource for video game reviews. Dr vulpes ^{(💬 • 📝)} 22:22, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Dr vulpes ^{(💬 • 📝)} 05:35, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep MobyGames lists no less than 6 magazine reviews, so it seems notable. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 05:57, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I just looked at it, I'm neutral. I don't really see the problem with a merge, but by the standards of a video game article today it is barely meeting GNG. Andre🚐 06:18, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and Education. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:54, 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 keep‎. (non-admin closure) Dr vulpes ^{(💬 • 📝)} 06:43, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The ClueFinders: The Incredible Toy Store Adventure![edit]

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

Mergewith The ClueFinders. Article does not have enough sources to support notability. I checked Google and the Newspaper archives and was unable to find any notable sources. Has been tagged with needing more sources since 2017. Dr vulpes ^{(💬 • 📝)} 05:34, 22 December 2023 (UTC) Keep, thank you Timur9008 for the sources no clue how I missed them! Dr vulpes ^{(💬 • 📝)} 06:42, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Dr vulpes ^{(💬 • 📝)} 05:34, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep MobyGames lists 4 reviews. Unless they can be proven to be unreliable, the nomination seems incorrect. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 05:59, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Found these sources [15], [16], [17] Timur9008 (talk) 08:01, December 22, 2023 (UTC)

Timur9008 , o wow that's great, I used the same site and must have missed them or something. I'll add them now and withdraw the AfD. I'll go back and recheck again for the other two I submitted. Dr vulpes ^{(💬 • 📝)} 06:40, 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 keep‎. (non-admin closure) Dr vulpes ^{(💬 • 📝)} 22:31, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The ClueFinders Search and Solve Adventures[edit]

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

Merge with The ClueFinders. Article does not have enough sources to support notability. I checked Google and the Newspaper archives and was unable to find any notable sources. Has been tagged for needing sources since 2012. Dr vulpes ^{(💬 • 📝)} 05:34, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep found reviews that were archived and added them to the article. Dr vulpes ^{(💬 • 📝)} 22:30, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Dr vulpes ^{(💬 • 📝)} 05:34, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep MobyGames lists 4 reviews. Unless they can be proven to be unreliable, the article seems notable. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 05:59, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 07:16, 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 keep‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:07, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

David T. Beito[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Does not meet WP:GNG as the subject has not "received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." There are only two references cited on the page; one only mentions the subject in passing, and the other is an article by the subject that has no bearing on notability. The subject also does not appear to meet any of the eight criteria of Wikipedia:Notability (academics); e.g. the article does not show that the subject "has had a significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources." Orser67 (talk) 05:08, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, History, and Minnesota. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 05:51, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Alabama, and Wisconsin. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 07:17, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Plenty of book reviews, easy pass of WP:AUTHOR. The nomination's phrasing of "only two references cited on the page" suggests a failure to perform WP:BEFORE. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:37, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- Five books published by academic publishers, together with an unspecified number of academic articles ought to be enough to keep. Peterkingiron (talk) 11:37, 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 06:15, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Hourican (businessman)[edit]

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

Orphan article created by a single purpose editor so possible promotional. Many of the sources are not indepth about Hourican as a person failing WP:SIGCOV but include him merely talking about the company he works for. Many of the sources are not entirely independent as they are tech related media. Fails WP:BIO. LibStar (talk) 04:59, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Computing, and Ireland. LibStar (talk) 04:59, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:NOTCV, doesn't appear especially notable - ran a company that bought out a couple of others then got acquired itself. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 12:30, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, fails WP:GNG. Spleodrach (talk) 17:46, 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 redirect‎ to WGGS-TV. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:02, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WDKT-LD[edit]

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

Subject does not meet the WP:GNG due to a lack of secondary coverage. Let'srun (talk) 04:57, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and North Carolina. Let'srun (talk) 04:57, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect to WGGS-TV A diginet coatrack that used to just be a translator for something else. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 05:54, 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 Survivor: Blood vs. Water. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:59, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Tyson Apostol[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

I can't help wonder whether Men's Health is enough to verify his notability, especially as a Survivor returnee. Indeed, we can't be sure whether his Tocantins debut and HvV return suffice, and some other returnees turn out to be notable for only their own winning seasons, especially debut ones. Furthermore, I can't be sure whether his supposed "notability" (and possibly everything else about him) comply with the WP:BLP policy, and I don't mean WP:BLP1E alone. Same goes for how he's been eliminated in Survivor, his poker winnings, and his finalist status in The Challenge.

Honestly, I think the article must be preferably redirected to Survivor: Blood vs. Water, but I don't mind it being alternately redirected to the list of Survivor (American TV series) contestants. Furthermore, his activities outside Survivor, like poker, might not save this article from being redirected(... or deleted if the consensus were to favor the latter more than the former options.) George Ho (talk) 05:14, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Television, and Utah. George Ho (talk) 05:14, 8 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!} 04:32, 15 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!} 04:30, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nom's comment – Just in case, if no one opposes, then I am okay with the whole article by default deleted or redirected (preferably to Survivor: Blood vs. Water) per WP:BIODELETE. I won't be comfortable with the article being kept by default, but I won't challenge the decision made if that's decided. --George Ho (talk) 04:16, 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 delete‎. Strength of arguments on specific policy carry the day here. No strong evidence of notability. —Ganesha811 (talk) 23:08, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Elsa Jean[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Article was deleted through AfD in January 2020. However, five sources have been added that were published since that time. Note, Elsa Jean is a former pornographic actress, so follow due diligence regarding NSFW subjects. Sources added since last AfD: 1) Twitter, 2) JoyNights, 3) Die-Screaming, 4) AVN, and 5) XBIZ. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 04:23, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Women, Sexuality and gender, Ohio, and Virginia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:29, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Just chiming in because I declined the G4 CSD tag. This version is significantly different to the one that was deleted at AfD back then. There may be 5 sources in the current iteration that have been published since the article was deleted, but the references used in this version of the article are very different, they were mostly profile pages on various sites, a couple of interviews, and an IMDB page. It also did not contain anywhere close to this level of detail and the award section only had 5 entries compared to the much larger table it has now.

I mention this because I don't think the old discussion has any bearing on this one. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:45, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Yahoo Finance has an article with a by-line [18] about NFTs she "sold" (I guess is the verb to use?), and LADbible (which also has a by-line and doesn't seem that tabloid-ey) [19]. With the Fortune source (#9 in the article) and the rest, I think we're just barely notable. Oaktree b (talk) 21:01, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The Yahoo Finance appears to be a reprint from Business Insider (or vice-versa), so I think it's ok. Oaktree b (talk) 21:03, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Previous discussions of LADbible question its editorial oversight (factual reliability). As for the Business Insider article via Yahoo!, not only is is a primary source, it expresses the subject's perspective in the first person. WP:RSPS notes Insider not always marking syndicated content clearly. This instance reeks of crypto self promotion. • Gene93k (talk) 23:55, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The new content may clear the G4 and A7 concerns of previous iterations of the article, but the low quality of the sources still cause it to fall short on notability. The new facts since the previous AfD deletion are additional porn awards/nominations and the line of NFTs. Secondary source coverage provided by the article and found in WP:BEFORE searching consists of self-published porn blogs, the usual award rosters, crypto blogs and garbage-tier tabloids. Still fails WP:BASIC and WP:NACTOR. • Gene93k (talk) 00:11, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: It is written in 15 languages, I think it should remain. LionelCristiano (talk) 13:18, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Other stuff existing does not overcome a lack of non-trivial coverage by reliable secondary sources. Besides, many of the other versions are translations of the previously deleted version of the en.Wikipedia page. Other Wikipedia editions have their own guidelines for inclusion independent of the English Wikipedia. Existence there does not establish notability here. • Gene93k (talk) 22:23, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- WP:ENT The awards and filmography are not sourced. Those 15 languages mentioned above look like they were recently added there, perhaps by the same editor who added it at English Wikipedia. WP:RSP Some checking needs to be done on the sourcing. You Tube and Twitter are not considered a reliable sources. Each one of those non-Engllish Wikipedia listings has this same image of the subject, which was only added to Commons on 30 May 2023. Perhaps we just have an enthusiastic editor at work there. — Maile (talk) 02:33, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Actually looking at random ones, that is not actually the case.
- The Russian Wikipedia article was created in May 2017 by editor Щербина. They're a long time editor, first edit June 2009, last editing just yesterday.
- The Serbian Wikipedia article was created in April 2021 by editor SimplyFreddie. They've been editing since 2018, last edit also yesterday.
- The Spanish Wikipedia article was created in 2016 by editor Pichu VI who is the most accomplished editor yet, with 15 years on the ES Wikipedia, 2000 articles, and also editing yesterday.
I'm not even going to look at the other 12. No offense, but I think your hypothesis is not even close to correct. --GRuban (talk) 06:11, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- does not meet WP:BASIC / WP:ENT per review of available sources. Sourcing is in passing and / or WP:SPIP. -- K.e.coffman (talk) 03:21, 14 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!} 04:31, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. She has the cover and focus article of major fashion magazines in multiple continents, Glamour Magazine Bulgaria[20], Harper's Bazaar Vietnam[21], this year, 2023. That meets WP:GNG. --GRuban (talk) 05:47, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I think it should stay. LionelCristiano (talk) 07:45, 18 December 2023 (UTC) Duplicate !vote struck. BD2412 T 15:04, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, but you already said that above. If you want, you can expand on your earlier opinion, as to why you think the article should stay, give additional reasons for her Wikipedia:Notability, but it's one bolded opinion per participant. --GRuban (talk) 13:48, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@LionelCristiano: Please do not vote twice in the same discussion. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:00, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
my fault. LionelCristiano (talk) 15:04, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Struck, in any case. BD2412 T 15:04, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Notwithstanding that this article exists in other language Wikipedias, this fails to meet general notability guidelines. The porn-related stuff is typical promotional material. The article has already been deleted once at AFD for not passing WP:PORNBIO. The post-porn stuff is nowhere near enough, but if her modelling career continues she may one day merit an article. Counterfeit Purses (talk) 16:01, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep While she is covered mostly in adult interviews and such, she meets WP:ANYBIO by being nominated and winning several awards in her field. Just because they are porn awards does not make them any less important from a notability viewpoint. Also, being on the cover of noteworthy (non tabloid style) magazines, regardless of country, in my eyes confirms notability. Regarding YouTube and Twitter being unreliable sources, true to an extent but where it is a subject saying a non controversial fact about themselves, it would fall in with being a primary source which is allowed within reason. Another secondary reference to add to the list focusing on NFTs. Awshort (talk) 21:22, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Porn actors' notability is evaluated through WP:ENTERTAINER and since PORNBIO was deprecated, I don't think porn awards matter any longer.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:30, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Er... Liz, are you performing an administrative function or are you giving an opinion? In any case, please note that WP:ANYBIO does not, actually, say "this does not apply to pornographic actors". --GRuban (talk) 19:13, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@GRuban I can't speak for Liz, but this discussion may be worth reading. Counterfeit Purses (talk) 21:55, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Counterfeit Purses, thank you for linking the above. I had never seen that, and it's enlightening in some ways. I don't normally edit in areas where this subject matter would arise. — Maile (talk) 03:58, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

GRuban, the relisting was an administrative function, the comment about porn awards was just an observation that occurred to me reading over the comments. Porn awards use to matter for notability purposes but don't any longer, as far as I know. As for whether or not this article is Kept or Deleted, I have no opinion. If I did, I would have made a "vote". Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:36, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - seems to have enough coverage to meet general notability requirements, and is a decent job quality article. Cannot see the justification in removing it from the project.Echetus Xe 00:10, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I was going to close this as "No consensus", but will instead opt to !Vote to move to draft per WP:ATD, to provide an opportunity for development of more general sources. BD2412 T 14:46, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – subject has won multiple notable awards, satisfying WP:ANYBIO. – bradv 15:06, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, even if WP does not recognize pornographic awards anymore when it comes to establish notability of pornographic entertainers (as contradictory as this may sound), Sapphire Howell has received coverage in mainstream media, presented in the page and by GRuban, above, for example, so that she does seem notable enough, "despite" being a porn star....-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 15:34, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Mushy Yank,

Who is Sapphire Howell and what does she have to do with this article? I don't see this person mentioned in this article so I'm not sure what connection they have to a Keep vote. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:58, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Liz,

Thank you for your concern.

They're the same person. and that's the name she uses in her new careeer (supposedly her real name) and that recent sources use. It was strangely removed from the intro, although sources on the page use it. The Harper's Bazaar cover and article use it, for example. Best, -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 10:33, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I don't see an ANYBIO pass here, and I'm surprised that several of my colleagues above do. ANYBIO does not say anything about a notable award; it mentions a "well-known and significant award or honor". I'm willing to accept that an AVN award in principle qualifies for this; but if you look at AVN Awards, there are 56 individual awards handed out every year, and the ones Jean won don't appear to be among the most significant. I struggle to believe that the "AVN Award for Best New Starlet" is so significant that it can confer notability in the absence of GNG. The same applies to the other awards listed. Looking at the substance of the page, it's obvious that we're also struggling to write even a short biography; there are perhaps four sentences that are not prosified database entries. I suspect this is a TOOSOON situation; Jean appears to be only increasing in profile. But we don't have the sources to write a reasonable article, and the awards are not enough for me to support a stub via ANYBIO. Vanamonde93 (talk) 11:36, 29 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:28, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hwang Jae-won (footballer, born 2002)[edit]

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

Reviewed during NPP. No evidence of wp:notability under GNG or SNG. Sources are just database entries. This is reflect in the prose of the article which is one sentence saying that he plays football and who for. North8000 (talk) 03:14, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sources: I found this article by SPOTV, and this article published by the league he plays for and was republished by OneFootball. There's also these two Korean-language sources from the French Wikipedia article. Left guide (talk) 07:46, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:03, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:03, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:03, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:03, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 12:53, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sources above which (I think) show notability. Young player with 60+ appearances as a professional in Korea, with ongoing career. Clearly notable. Giant Snowman 12:57, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as Left guide's comment shows there is enough coverage to pass WP:GNG. Quality of the article right now is poor but it needs improvement not deleting. Inter&anthro (talk) 15:30, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the sourcing above, which appears to satisfy WP:GNG. Left guide (talk) 20:46, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per above. Young player with sources with ongoing career in fully pro Korean league. Article needs improvement, not deletion. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 21:10, 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 no consensus‎. I'm closing this trainwreck of a discussion as No consensus. I am reluctant to close this as Keep as those arguing to Delete have valid criticism about the lack of secondary sources. But there are stil strong opinions about Keeping this article based partially on what they see as lapses in the AFD process but it definitely doesn't qualify as a Speedy Keep. This discussion became unnecessarily personal which is not how an AFD should proceed. No penalty against a return trip to AFD to have a manageable discussion focused on sources and notability not on mentorship, personalities, or PRODs. I just want to emphasize that BEFORE is an important step prior to any AFD nomination and it's useful to share the results of any BEFORE search that was done. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:27, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Cavalier Rural Electric Cooperative[edit]

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

Fails WP:NCORP and unreferenced David notMD (talk) 03:01, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: unable to find any meaningful secondary coverage about this organization. Left guide (talk) 03:42, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Dakota-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:03, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:04, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:04, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable बिनोद थारू (talk) 04:07, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment @David notMD: Fails WP:NCORP and unreferenced So this is fascinating to me, how can an article simultaneously fail NCORP and be unreferenced? Usually you need to assess the sources of an article to claim it fails NCORP, but as there's no sources to assess, you're basically leaning heavily into "unreferenced" to do the dirty work on an article that's nearly 20 years old (and never been tagged with any maintenance tags to give interested editors an opportunity to fix the issues you might have). —Locke Cole • t • c 05:08, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Google बिनोद थारू (talk) 05:19, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Neat. Because they're the only source of knowledge in the world, according to you. —Locke Cole • t • c 06:05, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I also used Gooogle, and did not find any website content independent from CREC that I thought provided notability. I did find out that CREC has about a dozen employees, serves fewer than 2,000 customers and has annual revenue less than $6,000,000. This AfD process takes 7-10 days. If there are valid refs, add those and the reviewing Administrator will take that into account. David notMD (talk) 08:38, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm well aware how AFD works. See my comment above about the lack of any efforts to improve a nearly 20-year old article for my thoughts on that. I'm also aware that बिनोद थारू appears to be on a crusade to delete articles because their creation was deleted at AFD. We shouldn't be tolerating editors simply trying to disrupt the project to prove a point. —Locke Cole • t • c 09:15, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
My opinion is that proposing articles for deletion is a good deed. If your opinion is that this is a worthy article, then there is a guideline at WP:RESCUE. David notMD (talk) 10:57, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Obvious Keep Insufficiently cited articles are exactly why Wikipedia has {cite tags}. We can't build an encyclopedia by tearing it down when it is being built. MLee1957 (talk) 16:48, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Obvious keep I agree with MLee1957. The rationale cited by the nom, unable to find any meaningful secondary coverage about this organization, is an invalid basis to initiate an AfD. The nom and others are improperly using AfDs and should familiarize themselves with Individual message boxes: Issues with citations and sources. For this article, the {{more citations needed section}} tag is indicated. The use of cite-tags teaches others who are trying to contribute on how to improve their articles and build the project. Deleting others’ work discourages participation and undermines why most of us contribute here.
User:बिनोद थारू has recently been advised by admins to better learn the processes used on Wikipedia and avoid the rampant use of AfDs in lieu of proper alternatives. I very much doubt that merely resorting to WP:PROD, as he/she did here yesterday is what the admins had in mind. While resorting to WP:PROD has a the virtue of bypassing the inconvenience of discussion, it’s a misuse of that tool: As WP:PROD says, Proposed deletion (PROD) is a way to suggest an article or file for uncontroversial deletion. It is an easier method of removing articles or files than the articles for deletion (AfD) or files for discussion (FfD) processes, and is meant for uncomplicated deletion proposals that do not meet the strict criteria for speedy deletion. PROD must only be used if no opposition to the deletion is expected. The immediate resorting to WP:PROD by User:बिनोद थारू is increasingly looking like it might be “wikilawyering” to achieve the goals of a single-purpose editor to do end run around community consensus. Such tactics run counter to Wikipedia’s principles.
As regards Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies), a non-profit electrical utility that serves an essential service (electricity) to many thousands of users is far-cry from some random Dairy Queen or “Al’s Tire-O-Rama” in nearby Belcourt on State Route 10. A utility seems reasonably notable to me. Greg L (talk) 18:32, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Obvious keep and COMMENT - Re Category:Electric cooperatives of the United States. Also see Rural Electrification Act. In the United States, these electric coops are the energy-providing life blood of rural areas. Some articles are well-done and fairly well-sourced. Some articles are done just like this one is done. The Rural Electrification Act was established during the Franklin Roosevelt administration. Prior to that, much of rural America had nothing but what a local area could put together, if anything. That said ... you can nit-pick and delete the sparse ones like this, or you can come up with a better solution. — Maile (talk) 22:27, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Maile66: Thank you very much for that input; it adds helpful and larger context to this matter. Greg L (talk) 00:52, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I also added some links in the article. It had no references at all, and needs to be improved in that area. But I don't think it needs to be deleted. It's just one of those kinds of subject matters that a lot of people would have never known about. — Maile (talk) 02:47, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Maile66: Thank you, sir. Greg L (talk) 03:48, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What you added contains no single mention of "Cavalier Rural Electric Cooperative" बिनोद थारू (talk) 03:56, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment First, User:बिनोद थारू did not start this AfD; I did. All comments about User:बिनोद थारू and the reverted PROD have no relevance to the AfD. Second, "unable to find any meaningful secondary coverage about this organization" was not by the nom (me); rather, it was a Delete from another person. Third, the one recently added reference about rural electrification makes no mention of CREC and hence does not contribute to the notability of CREC. Fourth, putting a "more citations needed" tag on this article would be futile because there are none to add. David notMD (talk) 03:57, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep of course, mostly per the comments above, and per my concerns around this and similar nominations simply being disruptive behavior indicative of WP:NOTHERE behavior. —Locke Cole • t • c 04:00, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have been 'here' more than 15 years, have made more than 50,000 edits, have raised 19 articles to GA, and only very, very infrequently initiate an AfD. David notMD (talk) 04:33, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Why did you nominate this for AFD after बिनोद थारू's declined PROD? —Locke Cole • t • c 04:55, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Because in my opinion it is clearly not Wikipedia notable. As to HOW I became aware of the article and the reverted PROD, I signed up to be a Mentor for new accounts. User:MLee1957 was assigned to me, so I looked at all edits to see if any guidance was needed. MLee1957 reverted the PROD. I then looked at the article and initiated the AfD. I have no personal animus toward CREC nor the state of North Dakota. David notMD (talk) 13:05, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Are you serious? You were assigned to mentor me?? The user बिनोद थारू created an article some number of months ago that got deleted after an AfD. Since then, बिनोद थारू has been obsessed with initiating AfDs on all types of content on the English language version of Wikipedia and MOST of those AfDs were voted as KEEPs. बिनोद थारू even did an AfD on an entire user's page and his sandbox. He was admonished by admins about this single-minded obsession and to better learn the the process of AfDs by participating in them but not starting them. But he turned right around THE NEXT DAY and initiated a PROD on this article, obviously to avoid having to deal with the hassle of having other wikipedians second-guessing him. I deleted that PROD since it was obviously an end-run and was obviously controversial, which is NOT what PRODs are about. Your "mentoring" amounted to leaving a note on my talk page saying you snuck in here and initated your OWN AfD, which by your own admission is something you rarely involve yourself in?? Please de-list yourself as my mentor. MLee1957 (talk) 20:45, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Done. David notMD (talk) 02:57, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

PROD and maintenance tags are suggested to lower the load in the AfD process बिनोद थारू (talk) 20:33, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If you’re going to engage in wikilawyering, बिनोद थारू, at least put on a good show. You need to listen to the spirit and letter of what the admins have been telling you here about your rampant use of “CSDs, AfDs, and PRODS,” as well as “your policy-rich comments and assertiveness” (here). The instructions for WP:PROD are right there on the template page; they say nothing about using PROD to “lower the load on AfD process.” All WP:PROD accomplished was to lower the load you experience during AfDs.
I sympathize with the fact that early on in your en.wikipedia experiences, you had an article that didn’t survive an AfD. But the proper response to that life lesson is to learn from it and contribute constructively to the project by building it; not engaging in a months-long AfD bent (just look at that contributions history of yours) born out of the human emotion so common it has its own proverb: Revenge is a dish best served cold. Greg L (talk) 04:34, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's worth noting also that the Google Books link includes over ten pages of results. I find it highly unlikely that the nominator checked those sources, or other sources, in the ~3 hours between when the PROD was removed and when this nomination was made. WP:BEFORE was not followed at all. —Locke Cole • t • c 03:21, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Again, and I stress this, I initiated this AfD. The lengthy comments about the PROD, reverted, and any other past actions of बिनोद थारू have no relevance. David notMD (talk) 09:07, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fruit of the poisonous tree. Had the PROD not been created by a disruptive editor, we wouldn't be here having this AFD. —Locke Cole • t • c 17:52, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

User:David notMD: What started all this off (disruptive editing by a single-purpose editor) is highly relevant; you seem to have simply got swept up in waters without any understanding of what you were getting into. And (this is important now), you did so after providing “mentoring” to MLee1957 that is wholely antithetical to the purpose of mentoring on Wikipedia.

You came in only one day after a improper WP:PROD (they’re only for clearly uncontroversial deletions) started by बिनोद थारू.
Then you adopted from that improper WP:PROD, the faulty rationale it cited as a basis for what ails this article (it Fails WP:NCORP)
You did this after MLee1957 properly reverted the improper WP:PROD.
MLee1957 had ample knowledge of the single-purpose editor propensities of बिनोद थारू, which you would have known if you had been doing any job whatsoever of mentoring him.
Then you stated that an additional rationale for deleting an article from Wikipedia—beyond the one inherited from the faulty WP:PROD—was the lack of citations.
Now you simply had to know better than that; the proper remedy for an article that lacks sufficient citations is to put a {{citation needed}} tag on it, which is currently used on 369,000 other articles that need citations.
Finally, all this needless wikidrama—here, right now—is the result of you imagining that in any universe, providing “mentoring” to a new wikipedian, MLee1957, means noticing that he properly reverted an improper WP:PROD (improper because it was controversial) by going to his talk page and posted as follows: Given you reverted the PROD, leaving you this note to inform that I started an AfD. I find that truly repugnant.
Apparently, you thought that your pithier message was superior to Hello MLee1957. I was assigned to mentor you. We haven’t been formally introduced, but I thought I would introduce myself and simultaneously “mentor” you by pissing in your corn flakes and making life difficult for you so you learn the concept that “life sucks and then you die.” Have a nice day and 🎵be sure to AGF🎵.

So, your argument that what you did here (unwittingly continuing the disruption of a single-purpose editor by resorting to different means) has nothing to do with what started this theater, doesn’t hold water in my book. But, to what seems to be the more important principle of your comment: That we’re all here wasting time because of your actions, you and I seem to be in complete agreement.

A final thought; this one speaks to wisdom and maturity. In most situations like this, a simple “Oops. I screwed up and deeply apologize” goes a L-O-N-G ways to defusing a situation and making others think the better of you. When MLee1957 learned you came in after his proper reversion of a controversial (improper) WP:PROD and he asked that you stop “mentoring” him (following him around and make life difficult for him and others trying to intercede in tendentious editing) you responded with a rather flippant one-word response: Done. You seem adept at doubling down on poor form with even more poor form. I suggest you think about that. Greg L (talk) 20:41, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

MOTION: I believe the way AfDs like this and similar fare are closed out is that 24+ hours must elapse with no activity. I propose that there be no further posts here past 23:59 UTC, December 25 so we can be done with this and move on with our lives. Silence may be properly interpreted as responding “Aye” to this motion. Greg L (talk) 21:02, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. Only thing now is for an Administrator to make an AfD decision based on the state of the article. Which, I see, still has no valid references. David notMD (talk) 00:17, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That’s what I meant. I don’t believe an admin steps in to discern what a valid consensus is and closes out an AfD while it is still active under discussion; there must be a 24-hour-long period of inactivity. And quoting you (referencing the article you nominated for deletion): “Which, I see, still has no valid references.” Yeah, we’ve been over that, as well as your other reason, neither of which gained any traction here. There are appropriate ways to deal with insufficiently cited articles, including helping improve the article. That shouldn’t shock the sensibilities of an experienced wikipedian like yourself.

Now, do you have anything new to add that doesn’t rehash the same old arguments and amounts to Wikipedia:I just don't like it? Because if you want to keep harping about the same old tired points until the heat death of the universe, we can leave you here alone to do that. Greg L (talk) 00:58, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

According to WP:AFD, it's a seven day process. According to WP:BEFORE, there were a number of steps you should have taken before nominating this article for AFD, and it's clear to me you didn't take them. Finally, as regards [o]nly thing now is for an Administrator to make an AfD decision based on the state of the article, that is not, in fact, how AFD's are closed. Wikipedia operates on consensus. The closer will consider the arguments made, not the state of the article as they personally see it (which would amount to a WP:SUPERVOTE). I do hope they consider the concerns around बिनोद थारू's conduct at AFD/MFD, and how you played yourself into that by nominating an article which you have no background or knowledge of because of an ill-conceived/implemented "mentorship" of MLee1957. Unless someone intervenes sooner to close this, it will likely be closed on or about the 29th. I Support Greg's proposal to end it early, however. —Locke Cole • t • c 01:59, 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 delete‎. If you are concerned about the behavior of another editor, start a discussion on their User talk page or a noticeboard. An AFD shouldn't be the place to evaluate contributors. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:13, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

René van der Wouden[edit]

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

This article about an electronic musician has no footnotes and the three external links are not WP:RS. I have carried out WP:BEFORE and not found references to add. The biography section has recently been blanked by another editor, but it was unreferenced and there isn't anything in the content to indicate that this person meets WP:NMUSIC or WP:ANYBIO. The article has been tagged with "no footnotes" since 2014. Tacyarg (talk) 02:56, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Bands and musicians, Music, and Netherlands. Tacyarg (talk) 02:56, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No sources used in the article, nothing found in my search. Oaktree b (talk) 03:19, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - If possible, I recommend investigating the edits made by a new editor called EM-Librairian, who has never done anything for WP outside of this article. That person first added several items to the Discography section on 4 December, indicating a certain interest in improving the article, but then on 21 December they totally blanked out the Biography with no explanation, which seems quite fishy to me. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 15:32, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Before 21 December the article had a robust and rambling Biography of the musician, which was unsourced and probably copied from his personal website, but it included some facts that could be confirmed via a search for reliable sources. I attempted to do just that and found that the biography was probably accurate but the musician simply hasn't been noticed by reliable music media despite his prolific output. He plays occasional concerts which get basic newspaper listings, and he's present on all the usual self-upload and directory sites, but he simply hasn't broken through to the other side. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 15:38, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. MIA on Delpher and in the Dutch press. Deleted from Nlwiki. There's one book on Google Books that mentions him as notable in space music, with the name of a piece. That's a very modest beginning of importance and nowhere near the beginning of SIGCOV. Comes across as a music enthusiast who has recorded his own music and only occasionally performed. Nothing wrong with that except not encyclopedic. gidonb (talk) 03:21, 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 keep‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:10, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bengal, Minnesota[edit]

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

Minnesota so far has not been checked much against GNIS and the like, which I suspect means we have a lot of work there. This was a wide spot between the tracks as far back as I can see, and there's no sign it was a settlement as well. Mangoe (talk) 19:16, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:54, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:54, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This one's easy.
BENGAL a station of the Great Northern Railway in section 1 of Goodland Township
— Upham, Warren (2001). "Bengal". Minnesota Place Names: A Geographical Encyclopedia. Minnesota Historical Society Press. p. 260. ISBN 9780873513968.
From the report submitted the Commission finds that Bengal is a station on the line of the Great Northern Railway Company situated between the stations of Kelly Lake and Swan River, Minnesota;
— 51st Annual Report of the Commissioner of Insurance of the State of Minnesota. 1922. p. 75.
Uncle G (talk) 21:16, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Two stops down on the timetable is Goodland, Minnesota. Wikipedia once again lies that this is an "unincorporated community". Upham 2001, p. 263 tells us that it was initially a village called Gardner and became Goodland town of Goodland Township, Minnesota. Just in case you were going there next. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 21:45, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nothing found except for the nearby lake. Not a notable location, and the railroad isn't even there anymore, it looks like, from satellite views. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 00:38, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 02:42, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Bengal was a platted community founded in 1914. While there was definitely a train station there, there was also a small community. I found census records for 1920 and 1940. I've added these details, along with the original 1914 plat map (there was also a later second addition to the community); luckily, that's all been preserved in county records and state and federal census filings. I also found discussion of an influenza outbreak which hit Bengal hard in 1919. Even though all sources indicate Bengal ended up being a bit of a dud, there are reliable sources showing this was a community/town. I'll add more sources tomorrow, but it's late here tonight. Firsfron of Ronchester 10:02, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article has been very well WP:HEYed for such a small community. Passes GNG. SportingFlyer T·C 02:12, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per expansion. BeanieFan11 (talk) 23:27, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Itasca County article. The site is unincorporated, and therefore lacking a government. QED it's not legally recognized and as such cannot not be presumed notable per WP:GEOLAND. The material that has been presented in support of keeping it doesn't meet the standard of sustained coverage or verifiable evidence which is that "evidence must show the topic has gained significant independent coverage or recognition, and that this was not a mere short-term interest,". So the article is not compliant with WP:NRV or WP:Sustained. No article is irrevocably and permanently notable, and merger is easily reversed if the place ever becomes notable. We can't just keep hanging onto these perma stubs because someday they may be the "GOAT".James.folsom (talk) 00:23, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Uh, it's pretty easily verified with the coverage already in the article and WP:SUSTAINED applies to events, not towns, especially considering the sources in the article span decades. It's also no longer a stub. SportingFlyer T·C 01:06, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Leaning keep per SportingFlyer and others above. A place need not be presently incorporated to have historical geographic significance. BD2412 T 14:51, 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 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!} 03:01, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ChoCo1[edit]

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

Reviewed during NPP. No evidence of wp:notability under GNG or SNG. As it says "ChoCo1" is a "trainee" group created by internet IP company "ChoCo entertainment" and the article lists their electronic releases. References are basically notices of this with no GNG/SNG suitable references about the band included. Tagged by a different reviewer for this since June 2023. North8000 (talk) 02:30, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and South Korea. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:47, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Seems mostly like an advertisement. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 03:05, 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 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]

(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 [22] 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

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Mongolia and Azerbaijan. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 23:29, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 23:30, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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. ✗plicit 01:18, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jonathan Spéville[edit]

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

The subject, a Mauritian men's footballer, has not received enough coverage to meet WP:GNG. All that came up in my searches were passing mentions (2018, 2019, 2022, etc.) JTtheOG (talk) 02:05, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Mauritius. JTtheOG (talk) 02:05, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 12:53, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 12:56, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – No notability for clubs or national team. Svartner (talk) 17:13, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Paul Vaurie (talk) 21:00, 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. The only argument for keeping this discussion relies on sources that do not traditionally count toward notability on Wikipedia. Vanamonde93 (talk) 10:48, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Suissenégoce[edit]

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

Reviewed during NPP. No indication of wp:notability under SNG or GNG. Not only does it not have GNG references, it has zero references of any type except for themselves. A search I did yielded the same results. e North8000 (talk) 02:10, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

del no significant independent coverage. - Altenmann >talk 02:17, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Switzerland. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 05:31, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Searches do find some coverage of the coming and going of large firms such as Trafigura as members of this association, unfortunately mostly behind paywalls. There is also a July 2023 item about Suissenégoce representing Swiss business sectors in talks with the US Treasury about sanctions compliance. AllyD (talk) 08:05, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: You do not find coverage because Suissnégoce is the new name. They changed their name some weeks ago. Try „Swiss trading and Shipping Association“ or STSA as a search promt and you will discover it. Please check the official business register in order to find out who is behind that organization : the big trading companies. Vitol, Mercuria, Trafigura, ADM, Bunge, Cargil, Dreyfus, as well as globally active Banks and insurance companies. To be clear : Suissenégoce is the lobby organization of a big business sector in Switzerland. It is an important player in policymaking, active in Parliament as well as on governmental level. Let's improve the article. --Sputniktilt (talk) 09:39, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Who should be doing that? The millions of editors building the articles or the overworked handful of people at NPP/AFD? — Preceding unsigned comment added by North8000 (talk • contribs) 14:47, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The article does not establish notability through references to substantial coverate in reliable independent sources. I'm fairly familiar with Swiss economic politics and have never heard of this group, not even in the context of recent public and political discourse about corporate responsibility in the commodities sector. I therefore doubt that they are as significant as the article implies. A Google News search about STSA finds nothing relevant. It is possible that significant coverage exists in trade publications, but someone would need to find and cite that. Sandstein 14:56, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment@Sandstein : you are wrong, please do proper research work. Check the Site of Lobbywatch. Check the Website on Commodity trade of the Swiss Department of Foreign Affairs and who is referred there on the bottom of the page. Check the website of the Swiss parliament and you will discover many projects where STSA/suissenégoce is involved. Here's the full prompt. --Sputniktilt (talk) 20:43, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

the article shall remain. Reliable independent sources are cited, ranging from independent press articles (AGEFI) to sources from parliament and government agencies. They are transparently linked at the top. The facts are on the table. They are not all in English, but please bear in mind that this is not yet a criterion. Facts should count. Facts are available, for example, from experienced Wikiepdia authors who know their topics, have reliable sources and have been doing this here for over 15 years. --Sputniktilt (talk) 20:26, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. User:Sputniktilt, editors are saying that the existing references are not sufficient. Instead of telling them they are not searching correctly, you should post links or citations to sources that could establish notability. That is the burden of editors advocating to Keep an article that others believe doesn't demonstrate notability.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:37, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

User:Liz, you're right. That was my spontaneous reaction to Sandstein's comment. Such flippant remarks are simply annoying, especially when the author claims to know the field in question. I apologise for that. I have updated the article, and added relevant sources. --Sputniktilt (talk) 23:56, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. A review of recently added content would be helpful here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:42, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Some coverage in Swiss sources [23], [24] and [25], most are trivial mentions. We could probably cobble something together at least to meet BASIC. Oaktree b (talk) 03:02, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I've tried several .ch searches, Gscholar as well- [26]. The association exists, but it's only ever mentioned briefly. Oaktree b (talk) 03:13, 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 keep‎. ✗plicit 01:18, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jackson Fear[edit]

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

Could not find coverage to meet WP:SPORTSCRIT. Also fails WP:NOLY. LibStar (talk) 02:11, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Olympics, and Australia. LibStar (talk) 02:11, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
del ; confirm nom's findings. - Altenmann >talk 02:15, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Newspapers.com has a very limited amount of Australian newspapers. Despite this, enough coverage to pass WP:GNG is able to be found on Fear, see for example Sydney Morning Herald feature, full-page The Age article, some more Morning Herald coverage, and then some more from The Age, among others. BeanieFan11 (talk) 22:53, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per BeanieFan11. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 23:09, 11 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!} 02:38, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 01:22, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep thanks to the SIGCOV found by BeanieFan11. Clear GNG pass and then some. JTtheOG (talk) 05:45, 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 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 01:13, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bezel Engine[edit]

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

This video game engine does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NSOFT. Most of the sources I could find were primary sources from Nintendo, blogs, or press releases. A quick search through Japanese sources provided nothing of use. Sparkl^talk 01:19, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games and Software. Sparkl^talk 01:19, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not appear notable. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 06:06, 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 no consensus‎. ✗plicit 01:20, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lakshmi Shruti Settipalli[edit]

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

Sources run of the mail facebook account, imdb, all and all poorly sourced. Sources are not secdondary or independent dont meet WPINDP or WP:SIRS Comintell (talk) 07:30, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, and Tamil Nadu. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:47, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: All I find are PR items [27], [28] which at least confirms it's written by ANI PR, [29] and [30], none of which are RS. Oaktree b (talk) 15:28, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The article needs inline citations and may have originated for promotional purposes, but still meets notability. I dug through the listed sources and converted the bare URLs into citations. It turns out that two of the sources do provide significant coverage that is independent and reliable. "Lakshmi Shruti Setttipalli Was Intrigued by Squash When She First Saw It Played" is published in Prosquash, the leading source for squash in India (where the sport is big). The other solid source is the extensive article, "I Want To Be The Best" in the Deccan Chronicle. Rublamb (talk) 21:24, 1 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!} 07:42, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 10:43, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Sources highlighted by Rublamb ([31], [32]) appear to demonstrate WP:GNG. ~Kvng (talk) 22:07, 14 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) 00:27, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As has been pointed out, there is some coverage. That said, it falls short a bit of the WP:GNG. gidonb (talk) 02:37, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see what's wrong with the Deccan Chronicle article; that's an extensive full-page feature story. BeanieFan11 (talk) 17:23, 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 West Santa Ana Branch Transit Corridor#Stations. ✗plicit 01:15, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Arts/Industrial District station[edit]

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

Proposed station, expected to enter service in 2043. Per WP:CRYSTAL, this absolutely should not exist. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 00:08, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and California. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 00:08, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to West Santa Ana Branch Transit Corridor#Stations. We're a decade or more out from the design of the station advancing beyond a dot on a map. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 00:37, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to West Santa Ana Branch Transit Corridor#Stations: Far WP:TOOSOON. The station won't be existing anytime soon, and who knows if it will still be in the plans 10 or 15 years from now as it's proposed that the station will be there. Nothing's been confirmed yet, thus it's a WP:CRYSTAL violation. It can be redirected to the list of stations on the planned rail line for now. Streetlampguy301 (talk) 00:47, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect so that this can be changed over if it becomes notable later. Dr vulpes ^{(💬 • 📝)} 05:40, 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.

[1] Paradis, Roger (1972). "John Baker and the Republic of Madawaska" (PDF). The Dalhousie Review. 52 (1): 78–95. Retrieved 2017-05-04.

[2] Day, Clarence A. "Aroostook, the first sixty years: a history of Maine's largest county, from its earliest beginning up through the bloodless Aroostook War". first published serially in the Fort Fairfield Review from December 26, 1951, to February 27, 1957.

[3] Findlen, George L., "Under His Own Flag: John Baker's Gravestone Memorial in Retrospect", English translation of an article published in Le Revue de la Société historique du Madawaska (French language), issue 30, January/March 2002, 5-55.

[1]

[2]

[3]