Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 December 30

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< December 29 December 31 >

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 redirect‎ to Bumper Films. Liz Read! Talk! 22:01, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rocky Hollow[edit]

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

Appears to fail WP:NTV and WP:GNG. Tagged for notability since 2022 DonaldD23 talk to me 23:17, 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 delete‎. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:46, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Aaron Hurst[edit]

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

I am unconvinced that WP:BIO is met. The only source present in the article which goes into any detail on the subject is this and my searches have not found any others. If that is the only in-depth coverage, we are short of having multiple sources which provide in-depth coverage. SmartSE (talk) 22:36, 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 keep‎. Liz Read! Talk! 01:40, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

William Tash[edit]

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

no indication of notability DrowssapSMM 23:06, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This isn't appropriate for soft-deletion as the primary contributor is still actively editing the article. Relisting to form consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 22:11, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete non-notable. Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 22:41, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Significantly expanded since nomination with coverage in multiple reliable sources. Easily meets the GNG and has scope for further expansion. Philafrenzy (talk) 16:12, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Thanks to the hard work of Philafrenzy, this article now easily meets WP:GNG. Edwardx (talk) 13:23, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Appears to have been appropriately expanded. Whispyhistory (talk) 21:32, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 hope recently found sources can find their way out of this AFD discussion and into the article itself. Liz Read! Talk! 05:29, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Africa Report[edit]

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

WP:ADMASQ for non notable periodical. Fails WP:GNG. WP:BEFORE failed to find any useful sources. Current references are from the org itself, a one para "description' of the item, and a 404/server failure error. Puff piece. Note that the item is stated to have won the 'Diageo Africa Business Reporting Award', an award by a drinks manufacturer about which I can find no significant coverage, thus have concluded that it is a 'Marketing Award' for Diageo (to sell more drinks?), and does not confer notability. Refunded after soft delete at prior AfD, and renominated for a fuller discussion. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 21:44, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep — per my reasonings for contesting the soft deletion: While I doubt anyone thinks the page itself is fitting, even a cursory glance at the actual The Africa Report site would show that it is clearly notable — interviews with heads of state, interviews with business leaders, analysis on politics across the continent, mentions in the The New York Times and other papers, etc. This seems like a case of a bad article for a notable subject getting just deleted instead of flagged and fixed. Watercheetah99 (talk) 03:10, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment overall I oppose since per comment above it seems notable, however there is urgent need for better citations. Homerethegreat (talk) 16:57, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. "Seems notable" isn't sufficient, there needs to be some actual new sources brought to this discussion to address concerns in nomination statement. If this journal is "clearly notable", finding reliable sources shouldn't be difficult.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:45, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Procedural Keep. The subject lacks notability.Micheal Kaluba (talk) 15:42, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Micheal Kaluba, this opinion makes no sense at all. If you believe the subject lacks notability, why are you arguing for a Keep? And a Procedural Keep at that. I don't think you are taking participation in AFD discussions very seriously, investigating the article and reviewing the sources. Liz Read! Talk! 05:13, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      • Hi @Liz, there is no need to be hash to me. With Procedural keep, I mean more work needs to be done to the article or pushing it draft other than deleting it, someone dedicated their time to write that article. So don't think that I am not taking this serous, I personally have other things to do but here I am because I believe in this okay? Micheal Kaluba (talk) 08:01, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
        • And yet you are doing nothing but offering nonsensical rationales that provide no help whatsoever. Uncle G (talk) 23:04, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relisting. Delete.Micheal Kaluba (talk) 09:34, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Why? Watercheetah99 (talk) 18:52, 27 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! 23:15, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • The article cites a press release and no independent sources. Looking, I can find no independent sources. This is clearly not a language problem, as this is an English language publication. This is a problem that no-one outwith the publishing company has documented the publishing company's magazine. Moreover the vaguely handwaved aforementioned "mentions in the The New York Times and other papers" simply do not exist at all, as far as I can determine. Uncle G (talk) 23:04, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Kindly, there is no possible way you actually looked if your takeaway was that the mentions "simply do not exist at all" — there is a button with "NYT" in the find sources parentheses above, there are three recent mentions right there. More in Foreign Policy, Africanews, the BBC, the Washington Post, DW, The Economist, The Guardian, Mail & Guardian, and more. You could’ve genuinely just asked for the other mentions and I would've replied with them instead of pretending to have looked and found none. Watercheetah99 (talk) 04:27, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Per @Watercheetah99 (above), the AR gets mentioned—and recently—as a source in many WP:RS/Ps, such as New York Times 1 2 3, BBC 1 2, and Washington Post 1. Here is one of the Editorial Board members of the notable African Affairs journal, Nic Cheeseman, noting in his bio that he also writes for the African Report. Here is the African Report appearing as a source in papers on JSTOR. Sympathy with the nom as it is not an obvious case (my initial searches were inconclusive), but I do think that very high-quality global news sources (and academics) have regard for this publication, and it therefore should be kept (and improved hopefully). Aszx5000 (talk) 13:30, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    And obviously, it is a part of the world that has proportionally fewer quality news sources, so when we find one that is well regarded by developed world quality sources, we should protect and help it—as sources is our thing :) Aszx5000 (talk) 13:34, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist to consider sources presented by Watercheetah99 against our GNG guideline.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 22:10, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: per Aszx5000's well stated !vote. Here's to hoping they update the article to reflect informaiton from the sources they list. - UtherSRG (talk) 17:18, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. UtherSRG (talk) 17:06, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Wait Wait... Don't Tell Me! episodes (2023)[edit]

List of Wait Wait... Don't Tell Me! episodes (2023) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

While the show itself is clearly notable, it's not clear that the list of individual episodes is necessary. At present, this page (as well as those for other years) uses only primary sources: one for the WW...DTM archive and one to Twitter. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 23:48, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well, List of Wait Wait... Don't Tell Me! episodes only listed years of airing rather than including every single episodes since it's first airing. Isn't that list needed to have some changes as well? VernardoLau (talk) 16:07, 13 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! 23:23, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Needlessly to ask that we shall need to edit List of Wait Wait... Don't Tell Me! episodes since last time I was commented on whether that list would need changes. VernardoLau (talk) 21:21, 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! 23:16, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - You've only nominated the list of lists, and not the lists themselves. After two relistings, it's too late to add them all to this nom if that was intended. A list of lists is just a navigational aid and isn't required to be independently notable. My mistake. I must've opened both the nominated article and the one linked by the first commenter and got confused. Still, I don't see a reason to delete just 2023's episodes when these exist for every year (or at least many years). We don't have a great guideline to determine when we should list out radio/podcast episodes (and then whether to distinguish between fiction, variety, interview, etc.). I guess it'll come down, in some fashion, to "would the ideal article about the show include a list of episodes if it didn't skew the size/npov of the article?" If yes, then a spin-off list may make sense, and I guess that's where I land here. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 03:51, 29 December 2023 (UTC) — Rhododendrites talk \\ 17:13, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Rhododendrites: I decided to nominate one article instead of every one of them despite knowing that most of them have the same issue. I wanted to see how people would respond. This feels a bit like WP:WHATABOUTX. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 14:52, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment why not take a page from WP:TVSPLIT, this doesn't seem too long and could be kept on the main article page, and just leave a redirect? microbiologyMarcus (petri dish·growths) 15:56, 28 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) 22:09, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - the page needs sourcing, there is no denying that - but it would be too large to merge into another article. Additionally, it does not make sense to delete this page and not the other lists; where would all this information go, or even a condensed version? I understand that the intention was to see how editors would respond to deletion, but I think deleting this page would just put huge holes in the project without fixing anything. I would recommend working on sourcing and expanding this page OR, if it must be merged, merging some of the lists together (perhaps by decades? e.g. List of 2010s Wait Wait Don't Tell me! episodes) DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 01:38, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @DaniloDaysOfOurLives: Do you have any sources for episodes of the show -- either in individual years or for the decades? Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 17:03, 31 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. czar 16:15, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sambit Bal[edit]

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

Notability. not passed WP:NSPORTS or WP:JOURNALIST. ―  ☪  Kapudan Pasha (🧾 - 💬) 21:32, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Sportspeople, and Journalism. ―  ☪  Kapudan Pasha (🧾 - 💬) 21:32, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as the subject is definitely a notable journalist and editor. Batagur baska (talk) 22:16, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    comment: Please provide a reason as opposed to saying the equivalent of "It's true because I said so". AriTheHorse 22:49, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    If you read the article, it clearly indicates the journalistic and editorial notability of the subject. The onus here is on the nominator to say why the subject fails notability, and that has not been done. I do not have to state a rationale, only my opinion, and please do not try to misrepresent my opinion. Batagur baska (talk) 03:16, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Batagur baska The article has no secondary sources. All of them are primary sources. If you have secondary sources that can prove him as a notable, please provide them. ―  ☪  Kapudan Pasha (🧾 - 💬) 20:02, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Cricket and Odisha. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 23:20, 16 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! 23:18, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 22:07, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. No evidence of SIGCOV. The piece in The Hindu is a press release announcing an event he spoke at, not IRS coverage.
JoelleJay (talk) 01:11, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Bal is the editor-in-chief of ESPNcricinfo, which, per The Hindu, is "the world's most widely read cricket website" (link). It is perhaps no surprise, then, that a simple Google search for his name turns up tens of thousands of hits—not just the numerous bylines, but articles citing him as an authority (examples), articles directly about him (e.g., 1, 2), and interviews of him (e.g., 1, 2). Whether judged by the general notability guideline, or by WP:JOURNALIST—cited by the nominator, which asks whether The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors—the standard would appear to be met. Incidentally, while the two editors who have voted to delete have claimed, respectively, that The article has no secondary sources and that there is No evidence of SIGCOV, neither indicates what efforts—if any—they undertook to actually look for sources. As Batagur baska correctly states, The onus here is on the nominator to say why the subject fails notability, and that has not been done. See generally WP:BEFORE. --Usernameunique (talk) 05:19, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So, Usernameunique, are you voicing an opinion to Keep this article? I see your criticism but not your opinion on what should be done with this article. Liz Read! Talk! 02:01, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Usernameunique Please, This is definitely not a widely cited.
  1. The reference to The Hindu is just a press release.
  2. India Times has a category with six news items. His name is not even in one of the titles. Only mentioned once or twice in the news.
  3. India Television, E4M and Afaqs are not independent or notable sources.
  4. Cricket Couch is just a blog. who also writes for ESPN as well.
  5. Since he's written extensively for ESPN and other magazines for over twenty years, it's no big deal to have his name prominent on Google. His own writings do not prove him notable.
―  ☪  Kapudan Pasha (🧾 - 💬) 18:02, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Indian Television and E4M links are the same press release announcing new roles for Bal and another journalist. The "sources" are clearly marketing tools: IT: Apart from conceiving and executing promotional campaigns targeted at the Media, Marketing & Television Trade online, it also offers similar services offline, thus providing clients with a 360 degree media service and marketing solution. E4M: exchange4media was set up in year 2000 with the aim of publishing niche, relevant and quality publications for the marketing, advertising and media professionals. JoelleJay (talk) 19:39, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Subject does not pass the GNG due to a lack of WP:SIGCOV. Blogs and press releases just won't do. Let'srun (talk) 15:37, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 22:04, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jim Thorpe Classic[edit]

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

Not enough independent WP:SIGCOV is present for this subject to meet the WP:GNG. Let'srun (talk) 18:20, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:19, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 22:07, 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 delete‎. Editors are free to create a Redirect from this page title to an appropriate target article. Liz Read! Talk! 22:06, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gordon McComb[edit]

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

Found absolutely zero significant coverage in my BEFORE, which included a newspaper search. Mach61 (talk) 21:51, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 22:06, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. When no sources have been uncovered to meet SPORTSCRIT, the article should be deleted. Does not appear to meet GNG.
JoelleJay (talk) 01:07, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@JoelleJay: What's wrong with this source to qualify for SPORTCRIT? BeanieFan11 (talk) 01:59, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What encyclopedic info do we gain from that? The only material would be this particular reporter's very subjective personal opinions on his candidacy for a spot on the team. We can't write an article entirely around quotes. JoelleJay (talk) 02:57, 31 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! 02:13, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Timeline of United States inventions (1946–1991)[edit]

Timeline of United States inventions (1946–1991) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

It's pretty much impossible to come up with a sensible inclusion criterion for this article (and others in the series). The current state of the selected inventions is a joke. Dicklyon (talk) 19:16, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The selected inventions seem perfectly reasonable, and inclusion criterion is nowhere near "impossible" to come up with, if it is determined to be necessary. Deletion would be pretty extreme for this article. aaronneallucas (talk) 19:49, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The annular blowout preventer and Tupperware and Gilhoolie, sure, but some of the others, not so important. Dicklyon (talk) 20:24, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and Lists. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:39, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Doubts over criteria can be made clear on this AfD but so far, I am inclined to believe that this article is better than most of other articles. Raymond3023 (talk) 05:52, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment How many thousands of inventions would go on this list? You got significant advances in technology, as well as things like the Lint roller. Different lists could be made. Tools, machinery, and factory equipment on one list. Computer related technology on another. Clothing, kitchen, and cleaning things on another. Does the time period or nation someone lived in when they invented it, make a difference though? Dream Focus 11:50, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • (edit conflict)Comment -- This is essentially a list article. There might be some merit in a split by decades to provide articles of more manageable size. In some cases, such as spreadsheet and computer mouse, the inventions were unimportant at the time and only became important much later. However rigorous inclusion criteria are much less important for a list than a category. Peterkingiron (talk) 11:55, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: neither the arbitrary choice of time period, nor the classification of inventions by the nationality of the inventor, seem particularly encyclopedic. The article mentions "Cold War" as justification for the particular choice of period, but most of the items listed have nothing to do with the Cold War. I can't help but see this as non-notable listcruft. Owen× ☎ 14:02, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    There was a poorly executed split into time periods that left this and the others in this semi-broken state. Dicklyon (talk) 20:24, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 22:04, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Reasonable criteria for the entries are difficult to formulate and would probably constitute WP:OR. The sheer randomness of the current list bears this out: waterproof diapers and transistors??? Clarityfiend (talk) 01:03, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Per nomination. An arbitrary time period with no possible-to-discern criteria that includes fishing lures, supersonic aircraft, and beer on the same list. If anything they should be categorized - I.E. "United States Military Inventions during the Cold War" or something, but everything on one big list is rather nonsensical and this could easily fill up with 1,000 unrelated items. StreetcarEnjoyer (talk) 21:48, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) asilvering (talk) 01:05, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

GoGoGo Airheart[edit]

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

No significant coverage of the band to be found anywhere. The article only relias on primary sources. The only argument for notability is that their albums were published by a notable indie label. In my opinion not enough to meet notability criteria. Broc (talk) 18:33, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Atlantic306: one single review still does not make the subject notable, as it is not covered by multiple reliable sources. Unless we find additional sources, I think the page should still be deleted. --Broc (talk) 22:19, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There are four album reviews at AllMusic but I agree more is needed, Atlantic306 (talk) 13:36, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 22:04, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep moving to full keep in view of these additional sources: Pitcfork here and here, San Diego Reader here, Exclaim here and here, PopMatters here, and here and Denver Post [here to go with the four AllMusic sources. The music specific sources are listed as reliable at Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Sources. Overall there is enough coverage to pass WP:GNG in my view Atlantic306 (talk) 20:10, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for finding this sources! I would agree that it is sufficient coverage to fulfill WP:GNG. Would you like to move the sources over to the article, so that the effort was not in vain? Broc (talk) 11:49, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wow a band with 6 LPs under their belt (https://rateyourmusic.com/artist/gogogo_airheart) isn't 'notable' enough for Wikipedia. This dude (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Hulewicz) produced less (and considerably worse) music, but no one's taking him down. 2A00:79E0:11:370:692B:E9CD:2888:94E3 (talk) 11:37, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Let alone WP:OTHERSTUFF, Hulewicz recorded over a dozen albums between 1969 and 2013, a way longer and more productive career than that obscure and short-lived punk band. He was a Meritorious Activist of Culture, an Order of Polonia Restituta Knight's Cross and a Gloria Artis Medal recipient. He is featured in books about the history of Polish music. If your argument was intended to help the band, it is not. Cavarrone 09:25, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 02:17, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Vladimir Cheptenari[edit]

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

I'm not able to find any sources that satisfy WP:GNG or WP:SPORTBASIC about this footballer. Passing mentions like ESP and FMF were all that I could find. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 15:22, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: As happens often in Eastern Europe, one has to get creative in finding sources. The Russian version (over 40% of Bălți residents are Russian speakers, according to the 2014 census) of his name gives a few hits from sports media in Moldova, these two being on the extensive side: [13] [14]
Apparently both are linked to an incident where he injured another footballer during a match.
Here he is briefly mentioned as missing next game due to having amassed too many yellow cards, while here he is listed on account of having scored an own goal. By this time he was playing for FC Grănicerul Glodeni in the Moldovan second tier.
Furthermore, he appears to have had a parallel career in local politics, which included alleged death threats from the mayor of the town, a former political ally: [15] [16] [17] [18]
There is likely to be more, but I don't have time to look around, nor have I looked at these in depth. I do not know if this enough to save the article, either, and while I'd say it might be worth keeping, it would take someone to be willing to add information to the article, as well as filling in the gaps in his career using stats sites. Cheers. Ostalgia (talk) 20:49, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's probably enough to build a biography from, to be fair. I'd have said his football coverage probably just falls short of GNG but the politics stories seem to be enough. Since only 4% of Moldova is Russian and his name looked Romanian to me, I just presumed he was of Moldovan ethnicity, so presumed he wouldn't have much in Russian, but I was wrong clearly. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 22:35, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No shame there, it was a reasonable assumption - you are most likely right about his ethnicity after all. Cheers. Ostalgia (talk) 08:21, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. GiantSnowman 11:11, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 22:03, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. The two pure Q&A interviews 12 contribute nothing. The politics articles have very little info either--his picture among many3; a story mostly about accusations from his wife towards the Balti mayor where the only secondary independent coverage is In 2015, Vladimir Keptenari entered the Municipal Council on the list of Our Party. On January 15, 2018, he even took part in a hunger strike , which was then announced by PP advisers in protest against the pressure on advisers from the ruling PDM party.4; a blurb on his municipal councilor candidacy alongside 26 other candidacy blurbs5; and another piece on his wife's accusations that has no coverage of him6. Nowhere near enough coverage to meet GNG, let alone NPOL (which considers a lot of candidacy coverage routine).
JoelleJay (talk) 01:05, 31 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! 22:12, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Natisha John[edit]

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

The subject, a Trinidadian women's footballer, has not received sufficient coverage to meet WP:GNG. All I have found in my searches is this interview. JTtheOG (talk) 21:24, 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 delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 22:12, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tylers Corner, California[edit]

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

Non-notable location. In a previous AfD, this article was converted to a redirect to El Dorado County, California, which in my opinion was a mistake as there is absolutely nothing to be said about this place and it is not mentioned in the county article at all. No mention of a Tylers Corner or Tylers was found in any of three histories of the region that I was able to access online: [19],[20],[21]. It's first labeled as Tylers Corner on the 1952 Aukum and Camino USGS topo maps: [22], but that's the only mention of this place I can find other than the cited sources, which are insufficient for notability. This is just an intersection that once had a few houses; that is not a community, as required by WP:GEOLAND. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 20:41, 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 soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 22:13, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Khalik Mammadov[edit]

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

Run of the mill bureaucrat. As best I can tell, the subject is vice-president of "HR, IT and regulations" within the state-owned oil company. Thenightaway (talk) 20:12, 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 delete‎. Eddie891 Talk Work 20:39, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of uncertainty propagation software[edit]

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

Spammy list of non-notable entities, Wikipedia is not a product directory * Pppery * it has begun... 20:09, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Mathematics, Software, and Lists. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:24, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 21:21, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I don't see any links to Wikipedia articles in there, just links to external sites. Dream Focus 21:21, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per XOR'easter, improving the list to cover (some of) the programs appropriately does not seem practical. Keep. According to WP:NLIST, individual items in a list need not be notable, while the category the list is about does. As the category is already covered in its own article and is criticized as spammy/indiscriminate, less notable entries should be culled as per WP:LSC. Holzklöppel (talk) 22:16, 31 December 2023 (UTC) edited 03:29, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Propagation of uncertainty isn't about the software. No software is mentioned at all. Category:Lists of software shows how the many other lists of this type work, they list notable software that has its own Wikipedia articles. This list is old. Has any of the software listed on it gotten its own articles yet? Dream Focus 00:43, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The software listed implements the concept described in the article and should probably be wikilinked there. If lists of software on Wikipedia were just lists of Wikipedia articles covering software, deleting would be in the interest of consistency, but a cursory look at the category indicates otherwise. Outdated information should be corrected by editing. I don't know if any of the programs covered are notable enough to have an article. Holzklöppel (talk) 01:12, 1 January 2024 (UTC) edited 03:29, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete in the absence of sources that indicate this particular feature to be a noteworthy thing to organize software by, and the lack of secondary references to support the claims being made on behalf of these obscure tools/packages/scripting languages. XOR'easter (talk) 21:01, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 22:14, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Embassy of the United States, Malabo[edit]

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

The article says nothing about the purported subject and is instead a content fork of Equatorial Guinea–United States relations. — Biruitorul Talk 20:06, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as content fork of bilateral relations article. All relevant text here was already merged into that article during the previous AfD. Dan • ✉ 22:11, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete content fork of bilateral relations article. Created during a spree of US embassy article creation. LibStar (talk) 09:49, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Eddie891 Talk Work 20:41, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Open government in Azerbaijan[edit]

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

There is nothing that indicates the subject is notable. This is purely sourced to Azerbaijani government sources or sources that are not independent of the Azerbaijan government. Thenightaway (talk) 20:06, 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 delete‎. Those editors who want to create a Redirect from this page title to an appropriate target article or even a disambiguation page are free to do so. Liz Read! Talk! 22:17, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pacific Century[edit]

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

Article substantially falling afoul of WP:OR, with no sourcing to demonstrate the core concept and is simply rampant author description of the term. Only sections sourced are three lines about the Obama administration's foreign policy that referred to "America's Pacific Century" and would therefore be relevant on article's about his presidency. Rambling Rambler (talk) 19:55, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as per nom. WP:TRIVIA. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DerbyCountyinNZ (talk • contribs) 20:47, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into Asian Century. This appears to be simply an alternative term for the same concept preferred by some Obama administration officials. Dan • ✉ 21:34, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete: after reading both cited sources, I realize I've given this article too much credit. There isn't even a single mention of the term that isn't qualified by "America's," so the unqualified term "Pacific Century" is completely concocted by this article alone. The sources cited are not really notable and are about US policy, and don't fit into Asian Century as I initially proposed. Dan • ✉ 21:42, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - WP:OR. See above comments. StreetcarEnjoyer (talk) 22:11, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Asian Century per my arguments in last AfD (the term is mentioned there, redirects are WP:CHEAP). The current version of the article is a crappy OR mess that can be TNTed, so I don't mind if there is hard deletion, although why bother? Soft redirect will do. In prior AfD there was a claim of a good source, but the link is 404, and the editor who added it did not provide full bibliography, nor, obviously did anyone try to rewrite this mess. PS. I see Mx. Granger did try to clean that up, but I fear it was just a waste of time. Washing trash does not make it less trashy, this needs to be written up from scratch. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:03, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: WP:OR mess needs WP:TNT. TarnishedPathtalk 06:21, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, or maybe replace with a disambiguation page for The Pacific Century, Pacific Century Motors, and Pacific Century Cyberworks. I agree that this is not a notable topic, but it may be a reasonable search term for those topics. I don't think it should be redirected to Asian Century, because I don't know of any sources indicating that the term "Pacific Century" is used in a similar way to the term "Asian Century". —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 16:36, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: WP:GNG. Even if remedial action was possible, it is simply not notable enough to warrant a page. Spinifex&Sand (talk) 00:31, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or redirect to Asian Century. As I mentioned in the last AfD, there are a number of Google Scholar results for the term "Pacific Century," many independent of the term "Asia-Pacific Century." The term goes back to at least the 1980s. The article by Rosemary Foot and Andrew Walter includes a useful definition of the term and some history. --Enos733 (talk) 04:56, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    One of the earliest articles I could find was this editorial in Science from 1987, titled "The Pacific Century." The term may have been offered by Professor Robert Scalapino of the University of California Berkeley's Institute of East Asian Studies. - Enos733 (talk) 05:25, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 22:18, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Modern Bathroom[edit]

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

The article has been around for a while but does not indicate any notability. (The founder apparently "worked with" HGTV, there's not much about it.) The sources are all PR material and I cannot find much in the way of third-party discussion of the company in reliable sources, beyond listings in seller websites, and promotional-type interviews or blog postings. ... discospinster talk 19:40, 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 keep‎. Liz Read! Talk! 05:35, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2023 British Library cyberattack[edit]

2023 British Library cyberattack (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This two-paragraph news article seems like a slam-dunk (i.e. SPEEDY) Merge&Redirect per WP:NOTNEWS; does not seem to meet WP:EVENT. I'm not sure why the two paragraphs were not simply added to British Library, with its own Level 4 header if necessary, under British Library#Electronic collections. Softlavender (talk) 10:51, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Softlavender (talk) 10:51, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime, Events, and Russia. Deltaspace42 (talk • contribs) 11:48, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • A redirect makes sense, yes; the two paragraphs can easily be merged. Drmies (talk) 14:49, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment after being unable to use the BL catalog I googled and found the NYer article and "How to Lose a Library" which both gave the distict impression that this was a signal event in the history of what used to be called the Information Age. The attack seemed independently notable distinct from the institution at large (like Notre-Dame de Paris & Notre-Dame fire) but maybe I overestimated the significance of databases being offline. jengod (talk) 17:10, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into BL then delete redirect while the information herein is noteworthy, its independence from the British Library is unclear, and the info could just go into a sub-section. Chumpih t 00:11, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Why delete the history here? This is a reasonable redirect. Elli (talk | contribs) 02:50, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Fair point. Redirect is good. Altered previous !vote. Chumpih t 04:18, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep having been swayed by Jfire's arguments below. Chumpih t 01:04, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to British Library -- Separately, it does not pass WP:NEVENT for lack of WP:SECONDARY sources. I also cannot see this subject passing WP:LASTING, WP:PERSISTENCE or WP:GEOSCOPE as it didn't seem to make a ripple in international news. Cheers, Last1in (talk) 21:56, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to British Library. The article is short and would fit well under a subheading PARAKANYAA (talk) 02:38, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - the subject is notable and could be expanded. Otherwise, merging the information into BL would not be a bad idea as it means the information can be kept and the article can be remade again in the future.DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 12:58, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Nothing much to merge — the incident is already referred to in the British Library article see British Library#Online, electronic and digital resources under the Elecronic collections subheading, so all that's needed is a targeted redirect. Another redirect/merge worth considering is to Rhysida (hacker group). Rupples (talk) 23:29, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - this is certainly a notable issue and it will only get more important (to BL users and the rest of the world) as we learn more about what happened and how they responded. Having this as a separate article means there is a special place for information on this significant event to be collected as news reports, magazine articles, and - eventually - the Library's own incident post mortem report - become available. Why is this article important? Because all similar institutions around the world need to learn lessons from it. ZoneAlarm5 (talk) 15:47, 30 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! 17:29, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • There are a lot of articles about this—not just one-off articles that appeared when it happened, but later-in-time articles that talk about its impact and implications. Examples: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12. It's also not necessarily an isolated event; the Toronto Public Library suffered a similar attack not long before (see here). Whatever the state of the article now, it could easily be built out into a healthy standalone article. --Usernameunique (talk) 18:38, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Meets WP:NEVENT, which says that events are very likely to be notable if they have widespread (national or international) impact and were very widely covered in diverse sources, especially if also re-analyzed afterwards. All three of these prongs are met: this event had widespread national impact in the U.K., with the national library being taken offline for several months; it was widely covered in mainstream international news outlets such as the The New Yorker and New York Times, IT and cybersecurity-focused media such as The Register and Infosecurity Magazine, and museum and library journals such as Museums Journal and The Art Newspaper; and many of these articles contain detailed analysis or commentary about the wider impact of the event, e.g. Museums, galleries and archives have been urged to tighten their cyber security following the massive ransomware attack on the British Library and what can arts bodies do to combat ransomware threats?. Jfire (talk) 19:56, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Well argued. I've changed my stance above. Chumpih t 01:00, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Jfire and Usernameunique. It is essentially a stub right now but it turns out this isn't "just" your every day cyber attack – the implications for other libraries, museums, and arts organizations worldwide is significant, and the fact that the British Library still isn't back online, months later, tells you it's BAD. That said, some of the coverage is still so recent that it's understandable why it was kind of hard to see what it all looked like in aggregate. All our energy now should be directed toward expanding the article and incorporating the many sources that have been identified in this discussion, also to provide readers with vital information they are looking for. Cielquiparle (talk) 06:06, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per sources substantial reliable sources found that demonstrate the lasting impact of this event. This is much more than a simple outage and newer sources show that. As an aside, I only found this AfD because my research for another article was disrupted by the attack. Schminnte [talk to me] 15:34, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 is more of a procedural Keep because after going to a lot of trouble editing this article and putting together a source table, the nominator twice said they wanted to Keep this article.

Please do not start an AFD discussion unless you are seeking to delete an article. It's not an appropriate vehicle to encourage other editors to find new sources for you. Liz Read! Talk! 22:23, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

World Jewish Relief[edit]

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

I've been editing this page for a couple of days mostly removing excessive external links to the organisation's website, boldly removing unsourced or improperly sourced content, verifying what I can and tagging what I can't verify. Then, I tried to improve the page by incorporating some secondary and tertiary sources but I've drawn a blank. I am confident that at this point I have explored WP:ATD but after putting together the source assessment table below it's become clear to me that there isn't actually enough significant coverage in independent secondary sources to form an objective overview of this British charity. I contemplated doing prod but doing so would have sent other editors on a wild goose chase for reliable secondary sources which I don't want to do. So I've arrived at the conclusion that AfD is the only way forward.𝔓420°𝔓Holla 16:13, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source assessment table:
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
https://register-of-charities.charitycommission.gov.uk/charity-search/-/charity-details/290767/governance ? I think the charities register functions like Companies House in that organisations have to submit their own details but I could be wrong. Yes It's a legally binding document No Just a registry ✘ No
https://archive.org/details/menofvision00amyz/page/99/mode/2up No In this interview https://portal.ehri-project.eu/units/us-005578-irn504457-irn507288 this book's author discusses joining the "Jewish Relief Unit of the Jewish Committee for Relief Abroad, sponsored by the Central British Fund for German Jewry". Therefore, this source isn't independent because she's writing about an organisation that she was a member of. Yes I've had a good flick through the book and it's very well written, very thorough and well citated. Yes The book goes into a lot of depth about this organisation's formation. It's just a shame it's not independent. ✘ No
https://www.theguardian.com/tv-and-radio/2020/jan/05/windermere-children-arek-hersh-survivor-bbc-drama Yes It's The Guardian Yes It's The Guardian No I added this source for verification purposes but it doesn't actually mention World Jewish Relief. ✘ No
http://www.wjr.org.uk/about-us/ No One of many links to the organisation's website that I removed from the page. ~ Organisation's websites are reliable up to a point but we can't use them to support notability. Yes There's lot's of coverage about the organisation's history on their website but it's not independent and can't support notability ✘ No
https://search.worldcat.org/title/31047514?oclcNum=31047514 No World Cat lists this books publisher as (you guessed it) World Jewish Relief. ~ Probably reliable up to a point but because it's not independent it's not reliable enough to support notability Yes It's a book about the organisation. ✘ No
https://www.gale.com/intl/essays/amy-zahl-gottlieb-central-british-fund-world-jewish-relief-first-ten-years No I added this source because it's easier to verify than checking Gottlieb's book out of a library but when I researched the author I realised that the author was part of the "Jewish Relief Unit of the Jewish Committee for Relief Abroad, sponsored by the Central British Fund for German Jewry" Yes I'm not disputing this historian's research skills and literary prowess. It's just a shame it's not independent because WP requires independent secondary sources to verify notability. Yes It's incredibly detailed and very well-referenced. ✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.
𝔓420°𝔓Holla 16:13, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep While the subject's current iteration fails WP:CORPDEPTH there's probably been enough written about this organisation's earlier iterations in pre-Internet sources to rescue this article and turn it into a C-Class article.𝔓420°𝔓Holla 09:24, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: per source assessment table and WP:TNT, given it was tagged for conflict of interest for over a year.बिनोद थारू (talk) 05:32, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • CommentHi बिनोद थारू thanks for your contribution. Your WP:TNT idea is viable. However, WP:AFD discussions are to determine whether there is enough coverage, independent of the subject to create a coherent encyclopaedia entry about the subject. Anything else is off-piste. Therefore, I have struck through the last part of your contribution because it isn't relevant to this discussion. Thanks for understanding.𝔓420°𝔓Holla 07:25, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Update I've struck through बिनोद थारू's entire contribution because it doesn't address the WP:NCORP issue that we're here to discuss.𝔓420°𝔓Holla 08:11, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment If बिनोद थारू doesn't wish to strike out the parts of their comment that aren't relevant to this discussion then would they please expand their comment a little bit? We're trying to determine whether there's enough coverage of this subject in independent reliable sources to justify retaining this article. I struck through your comment to elicit a more detailed response from you and I am interested in hearing your thoughts on this matter.𝔓420°𝔓Holla 16:04, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    As shown in the source table above, none of the sourcing used to build this article is WP:INDEPENDENT, prompting a WP:TNT delete. Also, I struggle to find significant coverage on Google that meets WP:ORGCRIT and WP:CORPDEPTH. बिनोद थारू (talk) 16:08, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I just wanted to check to see if you are aware that I created the source evaluation table above when I took this article to WP:AFD? Hence why I am encouraging you to base your comments on your research, not mine.𝔓420°𝔓Holla 16:49, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment So you want to WP:SNOWCLOSE this discussion and start the page over again per Wikipedia:Blow it up and start over?𝔓420°𝔓Holla 16:46, 30 December 2023 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by GDX420 (talk • contribs) 16:43, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes. बिनोद थारू (talk) 16:51, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Why?𝔓420°𝔓Holla 17:02, 30 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! 17:24, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Neutral I will admit that independent sources about this subject are hard to come by by simply Googling the subject. However, I find it hard to believe that this orgnisation previously known as Central British Fund for German Jewry has no significant coverage. We're talking about an organisation that played a significant part in helping (and I'm choosing my words wisely) establish the state of Israel and save the lives of hundreds if not thousands of children before and during World War Two many of whom became notable people and made notable contributions in their own right. Now it may be that World Jewish Releif is the wrong namespace and perhaps Central British Fund for German Jewry might be a better location for this entry. I just find it hard to believe that an organisation with so much historical significance hasn't had anything written about it by any historians.𝔓420°𝔓Holla 17:50, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep I'm sure we can find pre-internet sources. No Swan So Fine (talk) 22:41, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strong KeepI agree. I'll go to the library and see if I can find something a bit more independent than the Gottlieb book and thanks for your help here No Swan So Fine. I wonder if a WP:SNOWCLOSE is possible now? I feel there's a consensus in the air.𝔓420°𝔓Holla 06:24, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 02:20, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of programmes broadcast by Green Entertainment[edit]

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

Fails NLIST. List was split from main article without discussion on Aug 30, 2023. This is an unneeded CFORK, much of the content violates WP:NOTTVGUIDE. No objection to restoring properly sourced material to main article.  // Timothy :: talk  17:12, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to see if there is more support for a Merge
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 17:21, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. I don't think that there is anything to merge, and I'm not sure if the redirect would be useful, but I'm not against it per WP:CHEAP. Deltaspace42 (talk • contribs) 18:32, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, there is nothing to merge that isn't already on the main article and a redirect would serve no useful purpose. Bungle (talk • contribs) 18:43, 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 Corruption in Azerbaijan. Liz Read! Talk! 22:28, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Azerbaijan Anti-Corruption Academy[edit]

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

There is nothing that indicates that the subject is notable. There is no coverage of this organization from sources that are independent of the Azerbaijan government. If there is any content worth keeping, it can be merged with Corruption in Azerbaijan. Thenightaway (talk) 19:37, 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 draftify‎. Daniel (talk) 22:21, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Maakana Show[edit]

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

Fails GNG, only a single source mentioning the topic (no other sources could be found). ChaotıċEnby(t · c) 17:15, 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 delete‎. Sandstein 16:32, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Mundamala Ghat[edit]

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

Context not found in any of the cited references. The battle name is not recognized by any of the historians. Seems like source manipulation Imperial[AFCND] 15:44, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, Bangladesh, and India. Owen× ☎ 15:53, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete what references, looks uncited? Slatersteven (talk) 16:45, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Slatersteven: the nominator removed some content with references, this is a version before the removal. Deltaspace42 (talk • contribs) 21:35, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    And which ones actually pass wp:v, or (come to that) wp:rs, a snippet, really? Slatersteven (talk) 10:41, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Deltaspace42, Certainly. I removed it after reviewing the references but couldn't locate the contexts used by the creator. The article appears to involve citation manipulation, and there is no mention of "Battle of Mundamala Ghat" anywhere. I encountered a source in what seems to be a local language, possibly Bengali, where not even the author's name isn't provided. How could I access and examine the verifiability from that source? After examining the snippets from the provided links, none of them reference "Mundamala Ghat" or the belligerent's name. If you have the information, please verify it by assessing its reliability and notability. Imperial[AFCND] 11:31, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:35, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete based on WP:V and WP:SYNTH. If there are no solid, secondary sources that discussion this event specifically as the 'Battle of Mundamala Ghat' (and I can't find any), the article is a synthesis of sources and thus invalid for mainspace. An AtD of Draftify would be possible, but I just don't see any sources on which to build an encyclopaedic article. Cheers, Last1in (talk) 13:09, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sandstein 16:33, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Burak Bora Anatolian High School[edit]

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

Recently restored after a previous deletion, but without improvements. The article on this topic on Turkish Wikipedia has now been deleted ten times for lack of notability. Can we call it a day now? Mccapra (talk) 13:48, 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 delete‎. Star Mississippi 14:29, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Saudi Seasons[edit]

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

This was a tourism initiative launched by the Saudi government in February 2019 and which a likely COI account immediately created a Wikipedia article for. There is nothing to indicate that this is notable. It has not been covered by reliable sources. It has solely been covered by sources that are not independent of the Saudi government. This Wikipedia article appears intended to promote a non-notable subject. Thenightaway (talk) 14:36, 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 keep‎. I see no case made for draftification within the last !vote Star Mississippi 14:29, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Ellington[edit]

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

Non notable musician. Jax 0677 (talk) 13:45, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep This musician has an entry in The New Grove Dictionary of Jazz, a major encyclopedia of music. Why would this encyclopedia not cover what other major encyclopedias cover? Chubbles (talk) 14:04, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Clearly a notable jazz musician. Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:11, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Helen Puffer Thwait (talk) 16:08, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Georgia (U.S. state). Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 14:14, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Obituary in USA Today and entry in Grove -- clearly notable. Jfire (talk) 17:14, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: The subject's broad career (from June Christy to Roland Kirk, Sam Rivers, Eddie Lockjaw Davis, Dave Holland) is summarised in Rick Mattingly's article in the New Grove and in the USA Today obituary. I would prefer to see more - which the references noted on the Talk page could begin to provide - but the existing encyclopaedic coverage in the New Grove is indicative of biographical notability. AllyD (talk) 20:03, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for all of the reasons mentioned above, particularly The Grove entry. Jazz musicians don't get a lot of coverage, and drummers get even less. ("What do you call someone wo hangs out with musicians? A drummer.") JSFarman (talk) 19:03, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Article may need some work, but it passes WP:MUSICBIO Seawolf35 T--C 20:01, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but draftify. Graywalls (talk) 18:02, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sandstein 13:04, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

LinuxForums.org[edit]

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

No evidence of notability. Mentions in Google Books seem to be trivial and not significant coverage. I can only find one source, and that's only about a data breach. I doubt one article about a data breach that happened to a website makes it notable. — MATRIX! (a good person!)[citation unneeded] 12:20, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Software and Websites. — MATRIX! (a good person!)[citation unneeded] 12:20, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 12:43, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete A product of the times when notability guidelines was lax, no source for it either. Non-notable like most forums. SpacedFarmer (talk) 15:10, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Not notable due to no significant coverage - WP:GNG. Only found an outdated post on a Wikia/"Fandom" page and a reddit article. StreetcarEnjoyer (talk) 22:23, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Agree, not seeing much by way of sources. No results in my newspapers.com search and basically nothing of quality in the first few pages of Google search. Crunchydillpickle🥒 (talk) 00:15, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Article's subject fails WP:GNG and WP:NWEB. I also could only find trivial coverage of the article's subject. - Aoidh (talk) 04:50, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not notable, and a Google search only shows trivial mentions of the site. There is also only one reference in the article which is something about a data breach. FlutterDash344 (talk) 23:14, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sandstein 13:04, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Meshal Al-Hamdan[edit]

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

Despite playing 3 games of football in previous seasons, I can't find any evidence of WP:SPORTBASIC or WP:GNG. Best sources appear to be a squad listing in Alyaum and a youth camp call up announcement in Sport KSA. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 12:18, 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 delete‎. Sandstein 13:04, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Denis Shnitov[edit]

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

Played a single game in the second tier of Russia about 3 years ago before disappearing. I am not convinced that this passes WP:SPORTBASIC and WP:GNG and the current article only uses database sources, which fail to confer notability. The best Russian sources that I could find were Redyarsk and FCDM, both of which were only passing mentions of the subject. Given that he seems to have disappeared, I don't think notability in the near future is that likely either. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 11:38, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]


  • Delete Not sure if it could pass notability criteria then either. NavjotSR (talk) 07:15, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was not delete‎. There is no consensus about whether to merge the content instead, but that can continue to be discussed on the article talk page. Sandstein 13:07, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Counterfeit Monkey[edit]

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

Non-notable interactive fiction title. The article currently contains significant coverage from one secondary source. A WP:BEFORE yields one more reliable review from GameTrailers [23]. But even with that considered, the article unfortunately falls short when taking a WP:THREE approach - if there is something else out there that is pretty clearly reliable significant coverage, happy to withdraw this nomination.

It may be said that the article inherits notability from its one award and IFDB status. The article's reliance on the IFDB is not in my view significant as a WP:USERG source. Even putting that aside, the cited #1 listings are based on an all-time poll of 223 users and a 2023 poll of 59 users - this is not particularly wide or significant.

It is hard to gauge the significance of the game receiving a XYZZY Award in 2012. It does have some clout. It seems to be a legacy community-voted award started by a defunct interactive fiction e-magazine and continued on a Wordpress blog by what I assume were original affiliates or community veterans. But the website lacks information and it doesn't seem to generate much external coverage outside that community, although I'm no expert in this space. I think the Wikipedia page overstates the importance of the awards based on how its sources are being quoted, but it's probably a needless rabbit hole to get deeper into that side of things. Open to views on whether these sort of awards do create an inheritable sort of notability of their own absent other coverage.

Thanks for any thoughts. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 11:30, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 11:30, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Emily Short#Works per WP:ATD. I don't believe the game is notable, but it's worth a mention on her article. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 12:37, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks. Obviously I'm more supportive to merge in this case. I am probably ignoring a separate AfM process for this sort of thing. Putting to the side whether WP:THREE is satisfied or not, do you have any views on whether community awards like XYZZY have a relationship to assessing subject notability? ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 12:41, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I think a community award would fall under something like WP:USERG and would just be inadmissible to prove notability for anything. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 14:28, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Thanks for the GameTrailers link. I also added a 1h review as source, which goes into depth about the game. If that is not enough, I suggest adding {{Expert needed|Video games|talk=|reason=|date=}} at the top to attract further attention from experts in the subject. Counterfeit Monkey seems to be one of the best, perhaps the best, regarded game in its form interactive fiction. --Bensin (talk) 13:27, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, that sounds good. I'm not familiar with the expert needed template but always welcome second opinions, especially from those that have more experience. Like in the Eat Me nomination, I get that this is probably disappointing and does enter a space of pedantry on my part so appreciate your patience and help with finding more sourcing.
    The pretty heavy reliance on the Short Game citation is fair as it does seem to be significant coverage, but it is not clear to me that it's reliable coverage that helps the notability debate. The 'About' page of the site says that it's an in-depth podcast made by four interactive fiction fans, with the bio even light-heartedly joking that only one of the four hosts has any real credentials in video games.
    I don't think anyone can deny that this game is clearly very highly regarded by people in the interactive fiction space, but it seems to be mostly community-led popularity, and that hasn't translated to a lot of coverage outside it. This is not to minimize the value of the interactive fiction community or assume that their commentary is unreliable or they don't generate notable games, but the sourcing does not reflect the imputed reputation if only two reliable reviews and a fan podcast can be found. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 13:55, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Two reliable sources should be enough, especially for such a niche form. The sources are corroborated by the other sources and no sources contradict each other. Besides, The Short Game has made content close to 10 years, and has produced almost 400 episodes which all appear to be around one hour each. If they lacked credentials in reviewing games when then started, one can hardly say they do now. --Bensin (talk) 14:36, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The only hits I'm getting for "The Short Game" are an unrelated movie, and the site brags that one of the people there is "the only one on the show with any real credentials". That strikes me as pretty blatantly unreliable. Therefore the game still fails WP:GNG, which is totally unrelated from whether it's a high-quality or fun game, which I don't doubt. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 15:43, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The RSS feed to the show and its close to 400 episodes is here. This is the source that goes into the game to the greatest depth of all sources. If TSG lacked credentials in reviewing games when then started, one can hardly say they do now. Two reliable sources should be enough, especially for such a niche form. The sources are corroborated by the other sources and no sources contradict each other. (Yes, I said most of this already. You did not reply to the core points of my answer.) --Bensin (talk) 00:02, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    On the first part, two reliable sources should be enough, especially for such a niche form implies that the threshold for notability is context-specific. Source analysis to determine notability is certainly context-specific, which might be relevant when thinking about The Short Game, but as I understand it, the approach to general notability is not within a given medium. The rigidity and inconvenience of this approach is offset by the need to draw the line to ensure articles can be supported by reliably sourced rather than user-generated or enthusiast content, which is unfortunately where a lot of the imputed significance of this work currently lies. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 00:37, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Is there a reliability issue with any of the three sources in question? If so, what is it? What I'm saying is that interactive fiction is a niche form. Counterfeit Monkey appears to be the most appreciated work in that form. That is a strong indication that there should be an article about it. Current sources support everything that is in the article, and no sources contradict each other. --Bensin (talk) 20:30, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion about the The Short Game is about its reliability. The depth of content and volume of output by a podcast is relevant, but not in itself a strong indicator of reliability. WP:RELIABILITY raises factors such as whether the source has good editorial oversight, or has recognized notability of its own or recognized expertise in a field, which isn't the case here. At the end of the day the source leans to enthusiasts chatting about their favorite interactive fiction titles. It's comparable to WP:USERG sources such as enthusiast blogs or YouTube channels. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 21:38, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    When asking about reliability issues, I was wondering if there is any evidence that they have published false or incorrect information. --Bensin (talk) 17:58, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Against Deletion: I can find several scholarly books that mention this game as important within the interactive fiction genre. Even if they do not give detailed coverage, the volume of mentions leads me to think it is probably notable: The Cambridge Companion to Twenty-First Century American Fiction (pg. 111) (ISBN 9781108838276), Creative Writing in the Digital Age: Theory, Practice, and Pedagogy (pg. 144) (ISBN 9781472574091), and Electronic Literature (pg. 124) (ISBN 9781509516810). However, I do not know how well these paragraphs will suffice for a full-length article. I would not be against an WP:AtD, such as merging. Why? I Ask (talk) 00:44, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Brilliant! Thank you for looking for academic sources. If there is significant coverage it would put an end to the hair-splitting over a third reliable source. I'll take a look shortly. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 00:56, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    All three can be found from Google Books. This is a great sourcelist that clearly illustrates that Short is clearly notable, but the game is mentioned much less. The game is cited neutrally in a sentence as an example of Short's work in the Cambridge Companion and the Creative Writing in the Digital Age. There's about a paragraph's worth in Electronic Literature that describes the game and has one evaluative statement: This work highlights the fact that whatever else IF is, it is mostly text, and that the imaginary it invites us to inhabit is one that is almost exclusively produced through language games played by the interactor through conversations with the author, the software, and the platform. The significant coverage is the operative thing here; I'm not sure assimilating brief mentions creates notability in itself. Would the Electronic Literature coverage be significant? ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 01:21, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    "Volume of mentions" is not part of the notability criteria, see WP:TRIVIALCOVERAGE. It must have several pieces of significant coverage such as reviews. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 06:20, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Agree on that. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 06:47, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The article could use a clean-up. I would also support a merge as WP:ATD, but I believe the RPS and scholarly sources provide enough reception for a notable article. Shooterwalker (talk) 04:10, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Emily Short#Works, 2 reviews are not enough to pass GNG, especially when one of them is so brief (RPS). --Mika1h (talk) 17:26, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep based on currently available sources Totalibe (talk) 18:20, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep based on the best WP:THREE sources from this discussion. The GameTrailers Review [24] addresses the subject directly and in detail. The Rock Paper Shotgun Review[25] is multiple paragraphs (which I don't consider brief or trivial), and is reviewed by a notable game designer, Porpentine. The paragraph in Electronic Literature also seems to describe the game and its mechanics in detail, although I can only see a part of it on Google Books preview. For a piece of literature in a very niche medium, I think this is enough to pass WP:GNG. Especially along with the other small mentions in academic sources listed by Why? I Ask above. - Whisperjanes (talk) 03:05, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Popular Resistance Committees. I find the rationale for redirecting more strong relative to our policies & guidelines than keep, and more numerous in support. Daniel (talk) 07:16, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rafat Abu Hilal[edit]

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

There is no WP:SIGCOV of him beyond the report of his death. I also tried searching for him on google before Oct 1, 2023, and found nothing on him. Given that sources only mention his death, I'd have proposed moving the page to Killing of Rafat Abu Hilal, but even that would not meet WP:GNG. VR talk 21:38, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The supposed criteria that only coverage before death qualifies does not exist. There's ample and diverse well-cited WP:SIGCOV of the article subject, the leader of the third largest Palestinian faction during the [[2023 Israel-Hamas war]. The individual's role was substantial, well-documented, widely-covered, and confirmed (including by his movement. Longhornsg (talk) 00:45, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep He has a prominent role in the history of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict.--— Osama Eid (talk) 18:50, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisted following a contested "keep" closure per Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2023 December 22.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:17, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Popular Resistance Committees - Where he is already mentioned. The reports of his death are primary sources and do not demonstrate notability. Are there any secondary sources that discuss the signficance of this person? Longhornsg adds one source but this is just an obituary put out by the popular resistance movement. It lacks independence, and, in that form, is a primary source. It is also very brief and has nothing from which an encyclopaedic article could be written. Without some secondary surces describing why this person is significant, I would suggest an encyclopaedic treatment is not possible. All we have is that he was the head of PRC's armed wing and killed in an airstrike, and we have that on two pages. Unless significance beyond this can be shown, redirect is the appropriate WP:ATD. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 09:44, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I found these:
https://www.israelnationalnews.com/news/378775?ssr=1
https://jewishinsider.com/2023/10/israel-lebanon-hezbollah-gaza-hama Cray04 (talk) 11:33, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per @Sirfurboy Redirect to Popular Resistance Committees - I agree with @SirfurboySirfurboy🏄's assessment.
The subject's mention in the context of the Popular Resistance Committees, where he is already noted, seems sufficient given the current sources. The primary sources reporting his death do not establish notability, and the lack of secondary sources discussing his significance suggests that an encyclopedic article is not warranted at this time. The obituary provided by the popular resistance movement is a primary source and does not offer the independent, in-depth coverage needed for a standalone article. As such, a redirect to the Popular Resistance Committees I think would be appropriate action per WP:ATD Cray04 (talk) 11:44, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per Sirfurboy. Sources are not secondary and/or independent enough, and do not contain enough SUSTAINED SIGCOV, to meet notability.
JoelleJay (talk) 18:55, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Sirfurboy. Assertions of WP:SIGCOV don't establish sigcov, and I don't see any actual links to sigcov here. Levivich (talk) 18:48, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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! 05:38, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lankhmar[edit]

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

Fictional D&D city with major GNG issues; the article's only claim of notability is that this city has inspired the better-known fictional city of Ankh-Morpork. I don't see any SIGCOV sources in the article or elsewhere (although I could not access Bryce 2008 cited in Further reading; Lovett-Graff 1996 cited there as well mentions the city in passing but does not provide any in-depth analysis. I wouldn't hold much hopes as the source was found in the prior AfD, nobody could access it and that AfD which ended with keep verdict was sadly influenced by claims that I can at best describe as incorrect if not misleading (ex. "Covered in Encyclopedia of Fantasy and Horror Fiction." - false, as can be seen from the entry here). I suggest redirecting to Fafhrd and the Gray Mouser (merge is not necessary, the Ankh-Morpork reference is already there; that article probably should be renamed to the Fafhrd and the Gray Mouser series - I started a discussion at that article's talk about refocusing it, feel free to comment there) or perhaps Lankhmar – City of Adventure. PS. See also related older AfD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nehwon. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:43, 23 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. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:43, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's a merge to Fafhrd and the Gray Mouser, not a straight redirect. The D&D stuff isn't separately notable but I think it's likely worth preserving.—S Marshall T/C 12:23, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Fafhrd and the Gray Mouser (the naming question of the target notwithstanding) following S Marshall's opinion, or keep as there are secondary sources which are borderline with regard to establishing notability in my view. As an aside, this is not primarily a D&D city, but rather an important city of fantasy literature also adapted to D&D and other RPGs. This PhD thesis by Schneider already has a number of bits of commentary throughout, e.g. p. 129. It does refer both to the mentioned essay by Bryce 2008, as well as Waugh: The Word and the Wild: The Problem of Civilization in the Works of Fritz Leiber from the same monograph(?). I also cannot access either to see how much there is on Lankhmar. Can anyone else? One relevant question with regard to notability/WP:WHYN here would be if the gods of Lankhmar should be considered a subtopic contributing to the content of our article here or not. Schneider has more commentary on that, as does this paper by Lovett-Graff, which also has a bit of commentary on Lankhmar itself, like Lankhmar being a fantastic reflection of our world. Daranios (talk) 14:58, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I think a holistic look at how we depict 1) the works of Fritz Lieber, and 2) the game elements that derive from them, is in order. We don't need a bazillion different articles, but nor should the foundational elements only be reflected in the well-marketed game supplements which were based on them. Jclemens (talk) 20:07, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep this is a bit tricky because we have an article on the D&D setting, a board game, and lots of other places where this is referenced. Sources like [26] discuss both the setting and the city itself. [27] is mostly about one of the books set in the city but again covers the city quite a bit. [28] is an academic paper which dwells on one part of the city in pretty great detail (in fact that writeup makes me realize that Glen Cook's work took the same ideas of in a city). But yeah, we should certainly keep this. Just do a google scholar search on the word "Lankhmar". Once you get past the first few pages of just books by Leiber, you can see the massive trove of papers that reference this fantasy city. I was shocked. I seriously think there is a featured article in here with enough work. Hobit (talk) 01:19, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Hobit Can you cite (link) to let's say two best examples that would satisfy SIGCOV concerns? Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:25, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I think all three I linked to were pretty good. The third one spends a fair bit of time on a specific place in the city and also on the nature of the city and it's people. [29] is a review of a game based in the city, but it has a ton of details about the city including maps. And while it's no academic paper, it is reliable and independent. I'll go with those two--one academic and covering a small part of the city and it's nature and one a review of a product about the city that goes into deep detail about the city. Neither is perfect--I'd love to find an academic paper focused on the city itself. But both are reliable sources that provide significant coverage of the city. And there are at least dozen or so that are also over the WP:N bar. (I linked to two above, check out the article itself and the last AfD for some more). There are very few fantasy topics that have anywhere near this many academic papers about them... Hobit (talk) 15:49, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per agreement with the arguments made by Hobit. BOZ (talk) 01:31, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:06, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep in light of the above sourcing, with no prejudice against article reorganization as per my earlier comments. Jclemens (talk) 22:55, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep notable plot item (city) covered in series of books, a boardgame dedicated to it, and ttrpg. Has independent sourcing Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:13, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Not a D&D city at all (the fact is is claimed to be so gives me suspicion that the nominator probably needs to do a bit of WP:BEFORE). The central setting of the extremely significant writings of an extremely significant fantasy writer. Plenty written about it. Clearly notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:13, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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! 07:05, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kozłowski coat of arms[edit]

Kozłowski coat of arms (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 00:19, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jaime Nack[edit]

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

There are no reliable sources in the article. There appears to be very little RS coverage of the subject, if any. The article appears to be intended to promote a non-notable consultant, which is not what WP is for. Thenightaway (talk) 11:29, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previous WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:46, 23 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! 07:15, 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 delete‎. While opinion seems close here, those arguing to Keep this article all have low edit counts and limited experience evaluating articles at AFD. I don't always look at the article in question but considering the previous AfD closed as Delete I thought I should look it over and I agree with those editor supporting Deletion about the low quality of the sources in this article. Liz Read! Talk! 07:02, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Shulamite Ezechi[edit]

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

Every source in the article is either non-independent (including interviews) or provided no significant coverage. BEFORE searches on Google and ProQuest remain unpromising Mach61 (talk) 07:11, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Women, Nigeria, and Scotland. Mach61 (talk) 07:11, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Does pass WP:ANYBIO. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 19:45, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I definitely meant Doesn’t in the above. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 18:52, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: by the BEFORE search performed during nomination. बिनोद थारू (talk) 00:11, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: I believe subject has received coverage in secondary source to pass WP:ANYBIO such as here, here, and here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Itomishor (talk • contribs) 10:30, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    These sources are secondary, but not independent; the former source is a university Ezechi was affiliated with, the latter two interviews. Mach61 (talk) 11:06, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The university is independent and secondary source since she is not affiliated. The institution is acknowledging her notable achievement in the society. Not all alumni gets celebrated except they are making unique notable contribution in the society. Itomishor (talk) 23:35, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep: The subject is supported by secondary sources though the independence of the sources is vague. So, I am voting week keep the article because of its potentials.Bekilicious (talk) 17:51, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: it has coverage on multiple secondary source. Dcraigo (talk) 10:53, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 06:26, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

All in the Silence[edit]

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

Album produced by an artist deleted as not notable. See deletion discussions: for artist, and album Loved One. Imaginatorium (talk) 06:08, 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 delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 06:25, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kentoverse[edit]

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

Album produced by an artist deleted as not notable. See deletion discussions: for artist, and album Loved One. Imaginatorium (talk) 06:08, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music and Japan. Imaginatorium (talk) 06:08, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • For the first award listed as "won" that I checked, the linked cite actually lists it as an "honorable mention" ([30]). Dekimasuよ! 06:15, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I see they give out dozens of awards and the awards happen every month. On top of that, the one cited is from 2017, before this album. Adumbrativus (talk) 10:12, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 07:11, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for the same reasons as the other AFDs mentioned. Adumbrativus (talk) 10:12, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – non–notable album (does not meet WP:NALBUM) with highly dubious or blatant false claims, of an artist whose article was deleted via AFD.--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 14:48, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - The musician's article was deleted because it was full of false claims about his importance and lists of fraudulent awards and honors. Per WP:A9 all of his album articles could be deleted immediately because he is not notable. Even so, this album article really stretches the truth in its own right. Its every media mention, outside of the usual social media and self-upload services, are in unreliable and blatantly promotional publications. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 15:52, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Non-notable album but an artist deleted for being non-notable - said artist page apparently had sockpuppet edits and bogus claims, just like this page. StreetcarEnjoyer (talk) 20:38, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Does not meet the standards of WP:NALBUM, especially now that the artist has been deemed non-notable and his awards proved to be dubious. Michitaro (talk) 04:40, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 WVBG-LD. Liz Read! Talk! 06:25, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WYBN-LD[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG; little if any WP:SIGCOV. Translator WVBG-LD can be kept because that station has a storied history (it used to relay a PBS station). Mvcg66b3r (talk) 05:10, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and New York. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 05:10, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • It may be appropriate to redirect WYBN to the WVBG article or merge, given that this station's existence is needed in that article. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 01:00, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with WVBG-LD: WYBN-LD might be operated as the "parent" station, but it would appear to lack the coverage (in potential sources; not referring to broadcast coverage) the (older!) WVBG-LD attained in the past. I can't see any separate notability for WYBN; one article for the combined operation is enough. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:16, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 11:51, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fatma Hajiyeva[edit]

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

Sources are not satisfactory. Surə 🗯 16:40, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Already PROD'd so not eligible for Soft Deletion. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:06, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - while some coverage of this individual does appear to exist in non-English language sources, my best judgment is that the sources are unreliable or spammy, and their medical/academic career is insufficient to meet WP:NACADEMIC or WP:GNG. —Ganesha811 (talk) 15:20, 24 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! 05:03, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. There is nothing that indicates notability. It's one of many articles spammed to Wikipedia by a ring of editors who are singularly focused on promoting Azerbajain's government and elites. Thenightaway (talk) 11:49, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Thank you for doing the source analysis. Liz Read! Talk! 02:25, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Elvin Pashaev[edit]

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

Being executive head of a region with a population of 64k in a non federal state does not confer notability. Effectively a mayor. Mccapra (talk) 08:53, 9 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! 08:42, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There is a little more in his Azerbaijani article on his career and a presidential award he received, but I don't know enough about Azerbaijan's government to tell if the positions he held were notable. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 23:31, 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! 04:56, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I can’t find the source for his Presidential award, but his public posts definitely don’t make him notable. Mccapra (talk) 18:46, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. Anyone out there willing to investigate this article and offer their educated opinion?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:03, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: BLP, fails GNG and NBIO. Based on population, I think this is basically the equal of a rural county executive (imo), so NPOL would not apply and this needs to meet GNG and BLP.
Source eval:
Comments Source
Annoucement of government appointment, fails WP:IS, no WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth 1. "E. N. Paşayevin Göygöl Rayon İcra Hakimiyyətinin başçısı təyin edilməsi haqqında Azərbaycan Respublikası Prezidentinin Sərəncamı". Archived from the original on 2023-07-08. Retrieved 2022-07-27.
Resume style biography published when they were appointed. Fails WP:IS this is pretty clearly from government sources 2. ^ Jump up to:a b c "Arxivlənmiş surət". Archived from the original on 2022-08-18. Retrieved 2022-08-18.
Same reasoning as above, article opens with "According to the order signed by President Ilham Aliyev today, Elvin Nazim oglu Pashayev was appointed the head of Goygol District Executive Power" again I think this fails WP:IS 3. ^ "Göygölün 39 yaşlı icra başçısı". Archived from the original on 2023-07-08. Retrieved 2022-07-27.
From az.wp [31]
Government annoucement, fails WP:IS 1. "Arxivlənmiş surət". 2022-07-27 tarixində arxivləşdirilib. İstifadə tarixi: 2022-08-18.
Annoucement of government appointment, fails WP:IS, no WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth 2. ↑ "E. N. Paşayevin Göygöl Rayon İcra Hakimiyyətinin başçısı təyin edilməsi haqqında Azərbaycan Respublikası Prezidentinin Sərəncamı". 2023-07-08 tarixində arxivləşdirilib. İstifadə tarixi: 2022-07-27.
Dup of #2 on en.wp (see above) 3. ↑ "Arxivlənmiş surət". 2022-08-18 tarixində arxivləşdirilib. İstifadə tarixi: 2022-08-18.
Dup of #3 on en.wp (see above) 4. ↑ "Göygölün 39 yaşlı icra başçısı". 2023-07-08 tarixində arxivləşdirilib. İstifadə tarixi: 2022-07-27.
Resume style biography published when they were appointed. Fails WP:IS this is pretty clearly from government sources 5. ↑ "Göygölün yeni icra başçısı". 2023-07-08 tarixində arxivləşdirilib. İstifadə tarixi: 2022-07-27.
Government annoucement, fails WP:IS 6. ↑ "Arxivlənmiş surət". 2022-06-22 tarixində arxivləşdirilib. İstifadə tarixi: 2022-08-18.
Youtube, video not available EL: [32]
Searching under Elvin Nazim oğlu Paşayev in the Wikipedia library showed more of the above. A Google search brought up the same such as [33]. I'm actually a little concerned my search didn't show more routine news, so if I have missed something from WP:IS with WP:SIGCOV, ping me.  // Timothy :: talk  07:55, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The article is poorly written and fails to establish whether the subject meets notability requirements. Thenightaway (talk) 11:51, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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! 02:26, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pharma Medica[edit]

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

WP:ORGCRIT:

A company, corporation, organization, group, product, or service is presumed notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject.
These criteria, generally, follow the general notability guideline with a stronger emphasis on quality of the sources to prevent gaming of the rules by marketing and public relations professionals. The guideline, among other things, is meant to address some of the common issues with abusing Wikipedia for advertising and promotion. As such, the guideline establishes generally higher requirements for sources that are used to establish notability than for sources that are allowed as acceptable references within an article.

Pursuant to the above, the sources I gathered were all company announcements: no significant coverage. बिनोद थारू (talk) 03:54, 23 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! 05:00, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: Originally a WP:SPA article in 2015, and substantially unchanged since, despite various IP edits, etc. The given references are routine listings, announcement of the company purchasing software, and several items around the announcement of the opening of a Missouri site which appears to have subsequently closed: none of these are substantial coverage under WP:CORPDEPTH. Searches also find some coverage of a legal action, but nothing to demonstrate notability. AllyD (talk) 16:58, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Married to the Sea#Drew. Daniel (talk) 03:27, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kompressor (musician)[edit]

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

Obscure, lacks enough coverage for WP:MUSICBIO DirtyHarry991 (talk) 02:28, 16 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! 02:36, 23 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! 04:35, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge - as per above comment, or delete. Was unable to find significant coverage, especially for an obscure parody artist of an already obscure genre. In addition to the sources on this page I was only able to find a last.fm profile which is just a repost of this article and an interview that was clearly just a joke. StreetcarEnjoyer (talk) 20:27, 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 delete‎. No need for a redirect from this specific title. —Ganesha811 (talk) 03:55, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Má (Chinese word)[edit]

Previous AfDs for this article:


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

Egregious POV fork originating from Wikipedia's fraught relationship with the use–mention distinction. Wikipedia is not a dictionary, and any notable claims in this article should go on an article like history of cannabis. Remsense留 01:51, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The word ma is more than just the root of the word marijuana. Ma is also the root of the word hemp, and the word ganja, and even the word cannabis. In German, ma is the root of the word hanf, etc. - The Hammer of Thor (talk) 17:36, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge verifiable information, if any, to History of cannabis, or else Redirect. Owen× ☎ 14:34, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hmm there are 196 mainspace links to the article Má, which redirects to the article under discussion, so any consensus to delete or soft redirect to zh:wikt:麻 would involve a lot of cleanup (which I'm aware is not an argument against those outcomes). I note that this article makes no mention that 麻 is sometimes considered one of the Five Grains.
    Leaning Merge into Cannabis in China at the moment, but more looking into is indicated. As per usual, I hope to circle back. Folly Mox (talk) 19:02, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Almost all of those 196 mainspace links come from a single template - Template:Cannabis. So a cleanup, if needed, would be trivial. Owen× ☎ 19:22, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Excellent I was hoping that might be the case and forgot to look into it. Folly Mox (talk) 02:07, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The article Ma is about the word's spread into other countries, around the globe, and so it has very little to do with Cannabis in China. - The Hammer of Thor (talk) 16:21, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The history and etymology of ma is important in English language Wikipedia. Ma is an accepted English word, and it's incorporated into nearly every world language. The article is misnamed "Má (Chinese word)" and it should be moved to Ma (cannabis). - The Hammer of Thor (talk) 16:15, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    In what way is this not a dictionary entry? If the content of a passage is the history and etymology of a word in itself, that is what a dictionary does, not Wikipedia.
    麻 is the Chinese word for 'cannabis'. It has slightly different bounds and connotations than the English word, because that's the nature of them being different languages. Especially with China, I have comparatively little patience in the mystification people insist on blanketing ordinary vocabulary terms with—while some of them are genuinely bespoke concepts and may require encyclopedia articles, the ordinary word for a type of plant does not even come close to those.
    An article like Cannabis in China is titled as it is specifically so that we are not misled to believe it's a totally divergent phenomenon that requires a totally different English term. Why should 麻 have its own article, and not the Chinese word for 'water'? 水 certainly has its own interesting history for an English-language audience. But we don't have that, because it is mostly just the word for 'water', and interesting linguistic history can be covered in a responsible way. Remsense留 16:36, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Word etymologies generally belong in a dictionary, as you say. However, once a particular etymology gains sufficient amount of significant independent coverage to attain standalone notability, it qualifies for an encyclopedic entry. Whether this word has cleared that threshold or not is what we're trying to determine here. Owen× ☎ 16:50, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    OwenX, what is an example of a foreign language term where the etymology alone qualifies it for its own encyclopedia article? That is, where the concept the term describes is not what is actually notable.
    I can show you dozens of citations regarding the French word blanc, regarding how its etymology is counterintuitively the same as that of the English word 'black', and the various different ways the word appears in culture, French and otherwise. This is interesting, but it's not covered in a Wikipedia article titled Blanc (French word) or Blanc (white). Instead, it's covered in a responsible way that doesn't beckon a new concept mostly out of thin air. Remsense留 16:52, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    We have quite a few articles about words and their etymology, both English and foreign, including Simran, Allah, and of course, Fuck. To be clear, like you, I don't think Má should have its own page here. I'm merely pointing out that your claim about foreign word etymologies not belonging on WP isn't based on policy or on practice. Owen× ☎ 17:03, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I will accept the latter two examples, as well as Thou as viable counterexamples. But as far as I can tell, the former is largely about the concept described instead of the word itself, à la Tao. Thank you for these. Remsense留 17:11, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, I don't see a consensus here yet.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 02:13, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Ok, let's do a bit of a deeper dive then.
    First off, as Elemimele states above, the etymological material is already covered at Marijuana, so that doesn't need a standalone article to host it.
    The term ma, used to describe medical marijuana by 2700 BCE... "Medical marijuana" is a legal term with no bearing on early China. 麻 just means hemp: all the bits, not just the flowers of the female plant. Further, the statement is sourced to this: Other sources report that the first known record of marijuana use is in the Book of Drugs, written about 2737 BC by the Chinese Emperor Shen Nung... Shennong (the Divine Farmer) is a myth, and no Chinese writing survives from anywhere within a millennium of the date given in the source. I haven't looked into what the "Book of Drugs" might refer to, but I'm guessing purely on subject matter background knowledge it's not attested pre-Han dynasty.
    History and migration of the word ma: unsourced, and given the statement má has been used to describe the hemp plant since before the invention of writing five-thousand years ago, not verifiable.
    Ma in poetry and song: Shi Jing mentions using 麻 as a fiber. Ok, this can go in Five Grains or Cannabis in China.
    Use of the word ma in other languages: the Japanese word is fully cognate. So what? Journalists used the word (which? 麻 or 大麻?) when discussing cannabis regulations and law publicly (due to prohibition). When? Where? Which scholars and journalists? There's no source cited. And if there is a source for this, why can't it go in History of cannabis or Legal status of cannabis?
    Root of Mexican Spanish word marijuana: already at Marijuana (word) § Etymology, as noted above.
    Variations: belongs in Cannabis in China.
    Overall, there's no need for this article in an encyclopaedia. I'm sympathetic to syncretic articles that can exist so people don't have to chase down bits of information from three different articles, but I don't think this one passes muster. There's a deeply incorrect statement in the brief lead paragraph, unverifiable speculation, and the rest is misfiled. Still feeling Redirect. Folly Mox (talk) 17:58, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    To clarify, with my delete I have absolutely nothing against leaving a redirect as per Folly Mox Elemimele (talk) 15:37, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Cannabis in China. First, a note on the history: this has been to AfD before. On 9 May 2019 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ma was closed as "Merge to Cannabis in China and redirect title to MA", and the history of the page was moved to Ma (Chinese word for cannabis) before the merge. (I'm adding a "Previous AfDs for this article" box to this AfD.) On 16 May 2019, User:The Hammer of Thor recreated the article under a new title (Special:Diff/897361195; see comparison).
    Anyway, after reviewing where we've ended up, I concur with the opinion that Cannabis in China is the right place for the relevant content, not a separate article. As Cannabis in China#Chinese etymology is already the result of a previous merge, it should not be too drastic to merge again to sync up any desirable post-2019 changes. If you want to merge some bits elsewhere too, that's also fine with me. Adumbrativus (talk) 09:29, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, to get more feedback on the latest comment and Merge suggestion to a different target article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 04:33, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect. As Folly Mox notes, the content in the má article is of poor quality and I see little worth saving. Most importantly Wikipedia is not a dictionary, so this seems pretty cut and dry to me. Retinalsummer (talk) 17:26, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I don't see any reason to maintain a redirect for such an unlikely search term ("ma", fair enough; "Má (Chinese word)", surely not). -- asilvering (talk) 01:45, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete it's just a non-English word; none of the arguments that there is something more to the topic are convincing. Too awkward a title for a redirect. 217.180.228.138 (talk) 01:49, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete — the word itself does not seem to be notable; Wikipedia is not a dictionary. All relevant content seems to be better covered elsewhere (particularly Cannabis in China). I don't think redirection would be particularly useful in this case, per Asilvering. Tol (talk | contribs) @ 03:46, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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! 02:34, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hiroshima International University[edit]

Hiroshima International University (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Fails WP:NCORP, as it is a private school with no WP:SIGCOV. Did a BEFORE (both in English and in Japanese), and all I could find were those websites that list schools' addresses and stuff. Included websites do not satisfy SIGCOV either, I'm pretty sure.

AriTheHorsetalk to me!

02:11, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
  • I don't agree personally to be deleted because the university is good enough and has 4025 FTE students in 2023 with 0.5% of international students according to Times Higher Education [1]. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Edogang1 (talk • contribs) 02:32, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://www.timeshighereducation.com/rankings/japan-university/2023?page=8#

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. I would just like to see further review of sources mentioned in the discussion and added to the article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 04:30, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, after reviewing the sources mentioned in this discussion and added to the article, it's clear that there's plenty of deep independent secondary coverage about this school. Left guide (talk) 05:04, 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 delete‎. Daniel (talk) 03:26, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Coburn, Kansas[edit]

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

Yet another short-lived post office in Kansas, this one is almost completely hopeless: there's no trace of it on the topos, and the GNIS entry is gone so there's no way to find out where that came from. And of course there's nothing there, although older topos show a "Brubaker Sch." a bit to the east of the spot indicated in the article. Mangoe (talk) 04:15, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bowling Green, Kansas. Uncle G (talk) 05:12, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Kansas. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:17, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Doesn't even appear on any USGS topographic maps as far as I can tell. GNIS entry is deleted, so we're down to one source that says there was a post office for a year, in an era when post offices could literally be private residences. Yeah, we don't need this article. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 15:53, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: There's nothing to see on satellite besides a sand field and a few residences and farms here and there within a mile around the given coordinates. No evidence to suggest this is, or was ever an actual community other than a short-lived post office in the early 20th century. This is not a "ghost town" per the article, there's nothing to see there at all. Fails WP:GEOLAND. Streetlampguy301 (talk) 17:03, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete According to the Ottawa Daily Republic 30 May 1901 "Just Found "Coburn"; The amazing ignorance of State House Officials"; the place did not exist and never existed. Apparently, The railroad commissioner in unison with a Topeka reporter noticed a new post office in Franklin county named Coburn. None of them had ever heard of the place, so there was hunt. They found It had been there for year at that point, w/o anyone knowing about it. The long and short of it was that the Secretary of Agriculture, one Mr. Coburn had somehow finagled a post to be named for him and located near a farm where he had worked in the past. It's an Ego stunt. It was clipped earlier today, and based on their clippings it's somebody we know. So I'm not the first on this discovery. Sorry I'm not quite sure how to post it, but it's in the WP library in the Ancestry newspapers database.James.folsom (talk) 00:00, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per User:James.folsom. This was not a town but a paper post office. Nothing to see here. Firsfron of Ronchester 22:29, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. UtherSRG (talk) 17:00, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Carbliss[edit]

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

Fails NCORP. Almost all of the sources cited here are promotional, sponsored segments or interviews with the founder published in local news sources. Other sources I've been able to find via Google and Google News are likewise sponsored content. voorts (talk/contributions) 03:13, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:30, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Originally closed at "soft delete", but contested at WP:REFUND.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:50, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Adding to my analysis, the sources cited at REFUND (which have yet to be added to the article), are more of the same. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:28, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete lack of sources with substantial intellectually independent coverage. (t · c) buidhe 04:29, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. The subject passes Wikipedia:Notability_(organizations_and_companies)#Primary_criteria criteria, which says:

    A company, corporation, organization, group, product, or service is presumed notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject.

New Sources
  1. Hurt, Jeanette. "A Canned Cocktail Company Is Expecting Robust Sales In Dry January". Forbes.
  2. Hilton, AnnMarie. "New spiked seltzer created by Glenbeulah couple sells out across Wisconsin | Streetwise". The Sheboygan Press.
  3. "Glenbeulah's SNFood & Beverage expands Carbliss to New Markets". Seehafer News.
  4. "Find your Bliss with Guilt-Free Summer Cocktail Options". WTMJ. 22 June 2023.

There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Limmji (talk) 22:26, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Since this is an article about a company/product, it is required to meet the notability guideline for corporations (NCORP), which has a higher standard than the general notability guideline (GNG). The articles you've listed do not meet that standard.
Regarding source 1, articles by Forbes "contributors" are not considered to be reliable sources, under both the GNG and NCORP. Additionally, source 1 is largely based on interviews with people involved with the company, making it not independent of the subject, and it reads as being promotional of the brand. Regarding sources 2-4, NCORP says: Attention solely from local media (e.g., the weekly newspaper for a small town), or media of limited interest and circulation (e.g., a newsletter exclusively for people with a very unusual job), is not an indication of notability. At least one regional, statewide, provincial, national, or international source is necessary. Additionally, source number 4 is effectively an advertisement, albeit laundered through a local news entrepreneur-of-the-week segment. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:11, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. It would be great to hear from more editors. It would also be helpful to review recently added sources.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 04:11, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm a bit confused by the relist asking for more source analysis since I think I've addressed all of the new sources. In any event, they're all basically sponsored local news posts or interviews with the company. The one keep !vote (from the editor who created the article) hasn't substantively addressed why the sources meet NCORP. voorts (talk/contributions) 18:42, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well, voorts, I would like to hear from other editors, I think it makes for a clearer consensus, one that is less likely to be challenged at Deletion review. But relisting a discussion doesn't prevent another closer from drawing this discussion to a close. I think I will let someone else handle closing this one. Liz Read! Talk! 02:38, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. I thought you meant in general, not just from others editors. Thank you for the work you do and happy New Year! voorts (talk/contributions) 03:24, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sources provided in the discussion suggest that GNG is met. (non-admin closure) Enos733 (talk) 04:47, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Transform (political party)[edit]

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

Insufficient reliable third-party sources for the establishment of the article/Wikipedia page. Helper201 (talk) 03:44, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

One of the sources used on the page, The Canary, which is used for two of the four citations is listed on Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources as a generally unreliable source. Therefore, the only two sources are a news article from the Morning Star and the party's own website, which are used for one citation each. Therefore, we only have two sources, the party's website which is a first-party source and therefore not preferable and one reliable citation with limited information that can be used on this Wikipedia page. It thus does not appear enough reliable information can be sourced to create an adequate page or confirm the organisation's notability for a Wikipedia page. Helper201 (talk) 03:57, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose the existence of the party is already established by the Morning Star article. And as the party has only been in existence for a matter of weeks, it's hardly likely to have many references yet. Before long it will be officially registered with the Electoral Commission and then we'll have official confirmation of its existence, as far as I'm aware every political party in the UK past and present, no matter how obscure has a wikipedia entry, their very existence is considered notable. So it would be unprecedented for this to be deleted. G-13114 (talk) 23:50, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support per the reasons I noted regarding lack of sources and notability. One news source from the Morning Star with limited information is not enough to make the party notable or to establish a Wikipedia page. Also, per the above oppose comment, not every UK political party has a Wikipedia page. There's no evidence for that. See List of political parties in the United Kingdom#Local where there are many parties listed with elected representation that don't have a Wikipedia page and nor does the National Flood Prevention Party seen at List of political parties in the United Kingdom#Nationwide. Transform doesn't even have a single elected representative at any level. The party as seen from the establishment of its website and when it uploaded its first YouTube video has actually existed for over 6 months, it was just officially founded just over a month ago (25 November 2023). However, its recent establishment is not a good reason to justify that it has a Wikipedia page, if anything it’s a reason against it having one until the party gets more recognition. Helper201 (talk) 01:24, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    • You already nominated it for deletion – you don't get to !vote again. Number 57 12:51, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep While the Canary isn't a reliable source, GNG coverage met through coverage in The Voice, Novara, Weekly Worker etc. Number 57 12:51, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment what evidence do we have of the reliability of the above sources? Multiple appear to be partisan and also only give brief mentions of Transform. Not much if anything we could actually use on the page. Helper201 (talk) 20:21, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • The entire Voice and Weekly Worker articles are about Transform. Regarding the first point, what evidence do you have that they are unreliable? The Voice is a national newspaper and from what I know, is not a partisan source; the other two are partisan sources, but I am not aware of any reliability concerns (as opposed to the likes of the Canary and Skwarkbox). Number 57 21:08, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are sources on it already as mentions above, and seen Pink News talk to India W about it too. Jonjonjohny (talk) 12:57, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agree - Keep... for now. Has most recently started to gain publicity from bigger nationals (ITV News Online, and Pink News). Both of which are generally reliable sources and are probably the strongest citations I could add for the time being and will accordingly - unlike Morning Star, which has no consensus at present, and The Canary which has outright been ruled out as unreliable by editors. There is no WP:CRYSTALBALL to guarantee that it will be heavily covered, but with them set to register with the Electoral Commission and general elections looking to be coming up later this year, I think they'll get there. Mechanical Elephant (talk) 19:50, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 03:23, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WFKB-LD[edit]

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

Subject does not appear to meet the WP:GNG. This technically survived a bulk AfD earlier this year but there is a lack of sourcing to show this meets WP:N. Let'srun (talk) 03:47, 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 keep‎. It looks like the participating editors disagree with the nominator's judgment about existing SIGCOV. Liz Read! Talk! 03:03, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Heroes of Desert Storm[edit]

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

This article is little more than a play-by-play recap of a made for TV Desert Storm doc which, so far as I can tell, won no awards and shows no SIGCOV. If not TNT'd, it may be a candidate for merging into an article about Desert Storm or films related to same. Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 03:46, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep in view of significant coverage such as reviews in Variety, and LA Times as well as reliable book sources, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 22:55, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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.

I encourage editors to create that list article for Bolivian players and then this page could be redirected there. Thanks. Liz Read! Talk! 03:02, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Blanca Aliaga[edit]

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

All I am able to find on this Bolivian women's footballer are a half-dozen sentences of independent coverage here, and two sentences from the same publication here. I do not believe this to be enough in-depth coverage to meet WP:GNG, though there might be some sources out there that I missed. JTtheOG (talk) 03:09, 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 delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 02:04, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Marianelys Pérez[edit]

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

The subject, a Dominican women's footballer, has not received sufficient coverage to meet WP:GNG. The closest thing to WP:SIGCOV that I found was this interview. There's a few quotes from her here as well, but everything else is just passing mentions. JTtheOG (talk) 03:01, 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 Kirtivarman II. Liz Read! Talk! 01:44, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Vijayaditya II[edit]

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

Fails GNG and NBIO. Sources in the article and BEFORE and mentions, nothing that meets WP:IS WP:RS with WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth. A basic genealogy expanded into a non-notable article. No objection to a redirect to Kirtivarman II  // Timothy :: talk  02:41, 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 keep‎. I see a consensus to Keep this article and, maybe more importantly, no support for Deletion other than the nominator. Liz Read! Talk! 01:43, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Apple Watch health monitoring patent dispute[edit]

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

Clearly not notable for a standalone article. Per WP:NOPAGE, this more suitable as a section on the main Apple Watch page than an entire article. Fails WP:NEVENT, WP:NOTNEWS, and WP:10YEAR. InfiniteNexus (talk) 01:37, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep I am wholly unconvinced that this should fall under WP:NEVENT, considering the "event" in this case is a two-year legal dispute that has heaps of RS for its entire length. Meets WP:GNG on its own, and its length probably precludes including it as a subsection of Apple Watch. Acebulf (talk | contribs) 02:05, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @InfiniteNexus: You first tried redirecting the page with the edit summary Oh my gosh, not again. This topic isn't notable for its own article. Is there more context to this dispute than what is listed here? . Acebulf (talk | contribs) 02:05, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Not with this article specifically, but this user has a history of rapidly creating articles about news stories that may not satisfy our notability guidelines. While their dedication is certainly appreciated, others and I have previously asked the editor to slow down and consider the applicable guidelines before creating an article. Whatever happened to Wikipedia being a lagging indicator of notability? It is unfortunate that AfDs of such articles often end with "no consensus" or "keep" because participants simply observed the number of sources and concluded that GNG has been met. InfiniteNexus (talk) 05:37, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Given that your vaguely-referenced articles often pass the article for deletion process, it appears as though your critiques of stature are directed towards policy. WP:VPP may be of service here in resolving your quarrels. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 20:23, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not the policies that are the problem, it's that editors sometimes consider only surface-level thresholds such as number of sources and article length when determining whether a topic meets WP:N, when in fact we must consider whether a standalone article is truly warranted. InfiniteNexus (talk) 22:01, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    A legal dispute is an event, so it should meet the criteria outlined at NEVENT. Many, many events have attracted "heaps" of RS coverage, which is why we have PAGs such as WP:NOTNEWS and WP:10YEAR. These events, while "notable" enough to warrant discussion on an article, should be incorporated in a larger article rather than a standalone one. For instance, the deaths of many famous people receive substantial coverage, but only a handful spin out into standalone articles (e.g. where is Death of Matthew Perry? Death of Chadwick Boseman?). Same goes for all kinds of corporate drama, celebrity gossip, and so forth. InfiniteNexus (talk) 05:37, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep A major patent dispute with sustained coverage over multiple years. Of comparable significance to Apple Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co., Motorola Mobility v. Apple Inc., or Samsung v. Huawei. Easily meets WP:GNG. Jfire (talk) 02:50, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    This is WP:OSE; many articles exist on Wikipedia that should be deleted, but haven't yet been uncovered. Looking at those three articles, the first can probably be kept considering that it covers a multitude of cases; the second and third do not meet WP:GNG or WP:SUSTAINED and should be merged into Smartphone wars, Apple Inc. litigation, or similar articles. InfiniteNexus (talk) 05:37, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Health and fitness and California. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:37, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:Sustained but do agree that the creator of this article has a chronic too soon article creation problem. Esolo5002 (talk) 07:13, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: media coverage well exceeds our usual notability threshold. Long-term legal, technological and financial impact will more than meet our WP:10YEARTEST based on how similar scope cases went. Owen× ☎ 22:47, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Skweez Media. Liz Read! Talk! 05:43, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Kulich[edit]

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

While Monarchy might have been notable for the awards its shows won, that doesn't roll up to Kulich, and I see no other path to biographic notability for him. Star Mississippi 00:07, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:34, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Because rather recent decisions have made WP notability criteria incredibly hard to meet for pornographic entertainers, redirect to skweezme, where sources like this can be added if needed. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 17:54, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 01:09, 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 delete‎. ✗plicit 02:37, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Taj Anwar[edit]

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

This article survived two no-consensus AfDs a number of years ago, but the arguments there are not convincing. The only source identified so far that discusses Anwar in detail is the self-published iUniverse Rebel Moms book, which is clearly not a reliable source per WP:RSSELF. My WP:BEFORE search found only a handful of non-independent interviews in various outlets as well as a little bit of Atlanta Voice coverage that doesn't rise to the level of WP:SIGCOV. That's not enough for notability under WP:BASIC or the GNG, in my view. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:00, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - definitely approaching notability, but most existing coverage is brief mentions or of marginal reliability. Does not meet any current notability standard. —Ganesha811 (talk) 15:11, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 01:08, 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 keep‎. There is consensus below for the article to be renamed, but no agreement on exactly what (three variations of the same thing). Any editor is encouraged to editorially move this to the desired target as per normal processes for renaming articles, based on the support of the rename position here establishing a local consensus. Daniel (talk) 03:23, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Faculty of Archaeology[edit]

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

Not notable per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. Redirect to University of Warsaw reverted. SailingInABathTub ~~🛁~~ 00:57, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools and Poland. SailingInABathTub ~~🛁~~ 00:57, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I assume the part of WP:OUTCOMES you mean is this: Faculties, departments or degree programs within a university, college, or school are generally not considered notable unless they have made significant contributions to their field. Have you checked if this isn't one of those exceptions? – Joe (talk) 01:12, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Archaeology-related deletion discussions. – Joe (talk) 01:13, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • DElete based on quick glimpse I don't think it is notable. SYSS Mouse (talk) 01:53, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The page is under construction. It has a higher status than an institute, and has a long history important from the perspective of archaeological research in Poland. Many important scholars have been working there, such as Kazimierz Michałowski. Give me some time to improve quality to prove the WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. Also, look at the category of Category:Archaeological research institutes. Nbarchaeo (talk) 09:43, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - SCHOOLOUTCOMES is not policy. There was an RfC a few years back specifically about using SCHOOLOUTCOMES as a rationale for deletion and the outcome was we couldn't. I'd suggest that if the nominating editor can't give a better rationale, this should be closed procedurally as no valid reason for deletion. 4.37.252.50 (talk) 17:45, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, it also fails WP:GNG. All of the sources provided are primary - they are all written and/or published by the University of Warsaw, its staff, and its students. SailingInABathTub ~~🛁~~ 22:13, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@SailingInABathTub: But have you searched for other sources? – Joe (talk) 12:10, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - If this page is kept, it needs to be renamed to Faculty of Archaeology, University of Warsaw (or similar, but that is in line with other faculty pages). Best not to move it until the AfD is complete though. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 13:11, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The faculty of archaeology replaces the institute of archaeology at the University of Warsaw. This structural change is only 3 years old, and so secondary sources under the name "faculty of archaeology" are limited. They do exist. Plenty of them. But mostly they are not significant mentions, as they are largely papers or staff bios that say that the author or whatever is a member of the faculty. As such it may be TOOSOON to assess SIGCOV for an independently notable faculty. But that is not the only reason to keep this page. There is no doubt that the University of Warsaw is notable. The University of Warsaw page is a reasonable length. Readable prose is not much over 1,000 words, but the total word count, including all the lists etc., takes it well over 4,000 words. So the question is whether the faculty of Archaeology is a good candidate for a spinout. Apparently the faculty is the largest academic institute of its kind in Poland [39]. Wikipedia also has other faculty spinout pages of various levels of quality, such as Faculty of Law of Paris (almost certainly independently notable), Faculty of Arts, Charles University (not clearly independently notable), Faculty of Science, Kasetsart University (not clearly notable and not clearly a good spinout). I also searched previous AfDs and found a number of past AfDs of faculty articles, many of which were deleted. E.g. [40] - redirect, [41] - no consensus, [42] - no consensus, [43] - delete, [44] - delete.
What I take from this evidence is that we do allow spinout faculty articles, but there has to be a reason why the spinout is warranted. A stub article for an inconsequential faculty should be deleted, redirect or merged to the parent institution (and that may be the case for some existing faculty pages). But where a parent institution's page is large, and where much can be said about the faculty, we allow the spinout. In this case the faculty may be new but the institute isn't, and there is evidence for it being signficant. Its output certainly seems to be significant.
Moreover this page was nominated for deletion hours after it was created, and no questions of notability etc. were raised on the article talkpage. It is already improved from the point of nomination, and this may be a case where WP:DEMOLISH should have been considered and a talk page discussion started. I therefore lean towards keeping this one (but with the name changed to Faculty of Archaeology, University of Warsaw). Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 14:09, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Well, I've tried asking, but it's been a few days now and no valid deletion rationale is forthcoming. Asserting that sources aren't there isn't enough; there has to be a reasonable search (which would, in this case, at least include sources in Polish). Sirfurboy makes a good case that these should exist above. – Joe (talk) 11:31, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Failing WP:GNG, as stated above, is a valid deletion rational. Particularly as significant coverage in reliable secondary sources independent of the University of Warsaw has not been presented in either the article or this discussion. Stating WP:MUSTBESOURCES is not enough to pass WP:V. SailingInABathTub ~~🛁~~ 13:01, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's not how it works, I'm afraid. You need to give us some evidence that the sources don't exist – not just that they're not in the article right now. Otherwise, what can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence. Why should we spend time searching for sources when you, the person seeking its deletion, apparently haven't bothered?
There are 56 references listed in the article and as far as I can tell not a single sentence is uncited, so this is not a question of verifiability. – Joe (talk) 13:18, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have searched for suitable sources in English. I have not searched for sources in Polish, as I do not speak Polish and therefore it is not reasonable for me to do so. SailingInABathTub ~~🛁~~ 14:00, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The page has 56 sources cited on it. More than twice as many as at its nomination. Some lack independence, and many are primary, but when a source like this one [45] discusses the Warsaw school of thought, that points to significance. Have you done any source analysis to explain why these references do not demonstrate SIGCOV? Or would you perhaps accept that this one is a candidate for WP:HEY? Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 13:19, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
When I reviewed the sources in the article, this one stood out as potentially significant coverage. I read the entire chapter. It refers only to archaeology students at the University of Warsaw (and other Polish universities), it does not mention the faculty once. SailingInABathTub ~~🛁~~ 14:00, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, it doesn't. It does mention the institute though and seems to predate the creation of the faculty. It also has good evidence for the significance of the faculty in Poland, because, for instance, it shows that Warsaw University produced most archaeologists in Poland in the period 1949-1980 (about 36% of the total) (page 202), and there are other indications of the university's significance. The significance in that paper shows the significance of Archaeology at Warsaw. My other comments above therefore pertain. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 15:55, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
*Comment There are very few sources on the Institute (1975-2020) or the Faculty (2020-), as it was formally established in 1975. Most of the works focus on the development of archaeology in Poland, or Warsaw. There are several archaeological institutions in Warsaw, the history of which is somewhat intertwined. Usually such works are written after an jubilee.
A first work summarizing the history 'Dzieje archeologii na Uniwersytecie Warszawskim' [History of archaeology at the University of Warsaw] was published in 1993. [1]
For more information, I found in the history of the Department of Historical Anthropology, which later became the Department of Bioarchaeology. [2]
A few years ago, the Institute celebrated its 100th anniversary (1918-2018). [3] Nbarchaeo (talk) 16:47, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and rename Faculty of Archaeology (University of Warsaw) : The research cited and sources in the article are enough to meet GNG. No objection if a consensus exists for another title, I may have the convention wrong.  // Timothy :: talk  01:49, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The article is extensively cited and the topic has significant history; certainly the kind of spin-out article we keep on individual faculties. I think the correct rename is to Faculty of Archaeology, Warsaw. This is the normal way to name faculty and sub-colleges as far as I am aware. See eg Keble College, Oxford. -- asilvering (talk) 02:07, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Mikocki, T. (1993), KOZŁOWSKI, S.K.; KOLENDO, J. (eds.), "Historia zbiorów starożytniczych Uniwersytetu Warszawskiego", Dzieje archeologii na Uniwersytecie Warszawskim, Warszawa, pp. 27–40
  2. ^ Sołtysiak, Arkadiusz; Jaskulski, P. (2000), written at Warsaw, Anthropology at Warsaw University. Antropologia na Uniwersytecie Warszawskim (PDF), Warszawa, pp. 25–33{{citation}}: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (link)
  3. ^ Wróblewski, W.; Klecha, A. (2020). "Archeologia jako fenomen kulturowy: 100 lat warszawskiej archeologii". Wydział Archeologii Uniwersytetu Warszawskiego i inne aarcheologiczne ośrodki w Warszawie (PDF). pp. 51–59. ISBN 978-83-951650-5-4.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:24, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rohan Adnaik[edit]

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

Poorly sourced BLP on an Indian men's footballer who played seven pro games a few years ago and has been playing in state leagues ever since. All I found were passing mentions (2016, 2018, 2019, 2022, etc.) JTtheOG (talk) 00:34, 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2023_December_30&oldid=1194068909"