Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 December 9

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< December 08 December 10 >

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 keep‎. Daniel (talk) 19:40, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ghetto Love (Karl Wolf song)[edit]

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

Rejected PROD, poorly sourced, non notable song. Jax 0677 (talk) 23:10, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs and Canada. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 23:49, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: This [1] from a UAE newspaper reviews the song, seems RS. I'll keep looking Oaktree b (talk) 02:33, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep: It charted here in Canada was nominated for a Juno R&B award [2], notability is established. One source from the UAE describing the song, should be a weak keep... He released a bilingual version of the song [3] see page E11, it's only a few lines, but does mention the song. Oaktree b (talk) 02:40, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:04, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - WP:NSONG indicates charting songs may be notable and indeed sources have been found. ~Kvng (talk) 15:01, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 00:03, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect‎ to North Macedonia–Ukraine relations. Liz Read! Talk! 23:21, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Embassy of North Macedonia, Kyiv[edit]

Embassy of North Macedonia, Kyiv (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)

Most of the sources are not even about the embassy but merely confirm previous ambassadors. No indepth coverage of the actual embassy. Fails GNG LibStar (talk) 22:49, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:05, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep as redirect and merge content to North Macedonia-Ukraine relations. Cheers, Dan the Animator 22:11, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    keep/redirect/merge are three different outcomes, you can't ask for all 3. LibStar (talk) 02:08, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @LibStar: I'm not though? In my experience, "keep as redirect" and a vote simply saying "redirect" mean the same thing. For "merge," what I mean is for the content of the Embassy article to be added into the relevant part of the relations article before blanking the page and adding the redirect (some editors usually just vote "merge" per WP:MERGE but I think that can be ambiguous (for AfD cases especially) hence the redirect portion of my vote). I've seen other editors make votes like mine above with no issue so don't see why this discussion would be any different. Hope my explanation above helps and please ping if there's anything else I can help with. Thanks! Dan the Animator 01:48, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I guess Dan the Animator simply meant "merge", as that then results in a redirect which in turn, "keeps" the article's placeholder (and history). Bungle (talk • contribs) 22:20, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 00:02, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus‎. Star Mississippi 23:40, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Isabella García-Manzo[edit]

Isabella García-Manzo (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)

Other than the 2023 pageant, there is no evidence for notability. It is very likely that the page was created/edited for self-promotion. TanookiKoopa (talk) 11:12, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Beauty pageants, and El Salvador. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 11:27, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Keep: I found a feature article about her in Vogue and several other news outlets. She meets the requirement for significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. Although these sources still need to be added to the article, WP:NEXIST instructs the retention of articles such as this because "notability requires only the existence of suitable independent, reliable sources, not their immediate presence or citation in an article." Rublamb (talk) 14:06, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: @Rublamb, would you mind sharing those sources here so we can analyze them? Would like to take a look at them. Let'srun (talk) 23:38, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Reply:: Here you go. Some may be worthless, but I am sure of the top few. Rublamb (talk) 00:26, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep on significance of press coverage alone, seems notable enough for me. Mistamystery (talk) 18:21, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To consider the sources presented.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 23:05, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Vogue source doesn't count as it is an interview, and the other coverage posted has to do with the pageant itself. Thus, due to WP:BIO1E, I have to go with a Weak Delete on this one, but if coverage extending beyond the pageant can be found, I'd be willing to change my vote. Let'srun (talk) 01:53, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: WP:INTERVIEWS says that interviews "can be considered as evidence of notability", especially when published in a reliable source. It is pretty compeling that this is the cover story of a major magazine. Rublamb (talk) 04:07, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 00:02, 10 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. With a sockpuppet's !vote being struck, and no rebuttal to Highking's !vote despite a further 7 days of relisting, I find that their contribution is the most instructive here and am closing as consensus existing to delete. Daniel (talk) 21:08, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Rapyd (company)[edit]

Rapyd (company) (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)

Nothing much has changed since Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rapyd. Almost same sources and they're press releases about acquisitions and fundraises. Best, Reading Beans (talk) 08:21, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Rapyd's actually a pretty major player in Finance and Technology in Israel. They're Israels most valuable private company as of last year and they have been mentioned in multiple articles in publications like the Economist due to their role in expanding business relations across the Middle East. They were one of the first Israeli companies to open an office in Dubai after the Abraham Accords and play a significant role in that region in terms of building business and cultural relationships. Their Wikipedia page needs some improvements for sure. I'll take a crack at it. I was actually thinking about writing a page for them and never got around to it, so I see what I can do. Word-Oh (talk) 13:53, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:29, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 23:06, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - I believe the coverage out there meets NCORP. — MaxnaCarta  ( 💬 • 📝 ) 23:14, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It looks like someone else already made some improvements. I am planning on going in later this week and adding more content that is verifiable from third party sources and cleaning it up a bit as well. I will reply here once I do that. Word-Oh (talk) 20:19, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Here at AfD, we don't care about "coverage" that only relies on content provided by the company and their execs. None of the sources meet GNG/NCORP criteria - see below. HighKing++ 19:01, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I agree with @MaxnaCarta the Forbes, Insider, TechCrunch and CNBC meets WP:NCORP. Article could be improved though of course

Infomemoh (talk) 02:52, 4 December 2023 (UTC)sockpuppet[reply]
  • Delete This is a company therefore GNG/WP:NCORP requires at least two deep or significant sources with each source containing "Independent Content" showing in-depth information *on the company*. "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. In plain English, this means that references cannot rely *only* on information provided by the company - such as articles that rely entirely on quotations, press releases, announcements, interviews, website information, etc - even when slightly modified. If it isn't *clearly* showing independent content then it fails ORGIND. Here, the references are simply regurgitating company announcements and have no "Independent Content" in the form of independent analysis/fact checking/opinion/etc. Analysis below:
None of the sources meet GNG/NCORP criteria for establishing notability. None contain the in-depth independent content required for establishing notability. HighKing++ 19:01, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. Currently Highking's comment is the most persuasive, relisting to see if it is either supported by others or alternatively rebutted.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 00:01, 10 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) 19:40, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Omid Fouladivanda[edit]

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

Fails notability, he is just a volleyball referee in Iranian league with no much coverage. this article was deleted before but recreated now with more or less the same material which makes me think it's created either by the same person or the same organization. Sports2021 (talk) 18:18, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 20:48, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:07, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. This was already deleted once as a soft-deletion then recreated, so I don't want to soft-delete again.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 23:59, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Not seeing evidence of notability in the press announcements, quotes, primary coverage of an auto accident, and lists of names among the Persian sources.
JoelleJay (talk) 01:27, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:GNG per above and previous deletion discussion. Uhai (talk) 07:08, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus‎. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 16:39, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Amit Mehra[edit]

Amit Mehra (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 actor or model. -- Syed A. Hussain Quadri (talk) 09:04, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, Artists, India, and Maharashtra. Syed A. Hussain Quadri (talk) 09:04, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment seems to have some things which would suggest notability. Found this article [[5]] which seems to suggest he was the first Indian to place in the top 12 at Mr. Universe. It also appears that he starred (though I do not know how prominent his role was!) on the notable production Arjun Patiala, with some media coverage of this. He also has an instagram account with over 300k followers, and though this does not establish notability and I do not claim it does, it definitely is a positive for someone in his line of work and demonstrates a degree of popularity that maybe is not reflected in his article as stands.Spiralwidget (talk) 16:29, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I tried to improve the article to remove uncited material to give an impression of what I think the article could look like. Spiralwidget (talk) 17:19, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 20:08, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • In een effort to improve the article, inserted image in infobox, — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lotje (talk • contribs)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:08, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Most of the sources are just passing mentions. Azuredivay (talk) 05:19, 4 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) 23:58, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete lacks indepth coverage fails WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 20:12, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The CineBuster article, for example, is in-depth (although it raises a small copyright issue), and other sources allow verifiability for someone who passes WP:NACTOR with various (not all) significant roles in notable productions and has clear notoriety as Mr. Universe India. Needs rework more than deletion, I think.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 03:57, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this non-notable model who has appeared in a few acting roles, not major. The article was created by an account whose sole purpose was to promote barely-known actor/models, suggesting COI. Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 07:44, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: coverage for winning the Mr. Universe India, and being the first Indian to place in the top 12 worldwide in the event, is enough to meet GNG. His filmography meeting NACTOR is a bonus. Owen× ☎ 14:42, 17 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 23:39, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Party for Nature, People and Animals (Romania)[edit]

Party for Nature, People and Animals (Romania) (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 organization was established just one week ago and has yet to receive substantial coverage from reliable, independent secondary sources.–MinisterOfReligion (Talk) 19:34, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Even the founder is a no-name. Gikü (talk) 21:23, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Their interim president is a former county councillor, but their spokesperson, Gabriel Păun, is one of the country's best-known environmental activists and has been listed by Politico as one of the most influential environmental actors. 81.196.240.159 (talk) 14:21, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Environment. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 23:54, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The party, although created a week ago, has appeared in more press articles than other parties that have a Wikipedia page (e.g. NOW Party or Volt Romania). My proposal would be to stop this deletion process. 81.196.240.159 (talk) 14:18, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as there is an unbolded Keep here so not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:10, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 23:56, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete — they should try winning an election first, or at least competing in one. — Biruitorul Talk 23:27, 16 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! 23:24, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hasip Pektas[edit]

Hasip Pektas (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. Kadı Message 23:36, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

See his CV. Shoerack (talk) 09:26, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Erasmus Programme is an exchange program for students and academics. Being supported for a short visit on an Erasmus grant is _certainly_ does not equate to a distinguished professor position. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 22:17, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The Erasmmus professor is a successive professorial position and not a permanent seat for just a single academic. According to this source, "Erasmus Professors are inspiring scientists who lead multi-disciplinary teams and together help to achieve Erasmus University's strategic goals." This is exactly what named chairs position are. The holder of the chair helped to advance the mission of the named chair position. And this source described the Erasmus professor as a "distinguished professor." See WP:NPROF#5. Shoerack (talk) 09:38, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    That source says that Erasmus University created the position in 2022 and announced the first holders in 2023. Pektas has been at İstinye University since 2021. XOR'easter (talk) 18:05, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete, per WP:TNT if nothing else. In particular, while there may be an Erasmus named professorship at Erasmus University Rotterdam, it appears from his CV that the subject was a local coordinator for the unrelated Erasmus+ grant [6]. Will watch in case solid evidence of WP:NCREATIVE (which appears the most plausible notability case) turns up. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 12:36, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The subject's CV does not say he is an Erasmus chair at Erasmus University Rotterdam. It doesn't even mention anything about Rotterdam. I could change my !vote if evidence supporting a WP:NCREATIVE pass turns up, but other than that, I'm just not seeing any possibilities here. XOR'easter (talk) 18:02, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Nothing on the CV nor in Google Scholar looks like it could contribute to a pass of WP:PROF. He seems to be active as a bookplate designer, collector and curator, but that would need either WP:GNG notability (in-depth stories in reliable sources about him and his work) or WP:ARTIST notability (works included in permanent collections of multiple notable museums) and I can't find anything there either. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:56, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect‎ to List of Morocco women's international footballers. Liz Read! Talk! 23:25, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Marwa Hassani[edit]

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

Redirect to List of Morocco women's international footballers. I am unable to find sufficient coverage of the subject to meet WP:GNG. All I found in my searches were passing mentions (1, 2, 3, etc.) JTtheOG (talk) 23:01, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment perhaps its best to merge with an existing list of football players. Homerethegreat (talk) 16:55, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete . Looking at her FR page (w:fr:Marwa Hassani), she has gone from being on the roster of notable clubs to being on a 3rd-division regional club that is amateur. She has received 5 call-ups to her national team, which made the knockout rounds of the 2023 Women's World Cup, but she was not on the roster and does not appear to be in solid contention to make the roster again. If she's not a professional player, international player, nor notable for any other reason, I think better to delete and if her career takes off again (she's only 21) we could reintroduce the page. I'm not sure a redirect would add any insight if someone happened to be looking specifically for Hassani, but that would be my second choice I suppose. Denzera (talk) 00:01, 11 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! 23:28, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Badi' ud-Din Shah al-Rashidi[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Badi' ud-Din Shah al-Rashidi (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 was deleted via discussion in 2018, 22 years after the subject's death. However, based on the comments made in the discussion, it sounds like the article was not as well developed as it is now, though it was noted that the sources were basically retelling the same information. At present, the article contains 6 sources. 5/6 are in Urdu/Arabic, so if we have people to help verify the sources, that'd be great. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 22:34, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, it's great to bring it to the lights. The subject is very notable and well known around the sub continent and middle East. Everything i have written in an article is supported by urdu references, which mentions all things i have said. Please just verify them it was deleted due to not enough attention from the first creator. As i have built it from scrach, im willing to assist with any solution that brings it into light. Thank you🙂 SaneFlint (talk) 05:19, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Subject has article on urdu sindhi and arabic Wikipedia. Judt an reminder thank you. I hope editors will look into those references to verify #Notability SaneFlint (talk) 05:22, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above should be interpreted as an opinion to Keep the article. SaneFlint (talk) 05:29, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hopefully editors will be able to understand the subject and translate its references,
that will really help i believe.
My opinion is to
  • Keep
Thanks. Had to post again as it wasnt properly mentioned SaneFlint (talk) 05:35, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've included additional references to enhance the article. Verification of Urdu and Arabic content is needed to clarify misunderstandings from the previous creator. I've taken the initiative to rebuild the article, and ongoing updates will be made. Seeking assistance from seniors to review references before voting. Your support is appreciated, I feel afd will enhance the article. Which is much needed development🙂 SaneFlint (talk) 12:40, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No pass of WP:Prof. Delete unless sources can be found for GNG. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:24, 10 December 2023 (UTC).[reply]

  • Delete: Per the previous discussion, sources are majorly biography of the subject. Source 6 - [7] is unreliable per the discussion on another AfD. No secondary sources. Jeraxmoira (talk) 07:29, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The article, now has filled with additional references in Arabic and Urdu, requires verification. Previously, it faced deletion due to a lack of attention from Sindhi authors. Notably, information on the subject is available on Urdu, Sindhi, and Arabic Wikipedia pages. Hope it helps 🙂 SaneFlint (talk) 11:56, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Having articles on other language Wikipedias is irrelevant, they have a very different inclusion criteria. Theroadislong (talk) 12:03, 10 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. Star Mississippi 23:38, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Amador of Portugal[edit]

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

This page only has one source, and I cannot find any others. Literally every claim in the article about his life and legend is unsourced. In fact, the one source that the article has states that "Nothing is known of him". Di (they-them) (talk) 22:26, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Religion. Di (they-them) (talk) 22:26, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 22:31, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Portugal-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 22:32, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I note that I can't find this person in Halbeck's A Biographical Dictionary of the Saints (1924), and it's unlikely that a person so poorly documented would have been canonized after 1924. The other source cited is a link to a Portuguese hagiology of saints, but the link doesn't even indicate in which of the four volumes of the work one is supposed to find this individual. Volume I alone is a 652-page PDF, apparently unsearchable. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 01:55, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - there were two references anyway, to which I've added a third. (There are doubtless others in Portuguese print sources). The Portuguese pdf is fully described, with volume and page numbers, in the Catalan original: I've also added that information. Nominis (the standard online French reference for saints) makes the point that even though nothing definite is now known of him he was important enough for several churches to be dedicated to him. There is nothing wrong with a legendary biography for a mediaeval saint as long it is clearly described as such. I've ce'd nfor clarity and will take a further look at points of translation soonish. Ingratis (talk) 13:36, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per the improvements to the article made by Ingratis as detailed above which include providing page numbers for the reliable sources coverage, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 21:34, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep' per Ingratis. StAnselm (talk) 21:22, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: If a subject can be verified as having been canonized by the Catholic Church at any given point, that subject acquires inherent notability. This doesn't mean Wikipedia includes suggestions favoring the veracity of any claims associated with that subject or even supports the claim that they were a real person, but canonization in any major Christian body is enough to lend necessary notability regardless. ~ Pbritti (talk) 02:12, 14 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! 23:29, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lou Esa[edit]

Lou Esa (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 boxer, no IOC recognized games medals or world championship fights. Jeanette the new woman Martnn (talk) 22:00, 9 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. David Eppstein's contribution is the most compelling, and that view is shared by a sufficient number of his colleagues here in this debate to form a consensus to delete. Daniel (talk) 21:05, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jeffrey O[edit]

Jeffrey O (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)

Just another probable COI/paid article about someone who's vaguely notable for being an 'educator/motivational speaker'. Ref bombed with articles that anyone can get made for them. Doesn't meet notability. Nswix (talk) 19:07, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Authors, and Nigeria. Nswix (talk) 19:07, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Source 2 is probably the best of the bunch, it's a rather short article in a RS. Rest are non-RS publications. A top newsmaker award isn't helpful. I can't find anything extra for this person. Oaktree b (talk) 20:26, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: He's notable as there's a lot of coverage in major reliable newspapers in Nigeria where he was born. There is coverage about him in a lot of sources including Pulse Nigeria, The Nation, European Financial Review, Nigerian Tribune, Vanguard, Authority Magazine, Business Anecdote, Medium and many others. The newspapers he was featured in are the top newspapers in Nigeria. They should not be dismissed. There is no basis for the assertion that any article is a COI/paid article. That assertion is purely speculative and not factual. Moreover his book Dead or Alive meets the notability threshold because it was featured in Kirkus Reviews and Good Reads too. Evanzoe (talk) 15:15, 26 November 2023 (UTC) — Evanzoe (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
    Comment that Kirkus Indie is Kirkus' pay-for-review program, and a review there does not contribute to notability. Goodreads is user-generated, and also does not contribute to notability. I have not yet developed an opinion on the rest. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 17:37, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP - While several citations are speaker profiles, Medium Blogs and primary interviews, there exists enough to make this person notable. I have also found some new citations. See Business Connect Magazine (not all of it is an interview), Vanguard 1 and Vanguard 2,hospitalitytipoftheday.com, europeanfinancialreview.com, Kirkus Reviews (A book review works towards notability for Authors), Nigerian Tribune and Independent.Royal88888 (talk) 21:57, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    That Kirkus review is Kirkus Indie, and does not qualify towards notability (it's paid coverage). -- asilvering (talk) 21:53, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, I'll do these in order:
    1. I can't get this to load. No comment.
    2. Not WP:RS, this is paid coverage. ([8])
    3. as above.
    4. obvious non-RS with no byline.
    5. this is identical to #2 - obviously, this is PR copy.
    6. this is the Kirkus review that is paid coverage.
    7. I suspect this is paid, but I'm not sure; at any rate it's basically a regurgitated CV, not journalism.
    8. this is the same PR copy as #2 and #5.
    Not a single one of these is useful to show notability, with only a very slim possibility of #1 being useable. -- asilvering (talk) 22:01, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Based on WP:NGRS These sources are reliable: Vanguard, Nigerian Tribune and Independent Nigeria
    The Business Connect Magazine Article, can also be accessed here also, where you would see that he has 5 paragraphs of independent coverage before the interview portion. He is also on the cover of the magazine. While Wikipedia guidelines may not explicitly consider being featured on a magazine cover as a criterion for notability, common sense dictates that individuals featured on magazine covers are often widely recognized and noteworthy. Royal88888 (talk) 00:44, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment that Vanguard was found to be only marginally reliable in a recent RSN discussion [9]. I didn't try to track down the others. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 17:02, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I am aware and noticed that too, so in one place it says it is "Marginally Reliable" and in another place it is says it is "Reliable,' we can average that out and say it is Mostly reliable. I would also agree with your Kirkus Review argument, so that one would be considered unreliable. But we have many articles besides the Vanguard and Kirkus, so we need to evaluate the overall coverage and even if you discount Vanguard and Kirkus, we still have 2 other reliable Nigerian publications, plus we also have Business Connect Magazine and several others. Royal88888 (talk) 22:40, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I would agrue if youre paying for coverage, and the other articles appear to be of a similar style, they're also probably less-than-reliable. Nswix (talk) 22:53, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -First thing is, nomination based on notability is not appropriate because the subject clearly passes the notability. Regarding the WP:RS, just because there is a reference from Vanguard doesn’t mean other references also lack WP:RS. As per the findings by Royal88888 sufficient reliable discussion exists. As for WP:NOTEBOMB, the issue has been resolved by removing unnecessary links and part of the content. So I would say keep it and improve it if there is still room for improvement.Cruzdoze (talk) 13:49, 27 November 2023 (UTC) — Cruzdoze (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Delete. Obvious PR-laundering. See my analysis of the sources provided by Royal88888 above. -- asilvering (talk) 22:03, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Some of the sources are not reliable and some of them are interviews. Cleanup is required by removing the unreliable sources and interviews, however, there are some sources that seem reliable for Nigeria related topics as per this list Wikipedia:WikiProject Africa/Africa Sources List.Atighot (talk) 01:17, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per source #8 by Nigerian Tribune, #21 by Pulse Nigeria and #25 by Independent Nigeria as they all provide significant coverage about the subject as required by WP:SIGCOV and are reliable as per WP:NGRS. I must point out that the subject was listed as one of the 10 most influential Nigerians in the diaspora by Pulse Nigeria and he was one of the top 25 International Newsmakers of 2021 so that is enough to meet WP:GNG as well as WP:NBASIC. Powerviki (talk) 16:00, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: A formal source analysis would be very helpful if an editor wanted to put one together.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:20, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Per Liz's last relist comment.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 21:53, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. This is the sort of promotional article that gives a bad name to WP:GNG. All its sources are at best repackaged publicity churnalism glurdge. And yet, because major newspapers are willing to take money to publish them, we see Wikipedia editors counting the blue clicky footnotes and saying that there's enough coverage for a pass. A hint: if Pulse includes prose like "With years of experience in the hospitality sector, Obomeghie's record as a technocrat with vast knowledge endeared him to his employers.", or when European Financial Review includes content like "one of the most famous hospitality leaders in the world, has embarked on a life-long mission to reshape the way we approach hospitality not as a one-dimensional transaction – but as a space for genuine human interaction that reinforces a positive presence in the industry", it's not reliable. If Pulse, Vanguard, and The Nation all start their profiles of him with the exact same wording about his family and his journal editorship, and that same exact wording appears later in the European Financial Review profile, they're all copying from the same publicist and are all equally unreliable (and certainly also not independent of each other). And those are the more promising-looking ones; none of the rest are any better. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:07, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep - Although the article needs some work, there are several reliable sources in the article. These sources are clearly reliable and have been marked as such by Wikipedia for several years. The idea that all the major sources in the article marked as reliable by Wikipedia per WP:NGRS are all no longer reliable is strange and illogical. This is painting with a very broad brush. Should we then delete all articles on Wikipedia, especially the ones from this individual’s country of origin whenever someone doesn’t like the sources that have always been accepted by the community as reliable, or the writing style of the publications. Also, saying that all the articles are paid promotions is speculative and illogical. There is no basis for this assumption. Also, all the articles are not similar other than the fact that some of them are profiling the same individual. All the sources provide significant coverage about the subject as required by WP:SIGCOV and are reliable as per WP:NGRS. The subject was listed as one of the 10 most influential Nigerians in diaspora by Pulse Nigeria. He was recognized as one of the 10 most influential people in Hospitality by The Nation. He was also named one of the top 25 International Newsmakers of 2021 which is enough to meet WP:GNG and WP:NBASIC. There is no rational basis for deleting this article. Most of the arguments are in favor of keeping the page. Why should the page not be kept and improved, like so many other pages on Wikipedia? Why the push to delete this page?Cruzdoze (talk) 13:25, 16 December 2023 (UTC) — Cruzdoze (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

  • Delete. Despite the SPA pile-on and PR laundering effort, I'm not seeing much evidence of notability here. Sources show signs of paid placement and/or are churnalism. Comment that some SPA and less-active editors have referred to WP:NGRS for support: this page was substantively edited mainly by a single editor (with a few contributions from a second editor), and I think has the force of an essay only; certainly it is trumped by WP:RSN and WP:RSP. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 15:32, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Wikipedia is not LinkedIn, and we cannot base a biography upon PR and churnalism. I'll concur with the comment above that WP:NGRS has no consensus behind it. XOR'easter (talk) 16:31, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus‎ to do anything. Merging or renaming or anything similar can be explored on the talk page of the article subsequent to this discussion finishing. Daniel (talk) 21:04, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Swedish Lithuania[edit]

Swedish Lithuania (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 essentially repeats what is already said in Union of Kėdainiai. Besides, the very use of the term Swedish Lithuania is WP:FRINGE, occurring only in Kotljarchuk. It is also incorrect in principle because Lithuania was not incorporated into Sweden, but some of the nobility entered into a personal union with Sweden. The article generally rubs against WP:HOAX. Marcelus (talk) 22:49, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Lithuania, Poland, and Sweden. Marcelus (talk) 22:49, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I notice User:Cukrakalnis made the same argument just now at Talk:Swedish Lithuania#The article name. For myself, not having reviewed the sources yet, I'll say that I am partial to articles on former administrative divisions or concepts (ex. Russian partition), but the problematic name of this article is, well, problematic. Perhaps the term is a translation of something else? I note this article exists on several other wikis. On lt wiki it is "Grand Duchy of Lithuania (1655–1657)" (Lietuvos_Didžioji_Kunigaikštystė_(1655–1657)). Swedish occupation of Lituania could be another term to consider (and or redirect). There may be something notable here (in the form of describing the functioning of Sweden-occupied/controlled GDL during that period, the brief-lived entity created by the Treaty and Union of Kėdainiai). But let's start figuring out how the entity was called; if Swedish Lithuania is not a comment name, the article should be moved to Grand Duchy of Lithuania (1655–1657). If I have time, I'll try to think more on whether this meets WP:GNG. Side note: Grand Duchy of Lithuania article does not even mention Kėdainiai; we are dealing with a pretty niche footnote topic here. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 01:49, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    1. The article never says at any point that Lithuania was 'incorporated into Sweden'. It literally says that it's a protectorate of the Swedish Empire, meaning it's a separate political entity under the control of the Swedish, so the entire argument here is nothing more than a straw man.
    2. Andrej Kontjarchuk mentions that Swedish-occupied Lithuania had a viceroy (Bengt Skytte) as well as a Swedish-inaugurated Lithuanian Advisory Council and no literature appears to be claiming to the contrary. If he's talking about some sort of an administration then clearly there was some sort of a political entity as well. Not everything needs to be spilt out.
    3. I think that 'pretty niche footnote' problem is unreasonable given the importance of the topic in question: it was a brief period, during which the Swedish unsuccessfully tried to establish a permanent presence in Lithuania. Of course, it won't have many sources to go by.
    4. There seems to be enough valid reasons for an article like Polish–Lithuanian–Ruthenian Commonwealth to exist, but not enough for this one?
    SeriousThinker (talk) 12:29, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    That's not a terrible comparison, but note that Google Scholar search for PLRC gives about 40 hits; while the one for Swedish Lithuania, just two. I am sympathetic to the topic here and would prefer to see it saved, but we need more sources, including for the name of this entity. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:07, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Swedish-inaugurated Lithuanian Advisory Council and no literature appears to be claiming to the contrary, no literature mention existence of such a council, because... such council never existed, even Kotljarchuk admits that: Neither the act of the union nor the text of the public declaration had mentioned the Council (p. 143). Simply put, the royal governor (who was initially De La Gardie, not Skytte) was given 3 delegates from the 5 districts that came under Swedish rule to assist him. Statements such as the Council was planned as a provisionel government are unsubstantiated. This council did not include any of the Radziwiłłs or any bishop. Marcelus (talk) 18:56, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    All articles o other Wikipedias were created by the same user. I have checked several books on Lithuanian history, mostly by Lithuanian authors, none of them distinguish this period in a special way, nor do they write about "Swedish Lithuania" as a separate entity. All of them treat the Union of Kėdainiai as an important event, but one with short-lived and essentially insignificant consequences. Marcelus (talk) 13:11, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose We are dealing with an entity that did exist and whose existence is proven in one way or another by many reliable sources (all sources talking about Union of Kėdainiai prove the existence of this political entity). As @SeriousThinker already said, we have articles that deal with even non-existent but possible unions from a similar time period, so I refuse to say that an actual union that did exist does not deserve its own article. We should also remind ourselves that events that might hold significance for one group of people might be irrelevant for others and so it seems to me that this event is generally more important for Lithuanians than for Poles (unsurprisingly so, because this concerns only Lithuania and not Poland).
However, just like @Piotrus wrote, I would change the name to e.g. Grand Duchy of Lithuania (1655–1657) or something similar.
BTW, this is mentioned in the Grand Duchy of Lithuania article in the following sentence, so it's clearly not an irrelevant event:
In 1655, Lithuania unilaterally seceded from Poland, declared the Swedish King Charles X Gustav as the Grand Duke of Lithuania and fell under the protection of the Swedish Empire. However, by 1657 Lithuania was once again a part of the Commonwealth following the Lithuanian revolt against the Swedes. Cukrakalnis (talk) 13:31, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well, no. Let's be honest, the existence of an entity called "Swedish Lithuania" is mentioned only by Kotljarchuk. Other sources say that some Lithuanian lords, headed by Janusz Radzwiłł, concluded a union with Sweden on behalf of the entire GDL on October 20. And there is already an article about it on Wikipedia: Union of Kėdainiai. So there is no need for a separate article with essentially the same content. Marcelus (talk) 14:30, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There is a difference though. No article makes it seem as if there was no entity to speak of and the treaties never had any sort of true impact when, in reality, they did, albeit it was short-lived. There's definitely a similiarity problem here but it doesn't mean that the article itself has no purpose. Overlapping information on Wikipedia is not an unusual thing either. When we make distinctions, such as List of monarchs of X country and List of heads of state of X country, the information can be fairly redundant but they exist because they focus on different things.
In addition, I would say the blame for similarity should be placed on the Union of Kėdainiai article as well because it covers more than it should — its main focus should be more on the negotiations and content of the treaty itself whereas Swedish Lithuania (or Grand Duchy of Lithuania) should focus more on partition of territories, actions of the administration and military feuds. In his book historian Adolfas Šapoka writes in greater detail about the policies of Magnus Gabriel De Le Gardie while governing, Lithuanian resistance and the Swedish defense in Lithuania — I'm not sure that Union Kėdainiai is a go-to article for such information I was considering publishing at some point. SeriousThinker (talk) 16:16, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Main go to article is Deluge (history). Swedish Lithuania is basically third article on the same topic. Also it makes wrong impression as if Lithuania was established Swedish territory (compare Swedish Livonia), which defnitely wasn't. Marcelus (talk) 18:30, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Is it a wrong impression though? According to Kontjarchuk, that's exactly what happened — Lithuania was established as a Swedish protectorate (they established themselves as a protectorate of the Swedish Crown). In addition, an article in the Universal Lithuanian Encyclopedia also clearly states that Lithuania was a Swedish protectorate (Lietuva tapo Švedijos protektoratu — Lithuania became a protectorate of Sweden). SeriousThinker (talk) 21:12, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reading through this, the name discussion is impeding the more AfD-relevant content discussion. It does read as if there is heavy overlap. What is the subject/scope of this article, and how is it distinct from the Union of Kėdainiai article? (Not that two overlapping topics can't be well-covered in one article, but that's a possibility that requires two subjects in the first place.) CMD (talk) 09:18, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 15:45, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 05:14, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge to Union of Kėdainiai which covers exactly the same material. They use completely different sources, so that this is a clear case where the appropriate solution is a merger, but this will need to be undertaken by someone who knows the subject and the sources, rather than by a closing admin. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:29, 9 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) 21:39, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus‎ due to lack of participation. Daniel (talk) 21:03, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Anna.aero[edit]

Anna.aero (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 exists, but I couldn't find that sources to show it meets WP:N. Boleyn (talk) 15:17, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 08:48, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 08:06, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist and to consider Owen's additions.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 21:39, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak delete I think the added RS aren't sufficient. They are mentioning narrowly the Anna.aero, but it may not help to write a good neutral separate page on wiki. --BoraVoro (talk) 12:43, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus‎ due to lack of participation. Daniel (talk) 21:03, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Rossy Aguirre[edit]

Rossy Aguirre (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)

She exists and has a career, but I couldn't establish that she is notable. Boleyn (talk) 15:13, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 08:47, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 08:06, 2 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) 21:38, 9 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. I find TimothyBlue's contribution the most compelling in a debate which didn't have a lot of participation. Daniel (talk) 21:02, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dumfries High School[edit]

Dumfries 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)

This article fails WP:GNG. There are a couple of stories about the redevelopment of its buildings, insufficient IMO per WP:ORGDEPTH which calls for greater than trivial coverage. There is no substantial, indepth coverage of the school. Guidelines at WP:NSCHOOL and the WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES essay are noted. Tagishsimon (talk) 02:51, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:56, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This probably ended up here because of a bust-up over photos at the Teahouse. Someone inserted a photo of the teacher who some years ago faked the teacher-assessments of a large number of their pupils. In my view quite rightly, a teahouse visitor removed the photo as giving undue weight to a one-off BLP issue. They then questioned whether the headmaster's photo was okay, and I questioned heavily whether our treatment of the teacher who faked the results is fair. I have no particular desire to delete the article itself, but the "Events" part dealing with the faked results should go. This was not a particularly notable, or even unusual event, and there has been no coverage whatsoever since the time of her disciplinary hearing. Our text on the subject is possibly inaccurate (the number of faked results is disputed) and certainly misleading and less than neutral. Elemimele (talk) 14:30, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as a stub. I removed the mention of the teacher. Named or not, that borders on BLP issues. One teacher does not make or break a school. — Maile (talk) 02:09, 10 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! 08:16, 2 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) 21:38, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: Fails GNG and NORG, no WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth from WP:IS RS. Source eval:
Comments Source
Brief routine mill news about a construction project, interview with teacher, fails WP:IS WP:SIGCOV does not address the subject directly and indepth 1. Kobzar, Elina (1 November 2022). "New school proposals to go on display". Daily Record. Retrieved 5 January 2023.
Gov site, fails WP:IS, database page, fails WP:SIGCOV 2. ^ "Dumfries High School - Dumfries and Galloway Council". www.dumgal.gov.uk. Retrieved 5 January 2023.
Brief routine mill news about a construction project, fails WP:IS WP:SIGCOV does not address the subject directly and indepth 3. ^ Temlett, Stephen (29 December 2022). "New high school construction plans to change". Daily Record. Retrieved 27 August 2023.
Brief routine mill news about a construction project, fails WP:IS WP:SIGCOV does not address the subject directly and indepth 4. ^ "Dumfries High School building at the 'end of life'". BBC News. 28 October 2020. Retrieved 27 August 2023.
About an individual, no WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth 5. ^ "QosFC: Legends - Billy Houliston". qosfc.com. Retrieved 5 January 2023.
About an individual, no WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth 6. ^ "From bedroom to Billboard". The Herald. Glasgow. 29 July 2015.
Keep votes provide no sources. BEFORE showed nothing but routine mill news and database records.  // Timothy :: talk  05:30, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I find TimothyBlue's assessment of the sources convincing. * Pppery * it has begun... 20:56, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:01, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Concept Medical[edit]

Concept Medical (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 to meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines for corporations, as explained in WP:NCORP and WP:ORGCRIT. WP:PROMO: Sponsored content published at supplements (WP:NEWSORGINDIA). Charlie (talk) 17:52, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Although most of the sources are routine coverage, I can now see independent sources with significant coverage that VikingsKhan has found and helpfully integrated into the article. Receiving an award from the then-president is also highly notable. Darcyisverycute (talk) 01:07, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep "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." (Primary Criteria section at WP:CORP) Just look at the sources used. Seems to exceed this criteria. MaxineJP (talk) 13:53, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: per WP:NORG. The subject passes the Notability guidelines and it receives IDE approval from the Food and Drug Administration, see [11]. I really agree with WP:NEWSORGINDIA but this can't be used in every article. I went through the Nominators account and got that the editor is just Nominating pages for AfD. Earlier nominated other notable articles like Gulf Giants, Abu Dhabi Knight Riders and other articles nominated by the editor are minimally participated. — Syed A. Hussain Quadri (talk) 16:41, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @QuadriOnMobile The nomination's basis is evident and straight-forward, and this company fails WP:NORG. Even when considering the FDA's IDE approval as suggested by you, which essentially permits the device's use in clinical investigations to assess its safety and effectiveness. And, according to guidelines like WP:MEDPRI, findings are frequently highlighted in the media immediately after initial research is released, often before the scientific community has had the chance to thoroughly analyze and provide feedback on the results. To understand how important these studies are, it's better to use reliable information from other trusted sources instead of using news stories or press releases based on those on-going research and its outcomes.
    If you are willing, I kindly request your assistance in improving this page to meet the Heymann standard or offering supportive source analysis, as it would greatly benefit Wikipedia. However, it's important to focus on the present nomination without referencing past nominations that aren't relevant here. If there are concerns regarding my recent AfD nominations or any doubts with respect to it, I encourage you to communicate them in an appropriate forum, and I will be more than willing to address them there. Charlie (talk) 03:53, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 21:33, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: I started this page with some basic info and was hoping others would pitch in to turn it into a detailed article. There's a wealth of information about the company online, and here's why we should keep this page:
  1. The company has a lot of coverage by reliable sources. Provided two links with significant coverage about the company Outlook Business and Tampa News.
  2. The company developed the world's first Sirolimus-coated balloon known as Magic Touch, which received CE approval. It has been the subject of ongoing clinical studies in the United Kingdom, Italy and Brazil. It is also the most clinically studied Sirolimus Drug Coated Balloon (DCB) for PAD treatment.https://www.researchgate.net/publication/323319118_Magic_Touch_preliminary_clinical_evidence_with_a_novel_Sirolimus_drug_coated_balloonhttps://www.researchgate.net/publication/357084913_MagicTouch_PTA_Sirolimus_Coated_Balloon_for_Femoropopliteal_and_Below_the_Knee_Disease_Results_From_XTOSI_Pilot_Study_Up_To_12_Monthshttps://www.researchgate.net/publication/346430511_Early_6_months_results_of_a_pilot_prospective_study_to_investigate_the_efficacy_and_safety_of_sirolimus_coated_balloon_angioplasty_for_dysfunctional_arterio-venous_fistulas_MAgicTouch_Intervention_Leahttps://www.researchgate.net/figure/Fig-1-Different-generations-of-drug-coated-balloons-DCBs-The-1-st-and-2-nd_fig1_322125982https://www.researchgate.net/publication/341769593_Mid-term_clinical_outcomes_from_use_of_Sirolimus_coated_balloon_in_coronary_intervention_data_from_real_world_population
  3. The Indian government gave it the National Technology Award, and it was the top medical device exporter in India.
  4. It's one of the top three manufacturers in Asia.
  5. The International Book of Records called it the ‘Fastest Growing Medical Device Company in the Indian Stent Market.

I will be incorporating all this valuable information and citing the sources to enhance the page.VikingsKhan (talk) 15:58, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@VikingsKhan These research papers focus on a product, not the company. But, please feel welcome to update the page as you prefer and improve it to meet WP:HEY. Charlie (talk) 17:45, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly Keep: I have significantly enhanced the article by incorporating additional information and sources to highlight the company's notability

  1. It is the first and only company to develop the world's first sirolimus-drug coated balloon called MagicTouch. This product has earned the company widespread recognition and accolades. The media, both nationally and internationally, has extensively discussed this.[12][13][14]
  2. The product was granted the Breakthrough Device designation and IDE approvals from the USFDA for treating superficial femoral arteries (SFA).[15] Extensively studied globally in various clinical trials, such as the Eastbourne registry, Nanolute, and ongoing trials like Transform 1, Transform 2, Ginger, Titan, and Hybrid Bifurcation DEB.
  4. Dr. Martin Leon, founder of the Cardiovascular Research Foundation and leads the IDE trials, said that the "FDA approval for the MAGICAL-SV clinical trial using the MagicTouch sirolimus-covered balloon with nanolute technology is a significant milestone in their ongoing effort to find the best therapy for managing patients with small vessel coronary obstructive disease."[16]
  6. The Indian Government has awarded the company the National Technology Award for its innovations in the cardiovascular space and drug delivery devices. It is Asia's largest producer of DCB and DES, and one of the top three medical device companies in India by market share.[17] In 2021-22, the company was the largest medical device exporter from India and given an award by the President Ram Nath Kovind. The International Book of Records named it the Fastest Growing Medical Device Company in the Indian Stent Market.[18]
  8. the company received a substantial $60 million funding from Kiran C Patel, a renowned cardiologist and businessman, specifically for conducting clinical studies on cardiac devices.[19]
  10. MagicTouch is currently the only globally approved sirolimus-coated balloon with CE certification and with extensive commercial usage in Europe, major markets of Asia and the Mid-Eastern markets. More than 100 thousand patients have been treated with MagicTouch SCB in these markets.[20]
  12. It is the most extensively studied sirolimus-coated balloon for peripheral artery disease (PAD) treatment and is the focus of ongoing clinical studies in the United Kingdom, Italy, and Brazil.[21][22]

I have also refined the sourcing and included additional sources that provide substantial coverage.[23][24] All these collectively highlight the company's notability and meets the NCORP.VikingsKhan (talk) 17:25, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. This isn't the strongest consensus (due to lack of participation) but a delete consensus does narrowly exist for me. Daniel (talk) 20:59, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Oppenheim[edit]

Richard Oppenheim (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)

Ambassadors are not inherently notable. Fails WP:GNG. Uhooep (talk) 17:43, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep, i went searching around and found a few more sources to add to this article. one of which was The Guardian, the others might be questionable in their reliability. Overall, i think with the new sources that i found in just a few minutes, this is now a weak keep that meets the GNG. Iljhgtn (talk) 21:37, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:55, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Routine coverage like talking on behalf of the government. Nothing indepth to meet WP:BIO. LibStar (talk) 01:15, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:19, 2 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) 21:31, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Fails WP:GNG due to very little coverage available and, per above, what is available appears routine. The Guardian source mentioned above is a trivial mention. Uhai (talk) 05:27, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus‎ due to lack of participation. Daniel (talk) 20:58, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Pilipinas News[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Pilipinas News (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 October.

Previous AfD was closed when it was withdrawn when nominator was called out for starting too many AfDs, so it wasn't thoroughly discussed. DonaldD23 talk to me 22:06, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:44, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:31, 2 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) 21:31, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Daniel (talk) 20:57, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Elekeiroz[edit]

Elekeiroz (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 on a Brazilian chemical company has only one source. A Google News search finds a couple press releases and nothing else. Wolfson5 (talk) 20:58, 9 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) 20:56, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

AS 1100[edit]

AS 1100 (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)

Similar to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/AS3959, notability not established with substantive independent sources Reywas92Talk 20:56, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. Star Mississippi 19:51, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bethel, Grant County, Oklahoma[edit]

Bethel, Grant County, Oklahoma (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)

First source says it was the name of a short-lived post office but not that it was a town/ghost town. Notability not established, not even in GNIS Reywas92Talk 20:54, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Does appear in the George Shirk place names as a post office. Not a town. I’m the article creator but I think I does need to be taken down.
Delete DannonCool (talk) 00:05, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non-notable post office(?) that lacks any reliable source demonstrating that it is or had ever been a populated place. Also, lacks any reliable source demonstrating its notability. Paul H. (talk) 03:09, 12 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) 20:56, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Alhambra, Oklahoma[edit]

Alhambra, Oklahoma (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)

First source unreliable, second says it was the name of a post office but not that it was a town/ghost town. Notability not established, not even in GNIS Reywas92Talk 20:53, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete notability not established castorbailey (talk) 21:12, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Map of Johnston County, 1900

    https://www.oklahomahistory.net/ttphotos8a/Gilsonite_OK_1900.jpg

    Lists Alhambra as a town.

    Keep until further evidence of it not being a town. DannonCool (talk) 22:56, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    • No it doesn't. That fairly rubbish and imprecise small scale map gives this name and a rough circle. That's entirely consistent with this being a post office. Post offices aren't towns, and don't imply towns. So the burden of proof remains on you to actually come up with something that isn't an ambiguous dot or circle on a crappy map.

      You'd need something like John Wesley Morris's Ghost Towns of Oklahoma to support your contention that this is a ghost town in Oklahoma. But you don't have it because it isn't in there.

      Uncle G (talk) 10:58, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete This former locale is only notable at a local level. TH1980 (talk) 04:09, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • an "enterprising village" making "no pretentions to incorporation" in 1898. Beyond that, an announcement that the postmastership at Alhambra was vacant in 1897 and that only a Republican would be allowed to fill it, and a statement from the 1890s that some sort of special sand could be found near Alhambra, Tishomingo, and Sylvan; and that some Confederate veterans had an Alhambra address in 1899 are about all that I can find. For a better map, see this; Alhambra is near the top of the map below the "T" in Topographic Sheet. Pennington Creek itself is likely notable; see [25], [26], etc. but Alhambra doesn't warrant a standalone article and based on the very sparse coverage that I can find wouldn't muster much more than a brief mention in another article. Uncle G is better with sorting out information for bodies of water than I am though; I have better luck finding information on human history than natural history myself. Hog Farm Talk 01:31, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • I just go where the Geological Surveys's reports lead. ☺ Kentucky is easy, because I even have authorities saying that the human geography follows the physical geography. Oklahoma is a different kettle of fish, and at first glance the OGS doesn't really give much of a clue how Oklahoma is best addressed, especially how it is best addressed before it was even a state and had a state geologist and the place that you have maps of is in fact the Chickasaw Nation Indian Territory. Moreover the contemporary USGS survey, which is what one has to resort to, is all about allotment. There's no history of the C.N. that covers this post office that I can find, and commercial shipping directories for the post office say Chickasaw Nation. The Alhambra post office wasn't even in Oklahoma at any point of its existence. This is a borderline hoax. There is no and never was a Alhambra, Oklahoma; and the Alhambra, Chickasaw Nation is not documented outside of post office listings. Uncle G (talk) 04:53, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
        • To make myself clearer - delete Alhambra. I think an article on Pennington Creek could be fleshed out, but that's a different discussion for another time. Hog Farm Talk 18:03, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - We don't keep until somebody proves a place doesn't exist. We don't create articles until substantial, reliable sources prove that it does. Fails GNG for lack of sources. Cheers, Last1in (talk) 18:29, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Star Mississippi 19:22, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Peart, California[edit]

Peart, 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)

No indication this was a notable settlement, 1907 map has nothing but a name on the railroad https://ngmdb.usgs.gov/ht-bin/tv_browse.pl?id=fd736e5412ece54a732229b87e930c62 Reywas92Talk 20:44, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete notability is not established castorbailey (talk) 21:15, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non-notable railway point, not a community. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 21:22, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nothing in the gazetteers, and I am unable to connect this to any of the people named Peart in the history books. Uncle G (talk) 02:32, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non-notable railway point that lacks any reliable source demonstrating that it is or had ever been a populated place. Also, lacks any reliable source demonstrating its notability. Paul H. (talk) 03:10, 12 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 17:21, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Plumtree, California[edit]

Plumtree, 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)

Back to the California bulk-creations. No indication this was a notable settlement, 1907 map has nothing but a name on the railroad https://ngmdb.usgs.gov/ht-bin/tv_browse.pl?id=1c6fd750f09a49579337f04f012ceff1 Reywas92Talk 20:42, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. Star Mississippi 19:18, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

LAS Magazine[edit]

LAS Magazine (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)

Several reasons why this page should get deleted: 1. Very outdated, website is most definitely defunct 2. its sources mainly link to itself (aka has non-primary sources issues) 3. issues already highlighted in 2010 regarding citations and personal essay Chchcheckit (talk) 19:08, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

also, quick note: per this archived page ([27]) dated 2013, LAS Magazine went on an "indefinite hiatus from daily publishing" on July 13, 2010. It remained unchanged in its state for several years afterwards, with the page now simply a blank screen.([28]) Chchcheckit (talk) 19:19, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as I see not general notability of the outdated magazine. Old-AgedKid (talk) 14:02, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I don't see much notability within this article. Lewcm Talk to me! 20:46, 15 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. Ineligible for SOFT deletion, but there is no one supporting retention or providing any input. Star Mississippi 17:20, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ashland, Concordia Parish, Louisiana[edit]

Ashland, Concordia Parish, Louisiana (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)

Another "unincorporated community" lie. I cannot tell you what this is from any historical sources at all, except from the same hypsometry that tells us about a nail near to wherever Black Hawk, Louisiana (AfD discussion) was, in this case from an 1885 USACE survey. We know all about a granite post in a hole in the ground, for Ashland: "[Benchmark 54] is top of granite post buried in the ground on the left of the steps leading to the front entrance of Mr. William G. Walton's residence on Ashland Plantation near Bougere P. O., Louisiana. The top of stone is about 3 inches above ground. Elevation, 23m.5622 It's not in Lippincott's at all, which rules out any sort of town or village or even a post office, although the smart money would be on Bougere being the post office in any case. The only Ashland that the SPC's 1890 History of Louisiana has, as an incidental mention in brackets, is in Red River Parish across the state. This one in Concordia is listed in a contemporary directory of Louisiana plantations, and that's it. This, too, has been lost to history. Uncle G (talk) 17:41, 2 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, Eddie891 Talk Work 18:05, 9 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. The issue of the spelling can be handled editorially. There is consensus to keep the improved content. Star Mississippi 03:11, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Black Hawk, Louisiana[edit]

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

This is another GNIS mess lie, created by a sock-puppeteer, that we've been telling the world for 10 years. There's no "unincorporated community", a phrase that has been debased of any meaning, here. The 1880 Lippincott's confirms that this was a post office. Not a post-town nor even a post-village: a post office. And one that is non-existent in any history books that I can find. Ironically, once one knows how the GNIS is badly constructed by basically calling every single building a "populated place", it becomes apparent from the GNIS itself that this is a post office, as it lists it twice in two separate records: once as a building taken from a building on a map and once as a post office taken from a list of post offices. Surprise! The building is the post office. When they say that the GNIS removes duplications, it is a lie. I cannot find any history of Black Hawk railway depot nor Black Hawk plantation, either. I only know that they exist at all because a hypsometrist measured various precisely described nails and pieces of wire (I kid you not!) near to them. Simply, no-one has documented these things and they are undocumented dots on maps now. Uncle G (talk) 21:24, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete Not a community, no coverage in any source other than GNIS, never a recognized populated place, and a redirect is pointless because nobody would think to search for such a place on WP, and there is nothing that could be said about it in the target article anyway. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 00:07, 2 December 2023 (UTC) Redirect to Concordia Parish, Louisiana. The information given in the article convinces me that this is a place (broadly speaking), with some at least local recognition, but we can't say much more than that. And when we have to rely on OR just to determine whether our sources are all talking about the same place, we are in no position to have a standalone article. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 21:42, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    • I could tell you about top of 30d wire nail driven vertically into bench cut on E. root of a 3-foot chinaberry tree standing in road 5 meters back of levee, and 20 meters above negro church standing just outside of levee on Black Hawk plantation. Who says that the U.S. doesn't use metres? ☺ Apparently there was a Mississippi steamboat named the Black Hawk that sank almost 100 years before the hypsometrist, but contemporary 19th century sources (only 20 years after the event!) had it happening at the mouth of the Red River of the South and I couldn't match their maps of the area between the Homochitto and the Red River to the modern positions at all, to even say for certain that it was even roughly the same place. Uncle G (talk) 01:08, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I'm finding census data for Black Hawk, Concordia Parish, Louisiana in the 1890, 1900, and 1940 censuses. I haven't checked the 1910 and 1920 censuses yet, but the 1890 census calls Blackhawk in Concordia Parish a village with 323 residents; the numbers for 1900 and 1940 are smaller. More research is needed, and I'm working on it, but this was a real community. Firsfron of Ronchester 02:45, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • How big an area did this census unit cover? A census taker will assign every household some sort of location but it may not be a real community. Larger, purely rural areas with low population density are still going to have some sort of name in the census. If there are 160 40-acre farms spread across a 10 square mile (6400 acres) that’s very different from 160 homes clustered together in a community. —A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 03:42, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      • This is like the Black Hawk plantation and the Black Hawk railway depot. It's another description of something else that drops the name without telling us a thing. Firsfron's source merely says Ward 1, including Blackhawk village and gives the populations of wards 1 to 10, and sub-population for the village. Speaking as someone who regularly fixes these damned GNIS lie articles, that's not enough for keeping. For starters, we don't know how this relates to the random "populated place" GNIS rubbish. Was the village at the GNIS "Black Hawk"? Or was it the plantation? Or the railway depot? Or the sunk steamboat? The GNIS itself says it was none of them, because its coördinates are for the post office. We know all of these things existed, but barely and only because what we have is documentation of a census population figure somewhere in the same county, nails in trees (sic!) that were just outside of them, and a steamboat that sunk somewhere in the area but the river courses have changed so drastically that I couldn't tell you where things are now that the 19th century maps (no coördinate systems on them) were mapping. The Red River doesn't even have a mouth on the Mississippi any more. There's nothing that — literally — connects the dots to go on. Uncle G (talk) 08:44, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:GEOLAND and move to Blackhawk, Louisiana (the correct spelling in current use). The biggest disservice done by GNIS was to spell it "Black Hawk" (two words) – a spelling replicated by Wikipedia which then misled many readers into thinking that "no coverage exists" (per discussion above). The current version of the article (still called Black Hawk, Louisiana for now) now includes the information about Blackhawk, which we find was one of the last three rural pockets in Louisiana to receive reliable phone coverage (wireless or wired – they got wireless first) in 2005. (Lots of news coverage about the political battle leading up to this, but for this discussion see this Alexandria, LA newspaper.) Blackhawk, LA is frequently mentioned in conjunction with the work the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Vicksburg District) does in shoring up the nearby levee on the Mississippi River (e.g. 2018 news alert), and going back over 100 years, we find several newspaper articles about flooding in Blackhawk (referred to as a "small town" in this 1912 article). The more you search, the more you find, and even I find it baffling that it wasn't until the half hour or so that I found this 2017 Associated Press article about sugarcane farming in Blackhawk, which was also syndicated by the USA Today Network. Cielquiparle (talk) 05:44, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • There is still more work to be done to improve this article, but this can be done in the course of normal editing – e.g., the question raised by Uncle G above "Where exactly was Blackhawk Plantation?" is spot on. My hypothesis (requiring further research to verify) is that Blackhawk Plantation covered the area labeled in ALL CAPS on the helpful map provided by Firsfron, and that we have Black Hawk Lodge (on the same map) to thank for the two-word spelling. (There are also MANY "Blackhawk Hunting Club" notices in Newspapers.com that suggest that "Black Hawk" was a small subset of "Blackhawk".) As always, well done to all for raising great questions and sleuthing – I have suspected for some time that single-keyword searching on Google.com is "dead" but I'm increasingly worried that it's too hard to find the actual "web of trust" articles even if you use multiple search parameters. Cielquiparle (talk) 05:44, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • I enjoy the argument that you are making that the GNIS is unreliable for names. However, you highlight the problem, which is synthesis.

      The 1856 Lloyd's Steamboat Directory (No, not that Lloyds. Someone named James T. Lloyd. No, not that James T. Lloyd either.) says that a Black Hawk steamboat sunk on the Mississippi river in 1837 having "just reached the mouth of the Red River", and modern tourist guides reference this and say that that's where the name of Black Hawk Point comes from. Obviously, the place where the rivers met is inland, now, as there isn't even a Red River mouth on the Mississippi any more. I even have an 1881 USACE report definitely stating that the mouth of the Red River in 1881 was roughly 14 miles (23 km) downstream of Black Hawk Landing.

      In trying to reconcile all this and Lloyd's hand-drawn map with the GNIS post office, which is based upon middle 20th century maps, I checked the USACE navigation charts for the Mississippi River. They'll at least show where this Black Hawk Point is nowadays, right?

      They indeed do. But they show two other places with this same name. So the problem is that we still don't know whether stitching together a lot of newspaper clippings hasn't conflated a bunch of stuff. We know that there was a post office from the GNIS. We know from the hypsometrists that there were a Black Hawk plantation and a Black Hawk railroad depot, with a "negro church" somewhere. Ironically, your very own 1902 map has two distinct places, both with this name.

      Well the modern USACE navigation charts from 2007 have three (map #64), those two and the Black Hawk Point. Furthermore, Black Hawk Point and Black Hawk Landing are still on the riverbank even though we know that this isn't the 1837 course of the two rivers. I'd guess that the article actually currently is at the correct title, and that the plantation, railroad depot, landing, post office, and village 60 years later took Black Hawk the steamboat's name with Black Hawk being mis-spelled as Blackhawk, and that they are all in fact the same place and the Landing and Point have moved with the river. But I don't have a source that says this and connects up the literal dots here, and nor have you yet. None of those newspapers do. We could be synthesizing this for all that we know.

      You're already synthesizing a bit. The first 'phone newspaper article says that Shaw didn't have 'phone service. Blackhawk is where someone's friend named Grady Weeks had a lodge, and there's a nice handy map in the newspaper article showing that Shaw isn't at any of the Black Hawks. The second 'phone newspaper article says that it's called Shaw-Blackhawk, and has the same map that only shows Shaw. And your road construction article tells us that Shaw and Black Hawk are almost 3 miles (4.8 km) apart, because it's all about building a road between them. We know from another of your newspaper articles that Black Hawk Plantation stretched for 7 miles (11 km) "along the Mississippi River" somewhere in Concordia. The USACE report in 1881 had Black Hawk Landing 2 miles (3.2 km) south of the Grand Cutoff Bayou. USACE map #64 has the Grand Cutoff Bayou at Shaw with the three places downstream, Black Hawk to the south, Black Hawk Landing to the south east and Black Hawk Point to the east-south-east.

      Well at least we can trust that the GNIS is correctly including a Black Hawk post office to start with, right? Well, no. The 1855 USPS post office directory has this as Black Hawk Point post office.

      This is all very mixed up, and as I said, could be a synthesis. Oh for a decent history of Louisiana that simply connects the dots! But as I said, there isn't one. I've checked in the Southern Publishing Company's, the Bunner one, the Gayarré one, and the King one. I ignored the 1827 one, for obvious reasons.

      Fun fact: Two of your newspapers and three of your books, including for the attorneys and the catholics, are inaccessible to me.

      Uncle G (talk) 08:34, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

      It is OK. "Borders" are often fluid, especially over long periods of time (in this case spanning 130+ years). This is an excellent discussion for the Talk page. Cielquiparle (talk) 09:40, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: and rename per Cielquiparle. More than enough evidence to meet GEOLAND. Owen× ☎ 15:11, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 15:51, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

बिनोद थारू (talk) 02:14, 16 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. Star Mississippi 16:55, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

S. Muthukrishnan[edit]

S. Muthukrishnan (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 person Jax 0677 (talk) 15:49, 9 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. Star Mississippi 16:55, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

M. Muthukrishnan[edit]

M. Muthukrishnan (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 person. Jax 0677 (talk) 15:43, 9 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 a general consensus that the topic meets the general notability guideline, and that the preexisting biases in the article can be resolved. But this consensus to keep is dependent on the title reflecting a more neutral tone; those in favor of deletion are surely correct that the article should not exist under the present title. Since an independent move discussion is now underway, however, no move will be made as a result of this AfD. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 16:52, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Glorification of martyrdom in Palestinian society[edit]

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

Article fails to meet all of Wikipedia's five general notability guidelines, which determines if a topic deserves a standalone article:

1- Presumed: article is an indiscriminate collection of information; a collection of small pieces of information from different sources, resulting in troublesome original research
2- Significant coverage there are no independent, reliable and secondary sources addressing the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content.
3- Reliable: sources used in the article are either unreliable or mediocre, and in both cases do not deal with the topic directly.
4- Secondary: Most sources are not secondary, many of them primary reporting on violent incidents
5- Independent: Most sources are not independent of the subject, many of them are Israeli news website and academic institutions.
This article is a clear example of original research with questionable references, it should be deleted to maintain adherence to Wikipedia's strict guidelines. Makeandtoss (talk) 10:09, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Warning to closing editor: A banned sockpuppet has attempted at least once to canvass editors with a specific viewpoint to come to this discussion. Makeandtoss (talk) 19:38, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I don't like the title and the way the article is written, however I'm not sure point 2 above (at least) is correct. this appears to be a published book on the "politics of national commemoration" of Palestinian martyrs. This appears to be an academic paper focusing on the "visual representation of martyrdom in Palestine". I think there is something there, I don't really understand the point that the nom is making by saying there are no RS on the topic. Unless I'm somehow not understanding the difference between the topic and these sources.. JMWt (talk) 10:44, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Both of these two sources -not used in the article- deal with the topic of martyrdom in Palestine, not the topic of "glorification of martyrdom in Palestinian society". Either way, there are still issues with the rest four notability guidelines. Makeandtoss (talk) 11:01, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Mm well. Surely there's a big crossover between there being significant public "visual representation" and it being "glorified". Maybe the solution is to change the title to something like Public representation of martyrdom in Palestinian society JMWt (talk) 11:13, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and Rename to Martyrdom in Palestinian society or Martyrdom in Palestinian culture as a neutral name for this phenomenon. The topic is clearly notable per WP:GNG. Some bibliography (there are endless more examples):
    • Suicide, Violence, and Cultural Conceptions of Martyrdom in Palestine. By Neil L. Whitehead and Nasser Abufarha
    • "For Palestinians, a Rush to Claim ‘Martyrs’ Killed by Israel". New York Times. By Raja Abdulrahim and Hiba Yazbek. Dec. 31, 2022
    • The Polyvalent Politics of Martyr Commemorations in the Palestinian Intifada. Lori A. Allen.
    • "Martyrdom and national identity". Bassem Eid. March 2008.
    • Female Martyrdom: The Ultimate Embodiment of Islamic Existence? By Rivka Yadlin
    • Martyrdom and Visual Representations of the Palestinian Islamic Movements. Attila Kovács. Marokwitz (talk) 12:56, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Keeping would serve no purpose, as the different article name proposed has a different scope from the current article, better to delete this and start from scratch there. Makeandtoss (talk) 13:17, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I feel there is no real difference as martyrdom is the elevation of the individual to a status of heroism or sanctity - which is by definition "glorification". This is true for martyrs of any society. Marokwitz (talk) 16:23, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It's possible that we can rename, and remove the glorification word, although although as said by Marokwitz glorification kinda comes in with the definition of martyrdom. Regaridng the topic, Martyrdom in a society is worthy of an encyclopedic entry. Homerethegreat (talk) 15:23, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Probably could be written more neutrally but the sources show that this a recognized and studied concept in reliable sources that tie specifically into the national aspect, not just Islam. Maybe rename and deal with some of the neutrality issues. PARAKANYAA (talk) 13:05, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The article could be written better, but it is sourced and the phenomenon is important and well documented. Dovidroth (talk) 13:59, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • TNT or Merge to Shaheed with a sentence or two added into Martyr#Martyrdom in the Middle East -- This article is incredibly fraught with WP:NPOV problems, from the infobox image on down. In my personal view, it appears to be a well-sourced polemical WP:ESSAY filled with WP:OR and WP:SYNTH attacking an entire society for the views of a group within it. However, there is encyclopaedic information buried in the article. A selective merge to Shaheed with a summary sentence in Martyr would allow for a non-POV and non-advocacy article to be maintained. If Merge is not an accepted consensus, I would strongly support a result of WP:TNT. Cheers, Last1in (talk) 15:37, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Well that makes no logical sense given there a) there are many Palestinians that are not Islamic and b) some of them are celebrated as martyrs.
    We can't just merge ideas together because it looks neater in our minds when the facts don't support them being the same thing. JMWt (talk) 16:17, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    You have examples of Christians and Jews treated as Martyrs in Palestine? Please provide them! Otherwise, we are doing exactly what you deplore -- lumping everyone into "Palestinians who glorify martyrdom" when it's untrue. Cheers, Last1in (talk) 17:01, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, you know. This is getting into the weeds of the issue, but it does help if you know what you are talking about - or take the time to research it. Try this source
    Quote "Some martyrs are Muslim, while others are Christian. Some, like the revolutionary icon Ghassan Kanafani, were devout Marxists." Unquote JMWt (talk) 17:09, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    That is not a source I had seen and I find it fascinating. I don't think it's RS, but it's still fascinating and I would bet there are RS sources that support the same view. I will adjust my comment above. Thank you and Cheers, Last1in (talk) 17:22, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep quite a lot of secondayr sources, article seems to be describing in a tone applicable and coherent. If you wish to make more accurate, you can add years. Regarding sources, Ithink they appear to be reliable, can you point to a specific source and explain the problem? Regarding title, it's rather straight to the point... Notable topic. Homerethegreat (talk) 15:49, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep article is amply sourced and as described above, more source have come to light. I'd suggest a rewrite, but we can likely keep the article. Oaktree b (talk) 16:39, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Terrorism, Islam, Israel, and Palestine. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:50, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Not a !vote one way or the other yet, but change the title to remove "Glorification of" from the name. The topic of martyrdom is encyclopedia-worthy, but the current state of the article is a POV-charged mess and will need to be rewritten entirely. I don't question the number of sources discussing the topic more broadly, so I don't know that I can say to do an outright delete on notability. That said, there's a fair case to be made that some TNT could help with the cleanup process. In the meantime, we can at least improve the title.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 17:13, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • !Voting now. TNT delete. I took another look through the article and I don't think what we have is salvageable. The article does have sources, but they're cobbled together (WP:SYNTH, WP:NOR) to form a misleading narrative. To give just one example, there's a whole original research paragraph suggesting that the reason why a large percent of young Palestinians have post traumatic stress disorder is because of the glorification of the concept of martyrdom, as opposed to everything else that's been going on in the Israel-Palestine conflict. Is the topic of martyrdom in Palestinian society notable? Quite possibly. But is this material acceptable? Absolutely not.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 18:59, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Being moved by the arguments that it is not appropriate to have an article about martyrdom in the culture of one specific nation as if it is a uniquely Palestinian phenomenon. I reread the article and it really does come across more as an essay that tries to persuade the reader that a core tenant of Palestinian culture is the brainwashing of one's own child into sacrificing themselves as a martyr. The article at no point mentions that martyrdom of the deceased is common on the Israeli side (or across other cultures as well), or that the broader Israel-Palestine conflict (as opposed to some essential quality of the Palestinian people) could be contributing to the phenomenon of martyrdom. This page only serves to dehumanize a nation. The basic Martyrdom article does a much better job at describing the topic and there is no need to split it into POV forks. I support TNT at a minimum as a middle-ground position between deleting and keeping, but my preference is now to delete with prejudice against recreation.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 20:29, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. If one reads the article and views the sourcing, the notability is obvious and abundantly clear, and AfDing this article based on this reasoning is flat-out wrong. There is room for discussion whether the title is the appropriate one, but that's not for AfD. Longhornsg (talk) 20:59, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: TNT per Last1in and Vanilla Wizard. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:19, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The attitude towards martyrdom in the Palestinian society is indeed a unique phenomenon, which presents itself in the media, education and finances. The phenomenon calls for an article, and I think this article presents it in a coherent, well sourced way. As per the claims of Makeandtoss:
  1. The article is structured and coherent.
  2. Sources are reliable: the largest group of sources is that of scholarly articles in respectful journals. To count a few: Journal of Political Ideologies, Studies in Conflict & Terrorism, Journal of Middle Eastern and Islamic Studies, Social Research, Security Studies, Terrorism and Political Violence... These are clearly secondary sources, and they make up the foundation of the article. There are some citations of global media such as CNN and AP News
  3. Some sources are Israeli. Counting, they are definitely not the majority. -GidiD (talk) 12:53, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I see no reason to delete the article. I wrote it after I came across the fact that there is a wide and in-depth academic literature dealing with this important topic. As with every new article I create, I'm always happy to have additional editors help improve and expand the entry, and add additional perspectives. Eladkarmel (talk) 18:11, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This article is completely biased, misleading, and has no place on Wikipedia. The phenomenon of glorifying martyrdom is not limited to the Palestinian community, as depicted in Israeli narratives. For instance, the dead of the Zionist bands like Lehi and Irgun are called "martyrs" and memorials are dedicated to them in Israel. Dl.thinker (talk) 22:10, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as first choice, remove "glorification of" as second choice. As Dl.thinker says, all societies glorify their own "martyrs". The soldier who volunteers for a mission with little chance of return is universally lauded as a hero. The literature on this particular example consists mostly of Zionist authors using it to dehumanise Palestinians. We should not buy into it. Zerotalk 22:31, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - possibly rename This seems to be a well researched and attested phenomena to a particular region, but perhaps a less editorial or leading title would serve us better. Perhaps "Culture of martyrdom in Palestinian Society" or "history of martyrdom culture in Palestinian Society" or "history of martyrdom veneration in Palestinian Society"...possibly a few more options in that direction.
I also don't like some of the tone of the current piece in places and would sift through it to ensure it is properly neutral where needed, but not enough to eliminate the piece altogether imo.
Also - *perhaps* this could be folded into the martyrdom page, but I'm concerned as to how short and cursory that page is at present. Mistamystery (talk) 06:16, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and rename to Martyrdom in Palestinian society. No particular concern, other than the name. "Glorification of" can already be deleted in this discussion. Dropping this is concensual. Whether it should be Martyrdom in Palestinian society or in culture, or another word order as above, is already a secondary concern and should be debated on the talk page. If we partially change the name now something good would have come of this AfD after all. gidonb (talk) 13:29, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and rename to Martyrdom in Palestinian society. This is a well-documented and well-studied cultural topic. Zanahary (talk) 20:31, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, the article is well-sourced and presents a historical perspective to the ongoing conflict. Cloud200 (talk) 21:01, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, goodness knows why, but I was WP:CANVASSED by email to oppose the deletion of this article by Zapdungar. I have no way of knowing whether I was the only one or why I was chosen. Pincrete (talk) 22:10, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Seems that the Zapdungar account has been blocked indefinitely as a sockpuppet account, with the block log showing the account is believed to be one of more than 286 alts of User:AndresHerutJaim, whose use of Wikipedia since 2011 has been exclusively to promote a particular perspective on articles related to the Arab-Israeli conflict. I was not expecting there to be such a deep rabbithole to this user's prolonged illegitimate use of the encyclopedia. I certainly hope this AFD hasn't been tainted by canvassing attempts.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 06:42, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh you sweet summer child, that ship has already sailed. nableezy - 18:03, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I suppose an another way I could've phrased that was "I hope the !votes we have so far are legitimate", just trying to assume good faith, but this certainly complicates things. Now whoever closes this gets to deal with not only the obligatory checking-to-make-sure-everyone-is-extended-confirmed job that comes with any Arab-Israeli internal !vote, but also ensuring the !votes aren't canvassed, and I honestly have no idea how one could even tell.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 00:25, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, the article is definitely relevant to the ongoing conflict. Glorification of martyrdom in Palestinian society is well documented not only on the article itself but in many news articles I've seen on the conflict. An example is : https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2023/7/14/why-do-some-palestinian-teens-in-jenin-dream-of-martyrdom Vincenty846 (talk) 05:25, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    That al Jazeera article is not about glorification of martyrdom, it's mainly about the lack of any kind of future among these young refugees as a response to a grim past and present: His comments reflect a belief among many young people in Jenin that fighting the occupation is their main purpose in life. Faced with a lack of prospects for the future, in the eyes of young people here, resistance is the only way to confront a reality in which Israeli soldiers breach their homes, arrest their parents, and even kill their friends or relatives. Pincrete (talk) 06:28, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Quote: "The teenagers did not hesitate when asked what they aspired to be when they grew up. “Martyrs,” they said in unison, referring to the term used by Palestinians to describe anyone killed by Israelis." Is aspiring and dreaming to become "martyrs" not a sign of glorification?
    Is a picture of hanging "supersized banners bearing the portraits of martyrs" in the article (https://www.aljazeera.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/DSF3255-1-1689160316.jpg?w=770&resize=770%2C513&quality=80) not clear photographic evidence of glorification of those martyrs?
    I am not referring to the main context of the article in itself; but I am referring to the clear signs that "martyrdom" is being glorified in Palestinian society based on statements from those children and photographic evidence put in the example article. Vincenty846 (talk) 08:06, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Is aspiring and dreaming to become "martyrs" not a sign of glorification? actually no, and certainly not as a distinctly Palestinian trait. If you asked the youth in certain areas of Northern Ireland during the Troubles or those in South Africa during the challenge to Apartheid, the answer would have been much the same. What that says is much more about what those who see themselves as fighting for their freedom than it says about Palestinians as such. I happen to have been reading this weekend some of the writings of imprisoned Irgun members in the years leading up to 1948. The extent to which those members 'readied themselves' for what they saw as their probable fate - the noose or death in combat - was quite chilling. Survivors and future generations honoured them of course. What we have here is another manifestation of "one man's heroic freedom fighter is another man's psychopathic fanatic terrorist with a death-wish". Pincrete (talk) 08:38, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, I disagree. I don’t care if it is not a “distinctly” Palestinian trait since that is not the main point of what is being discussed here. The degree to which such “Martyrdom” is venerated in Palestinian society in itself is very notable and very relevant to current events; hence my support to keep the article.
    If anyone would like to make articles about “Glorification of Martyrdom in Apartheid South Africa” or “Glorification of IRA Martyrdom in Ireland during the Troubles” they are very welcome to do so if they think those topics are very notable. Vincenty846 (talk) 11:56, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I don’t care if it is not a “distinctly” Palestinian trait - you have to if you are describing Glorification of martyrdom in Palestinian society, rather than "Glorification of martyrdom in human beings" or "Glorification of martyrdom in national resistance groups" or even "Glorification of martyrdom in nations who see themselves as under threat". Much of the article is WP:OR, simply pointing to 'examples' of violent deeds and extrapolating from that a general death-wish/death-cult trait among a whole population. Since long before Boudica, those who are seen as fighting oppression tend to get lionised in very two-dimensional ways. Pincrete (talk) 14:57, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • TNT The article does have sources, but they're cobbled together (WP:SYNTH, WP:NOR) to form a misleading narrative. per Vanilla Wizard. Plus The phenomenon of glorifying martyrdom is not limited to the Palestinian community, as depicted in Israeli narratives. For instance, the dead of the Zionist bands like Lehi and Irgun are called "martyrs" As one might add are Steve Biko and Bobby Sands. If there is an article to be written about attitudes to martyrdom (which incidentally seems to have a broader definition in Palestine) - this is not it. The article also seems more interested in giving - what the writer appears to see as particularly offensive - examples of 'martyrs' being celebrated than in actually detailing the attitude to martyrdom.Pincrete (talk) 08:45, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
TNT - as variously described above by others, this is a shoddily constructed, attack-like article cobbled together out of dated, weak scholarship, news and other lesser sources to present a clearly POV narrative under an equally deficient title. Far removed from an encyclopedic build of a topic from the best sources -- composed as it is in the reverse of such a manner -- unpicking the issues would be a more monumental task than starting it afresh, hence TNT. Iskandar323 (talk) 19:10, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename (remove “Glorification of”) and STARTOVER - the article does reference at least six scholarly sources on the topic, and there are probably more so there does appear to be academic research on the topic:
    1. Hatina, M. (2005). Theology and power in the Middle East: Palestinian martyrdom in a comparative perspective. Journal of Political Ideologies, 10(3), 241–267. doi:10.1080/13569310500244289
    2. Meir Litvak (2010) “Martyrdom is Life”: Jihad and Martyrdom in the Ideology of Hamas, Studies in Conflict & Terrorism, 33:8, 716–734, DOI: 10.1080/1057610X.2010.494170
    3. Daphne Burdman (2003) Education, indoctrination, and incitement: Palestinian children on their way to martyrdom, Terrorism and Political Violence, 15:1, 96-123, DOI: 10.1080/09546550312331292977
    4. Loadenthal, M. (2014). Reproducing a Culture of Martyrdom: The Role of the Palestinian Mother in Discourse Construction, Transmission, and Legitimization. In D. Cooper & C. Phelan (Eds.), Motherhood and war: International perspectives (pp. 183, 197). New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
    5. Bilal Tawfiq Hamamra (2020) Mothers of martyrs: Rethinking Shakespeare’s Volumnia’s collective motherhood from a Palestinian perspective, Psychodynamic Practice, 26:3, 248–259, DOI: 10.1080/14753634.2020.1762715
    6. Franke, L. (2014, April). The Discursive Construction of Palestinian istishhādiyyāt within the Frame of Martyrdom. In Martyrdom in the Modern Middle East (pp. 190–191, 193–195, 200). Ergon-Verlag
The article would need rewrite to be more comprehensive, accurate, unbiased, and neutral, and more scholarly references would need to be used. There has been research published on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict from social psychology perspectives, as well.
Also I was not canvassed; my Wiki email is disabled. Wh15tL3D09N (talk) 22:04, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Bilal Tawfiq Hamamra's Mothers of martyrs: Rethinking Shakespeare’s Volumnia’s collective motherhood from a Palestinian perspective, is a study written by a drama and English lecturer! The study covers how Hamamra presents Shakespeare’s Coriolanus - and specifically Coriolanus' mother Volumnia - to modern Palestinian students. It is the main source for most of the 'Perceptions of motherhood' section (though much claimed to be sourced to the study isn't actually in it and is WP:SYNTHED so as to appear sourced).
The study is an interesting 'take' on parallels between a Shakespeare play/society and a modern situation, but PLEASE - a scholarly sources on the topic of Palestinian mother's attitude to martyrdom. Would we cite Hamlet scholars to support modern Danish societal attitudes? Pincrete (talk) 07:47, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That’s interesting. I wonder how it even got published in ‘Psychodynamic Practice’. Wh15tL3D09N (talk) 08:12, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It may be making a huge contribution to ‘Psychodynamic Practice’ or to the teaching of Shakespeare to Palestinians. That doesn't make it a meaningful study of ' 'Perceptions of motherhood' in Palestinian society - certainly not THE meaningful study around which to craft a section. Pincrete (talk) 16:22, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I was just on the Suicide attack Wiki page, and it has a section on martyrdom: “Clerics have supported suicide attacks largely in connection with the Palestinian issue. Prominent Sunni cleric Yusuf al-Qaradawi had previously supported such attacks by Palestinians in perceived defense of their homeland as heroic and an act of resistance.
[1]
”
Wiki page:
Suicide attack#Support for "martyrdom operations"
Thank you, Makeandtoss, for opening this discussion. If this issue actually has any validity based on reality and research, to take a leaf out of your book, it probably shouldn’t be censored. Wh15tL3D09N (talk) 15:39, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So if anyone is interested, here is a book I found by Nasser Abufarha that touches on martyrdom in Palestinian resistance: https://www.theleftberlin.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/The_Making_of_a_Human_Bomb_An_Ethnograph.pdf
It does appear there is encouragement of martyrdom culture through amaliyyat fida’iyya (operations of self-sacrifice), al-’amal al- istishhadi (the work of martyrdom), and istishhad (dying in martyrdom) that arises from social psychological, cultural and political reasons, but the book focuses more on the historical and political backdrop of Israeli occupation. It probably could be used to provide a more balanced perspective/article on martyrdom in Palestine. Wh15tL3D09N (talk) 22:23, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ David Bukay (2008). From Muhammad to Bin Laden: Religious and Ideological Sources of the Homicide Bombers Phenomenon. Transaction Publishers. pp. 295–. ISBN 978-0-7658-0390-0. Retrieved August 19, 2012.
  • Delete - per Zero. There is nothing inherently Palestinian about "glorification of martyrs". Indeed, Israel honors its fallen soldiers as national heroes, so do most countries, armed groups, or ethnic or religious groups. This article is, to be blunt, an exercise in propaganda. It seeks to otherize what is a near universal phenomena. Every war memorial on the planet is a "glorification of martyrs". But, as has been a recurring theme in new creations in this topic, this article seeks to create an emphatically POV spin on something that applies to all parties and pretending like it only applies to one. And it should not be allowed. I doubt it wont be, given the predictable canvassing that has likewise been endemic in this topic area, but it shouldnt be. nableezy - 22:26, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    There's significant difference between fallen soldier and suicide bombers who blow themselves up among civilians. Cloud200 (talk) 22:35, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I can promise you that your unsourced personal views on this topic are not something I am interested in reading. Kindly go share them elsewhere. But, for the record, that glorification in Palestinian society extends to the children killed in bombing by Israel, who they consider among their martyrs. But you wouldnt know that if you read this propaganda screed pretending to be an article, because it doesnt try to explain a topic it tries to prove a point. nableezy - 22:53, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    And it also extends to children who are willing to execute suicide attacks when they grow up. Notably, al-Aqsa Martyrs' Brigades are responsible for a number of suicide attacks, matching their official name. Cloud200 (talk) 20:17, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    If you wish to dismiss these as "Jewish propaganda", here's Hamas own leaders speaking of "We salute the Jihad-fighting Palestinian woman, who tends to the martyr and tends to her husband, and perhaps will become a martyr herself" about a suicide bomber (and much more) Cloud200 (talk) 20:20, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    MEMRI is also a propaganda outlet, so point very much not made. Iskandar323 (talk) 20:28, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    lol I dont think you understood what I wrote, but I dont really see the point of explaining it to you. But for anybody who isnt approaching this with the most racist framing they can conjure (oh hey, there are camps for children to play IDF soldier! omg omg omg), shaheed (martyr) is used in Palestine for any person killed by Israel or fighting against Israel. See for example al-Jazeera: about 10,600 martyred in Gaza since the start of the war, 40% of them children. The now 6,000 children killed in Gaza the last two months are all martyrs in Palestinian society and they are all indeed glorified as such. This drivel that is being pushed in the afd and the article is propaganda, pure and simple, it is a biased and incomplete telling with some tidbits of truth mixed told in a way to push an untrue narrative. Maybe when this is over an actual article could be created, but it wont be based on this garbage. But also, please dont place quotes around things people never said, it is quite dishonest. nableezy - 20:52, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Nableezy What is exactly "incomplete" here? That Hamas and ISIS routinely use *suicide* bombings and praise their executors as martyrs? That they brainwashed and drugged people to participate in suicidal attacks against civilians? You say Hamas calls martyrs "any person killed by Israel". Does that also extend to any person by Hamas own rockets falling short in Gaza? As for "killed by Israel", you're also not telling the whole truth - Hamas uses civilians as human shield, without asking them if they want to participate or not. How does it make any better that they then praise them as "martyrs"? They're dead specifically because Hamas decides e.g. to place rocket launchers in residential buildings, specifically because they know there will be a response. Cloud200 (talk) 14:49, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    No, I did not say Hamas calls martyrs any person killed by Israel. If you are unable to read what I wrote the first time I dont see the point in explaining it a second time. Please dont ping me again with this level of inanity. Thanks in advance. nableezy - 14:51, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    This is what you wrote just a few lines above: "shaheed (martyr) is used in Palestine for any person killed by Israel or fighting against Israel." Cloud200 (talk) 10:19, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Now see if you cant tell the difference between is used in Palestine for any person killed by Israel or fighting against Israel. and You say Hamas calls martyrs "any person killed by Israel". nableezy - 14:12, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:RS/P: The reliability of MEMRI is considered to lie between no consensus and generally unreliable. Many editors argue that MEMRI has a history of providing misleading coverage.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 20:59, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or TNT and rename to Martyrdom in Palestinian society. Martyrdom is a major aspect of Palestinian life under Israeli occupation, but it isn't unusual for oppressed peoples to """glorify""" their martyrs. The article itself insults and blames Palestinians for something they can't control (oftentimes being their only chance to better their situation). It also explains the motives of martyrdom as simply being due to the Palestinians' religion, an absolutely childish reduction. Salmoonlight (talk) 22:33, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep article + keep name. the Glorification of martyrs exists in Palestinian society and is well documented. It even caused International incidents. No reason to delete article. P.S. use of the term "TNT" in this context leaves bad taste. TaBaZzz (talk) 08:30, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the article and improve any problems that it has incrementally. I don't see obviously unreliable sources. User Vanilla_Wizard wrote that the content regarding the PTSD is OR but it's clearly not since a scholarly article is cited. Several editors noted that the article presents a misleading narrative without producing evidence thereof.
The main argument for deleting the article seems to be that every society glorifies its fallen heroes. This is true, but this doesn't mean that it's not a valid topic for an article. Each society does it in a different way and these differences are notable. To take the Soviet Union as a example (it's more distant in time and won't be as controversial, I hope), the fallen soldiers (real or fabricated) were definitely glorified, especially if they took many enemies with them. On the other hand, the violence against civilians was not usually celebrated (unless the said civilians were various enemies of the people - it's complicated) and instead was often denied. Also, the major difference is the role of religion vs ideology. Alaexis¿question? 09:34, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Have you checked the sources? The paragraph I used as an example of the article's problematic nature cites two sources. Let's take a cursory glance at what we're citing. The first is from one Daphne Burdman of the "politically neo-conservative" think tank Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs. Just from that information alone I sincerely hope I don't have to describe how Burdman is not offering neutral or reliable work from an academic perspective. I would argue that Burdman's article titled (in all caps) "HATRED OF THE JEWS AS A PSYCHOLOGICAL PHENOMENON IN PALESTINIAN SOCIETY" with the opening abstract stating that the Palestinian nation hates the Jews for three reasons - 1) because the Quran tells them to, 2) because of extremist Islamic militancy, and 3) because Yasser Arafat indoctrinated all the children to do so - immediately disqualifies any and all work of hers on the encyclopedia. Let's maybe not use ahistorical rants from a hard right pro-settlement think tank as an "academic" source on an article about the Arab-Israeli conflict. Is that too much to ask? Am I being too picky by wanting better sources than that?
The second source, from what I can find, doesn't even seem to mention what the article cites it for. Granted, for all I know it might be buried somewhere deep in the full version which costs $60 to view. Given the tragic state of the rest of the article, I wouldn't bet money on that, figuratively or literally in this case.
Take a look at the rest of the sources, too. I'll preface this by saying: yes, we at least have a couple sources that should be fine, there's one from CNN and one from AP, no qualms with that. But sources that pass WP:RS for either notability or indeed verifiability are few and far between, and sufficiently neutral ones are near impossible to come by. Is anyone really going to argue that the Zionist Organization of America is a "neutral, reliable, secondary source"? The article also cites the "World Security Network", an organization I can find no information on, and whose website I can't access because Firefox flagged their website as (ironically) a security risk. Any analysis of the sources that goes beyond merely skimming them will reveal that the citations are a mix of heavily biased think tanks, foreign ministries, random miscellaneous potentially-unsafe websites, and various Israeli media outlets, the lattermost somehow being the least unreliable or biased ones in the article despite many of them being from a conservative slanted publication. It's not enough for a citation to "look academic" or be on a research website, that alone does not make it RS. It could have all the superficial professionalism in the world, that doesn't change that it very well might be from an incredibly disreputable and biased think-tank, organization, and/or author. This dumpster-fire of an article does not meet RS by any stretch of the imagination.
 Vanilla  Wizard 💙 18:21, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure that your arguments re the reliability of sources are based on the policy. If Daphne Burdman's article were published on the site of the think-tank she works for, I would agree with you, but it was published in Terrorism and Political Violence peer-reviewed journal.
As for the second example, I couldn't find it in the article as well and tagged the sentence.
The Zionist Ogranization of America is clearly biased, but it doesn't mean they are unreliable (WP:BIASED). In one case when it's cited, it's easy to confirm that Yahya Ayyash street exists using google maps (https://maps.app.goo. gl/fHQMUobM4wZVX9sE8 - remove a space in the URL, for some reason it blocks the original one). This is the archived version of the WSN website, so at the very least it's not a hoax.
The article could definitely use some work but overall the topic is notable and the sourcing is not stellar but fixable. Alaexis¿question? 20:25, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It is true that even a clearly biased organization can be used in certain contexts for verifiability, but this also puts the notability of the material into question. See NPOV § Bias in sources: This does not mean any biased source must be used; it may well serve an article better to exclude the material altogether. If all we're looking to establish is verifiability, we might as well use Google Maps directly. But if we want to establish that there is due weight to mention individual examples of an individual being made a martyr, we're going to need better sources.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 20:42, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's fair enough, if no one except for the Zionist Organization of America mentions it, this particular event shouldn't be in the article. Possibly it's better to merge the notable individual events into the relevant sections. Alaexis¿question? 10:04, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Meets GNG per sources in article and listed above. Ample soucing showing WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth from a variety of WP:IS WP:RS. Oppose rename, current name meets WP:PRECISE, proposed change would alter the topic of the article to a different subject.  // Timothy :: talk  11:24, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and Rename - "Glorification" not necessary. I'd agree with some of the above points regarding sourcing (that some of the current sources do not meet RS), but there are enough good sources to establish notability. OhNoitsJamie Talk 20:47, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep of course. Moe than a notable topic. One may read the Koran which has martyrs as well. (Some misread Koran assuming that martyrs will get 72 virgins but in reality those are just grapes as one can check in Aramaic). Not sure if we need "Glorification" though. With regards, Oleg Y. (talk) 01:57, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - There is nothing uniquely Palestinian about what is said here that does not already have an article. We already have Istishhad (essentially, seeking martyrdom, which before 7 October already had #Contemporary significance), Shaheed (which as of 26 November 2023 grew its own "Glorification of martyrdom in Palestinian society" section, but before 7 October already had #Modern_usage), and Palestinian Authority Martyrs Fund (the arguably uniquely Palestinian aspect of this topic). What else is there to talk about? The intent of the article appears to be to say "Palestinians honor fallen soldiers" (see Yom HaZikaron) in the language of "Palestinians revel in death", which is, to say the least, not neutral. --Orgullomoore (talk) 20:22, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: and fix NPOV issues. There's sufficient RS to establish notability, and more encyclopedic information than could comfortably fit into Shaheed#Glorification_of_martyrdom_in_Palestinian_society as a section. "Too biased" is a good reason to rewrite, not to delete. Owen× ☎ 15:19, 9 December 2023 (UTC) ...and Rename per all. I suspect this article would have received more support had it been named more NPOVly. Owen× ☎ 13:21, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 15:35, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • I do like the suggestion to broaden the scope to the broader Arab-Israeli conflict instead of singling out a nationality like the current version does. That would certainly help.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 19:30, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I also agree that broadening the scope would be a good direction for this article. GnocchiFan (talk) 22:02, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: According to Nasser Abufarha, there are cultural conceptions and dynamics that underlie the motivations of violence through suicide: "martyrdom is mediated through cultural forms" and "acts of violence are already legitimate and culturally appropriate forms of resistance in Palestine." He wrote a whole book about it. The martyrdom phenomenon in Palestinian society is unique though, both in its relation to Israel and in its education system, which is having an impact on children. According to this article https://www.haaretz.com/middle-east-news/palestinians/2023-12-12/ty-article-magazine/.premium/how-unrwa-became-the-second-most-important-organization-in-gaza/0000018c-5deb-d798-adac-fdefaf450000 Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Morocco have decided to "improve their societies by means of educating toward moderation and peace" while Palestine has decided "to turn education into a strategic tool for violence and raise a young generation of shahids." Here is the impact on children as evident by their quotes on what they learn in schools: "They teach us that the Zionists are our enemy and we must fight them," says one 12-year-old boy. Another says: "They teach us that [Jews] are bad people. They killed our young." Another boy says: "I'm ready to stab a Jew and drive [a car] over them." Another says: "We have to constantly stab them, drive over them and shoot them." Yet another adds: "Stabbing and running over the Jews brings dignity to the Palestinians. I'm going to run them over and stab them with knives." A 6-year-old girl, meanwhile, says: "People love Palestine and they are ready to die for Palestine. I want to fight against them [the Jews] and to defeat them in war." Shir Zablodovsky in the article states that the education is "causing children to want to commit suicide...If the people had free will, they would probably not choose to be shahids. But you're born into that, and all they keep repeating to you from childhood is not how to improve your life but how to harm others in order to achieve redemption." Wh15tL3D09N (talk) 02:54, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Also GnocchiFan has made the lead more neutral, and I have added to the Background to make it more comprehensive (and added in some Palestinian POV about the significance of their land, historical significance of the Battle of Karameh, their desire for the peace process and independence, how they are willing to sacrifice their blood for the land.) and taken out the Wikipedia:Synth. The article is more neutral than what it started out as originally. Wh15tL3D09N (talk) 03:35, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Wh15tL3D09N: Suicide bombing itself seems to have mostly stopped? Obviously other groups still do it, but I have not heard of many reliable reports of it from Palestine from the past decade or so (I've not heard of ANY reliable reports but I obviously might have missed some). The militants are willing to RISK death but they mostly (at least 99.9% of them) intend to stay alive and keep fighting as long as possible, they are vastly more likely to have a gun or rocket launcher (and body armor if they can access it) than a suicide vest. Irtapil (talk) 15:55, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Irtapil: This is pure speculation, but I think I has something to do with the West Bank barrier. You bring up a good point, Nasser Abufarha’s book, The Making of a Human Bomb, was published in 2009. He probably wrote it during the Second Intifada because in his book he writes how suicide bombings are increasing. It is definitely good to look at the date of publication for sources because research can become outdated with new information or change in circumstances. Wh15tL3D09N (talk) 17:50, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The topic is covered in-depth here, here, here, and elsewhere. Rename "Palestinian martyrdom" or "Martyrdom and Palestine". 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 21:37, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for linking these scholarly articles: I've added them to the refimprove section on the talk page so that (if this article is kept) we have good grounds to make this more neutral. GnocchiFan (talk) 12:41, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and rename - Martyrdom in Palestinian culture or preferably Martyrdom in Palestinian language and culture (see discussion). This article should exist, but with a neutral non-judgemental perspective. I have not read it thoroughly yet, but the content seems like a reasonable start, other than the sensationalist and judgmental current title. "Language" should probably be added to the scope, since concepts like translations of شهدي in English and foreign news would be important to include. (I think that's not quite the right word, my Arabic vocab is small and my grammar is non-existent. That root by itself means "witness" and is used as a prefix to some news reports, but I think that's also the word used to talk about people who died in war?) Importantly I only recently learned that the word and concept applies not only to deaths in combat, but also innocent victims of war. It is a thing I obviously don't fully understand, but that I - and most other English speakers following the news - would definitely benefit from understanding. Irtapil (talk) 15:40, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus‎. If the fate of this page is not obvious after the closure of the pending requested move, then the page may return to AfD. But the outcome of the requested move, in this case, must be determined first. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 16:56, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Howard River (disambiguation)[edit]

Howard River (disambiguation) (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:TWODABS situation. Could not find any other Howard Rivers to disambiguate. (t · c) buidhe 17:44, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hinemoatū River is shorter and has a much lower population nearby than Howard River. Therefore it should be regarded as at least as important as the Australian river which shares its alternative name. Johnragla (talk) 19:09, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hinemoatū River is shorter and has a much lower population nearby than Howard River. Therefore it should be regarded as at least as important as the Australian river which shares its alternative name. Johnragla (talk) 19:09, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If there are two topics and one is primary, hatnotes should be used instead of a dab page. see WP:TWODABS. (t · c) buidhe 19:11, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Which is primary and why? Johnragla (talk) 19:28, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Currently Hinemoatū / Howard River is regarded as the primary topic of "Howard River". I don't have an opinion whether there is a primary topic but if not, the dab page should have been created at Howard River, not Howard River (disambiguation). (t · c) buidhe 19:33, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree. That's what I created. Johnragla (talk) 19:35, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    You didn't, that's why we're here. Look at the page header. (t · c) buidhe 19:42, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    BilledMammal why did you move the dab page to a policy-noncompliant title? Do you have information on which is the primary topic? If you thought the NZ river was the primary topic you should have reverted and added a hatnote, not moved the dab page. (t · c) buidhe 21:37, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The dab page, and Howard River, Northern Territory, were created in the middle of an RM where Howard River was proposed as a target, by an editor who opposed the move. Rather than allowing this to disrupt the RM that was already in progress, I felt it was better to maintain the status quo and allow the RM to proceed as proposed.
    I did originally redirect, but there was some confusion around that with some reverts that felt like they were for unrelated reasons, so I ended up just moving it here. BilledMammal (talk) 22:42, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    BilledMammal If there is indeed no primary topic then it would be incorrect to complete the move because the proposed target is the unmarked "Howard River" title. That's not "disruption", it's improving the encyclopedia. I'd like to see some evidence as to what the primary topic is. (t · c) buidhe 22:50, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I would suggest that creating - not raising, creating - an additional issue to be considered half way through an RM is disruptive. Better to let the RM play out, and then consider this issue later.
    Plus, once we have determined what the WP:COMMONNAME is WP:NZNC provides very clear instructions on how to disambiguate a title; given that, an informal discussion should be sufficient to determine if the topic we have considered primary for the past fifteen years is not, in fact, primary - although like you I would want to see evidence in that informal discussion. BilledMammal (talk) 23:17, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:20, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    ●Wait Until RM is Completed-- per BilledMammal 😎😎PaulGamerBoy360😎😎 (talk) 15:15, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do nothing until the RM concludes per BilledMammal. NmWTfs85lXusaybq (talk) 04:31, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: WP:TWODABS states, "if an ambiguous term has no primary topic, then that term needs to lead to a disambiguation page. In other words, where no topic is primary, the disambiguation page is placed at the base name." There is no primary topic, this should be a DAB.  // Timothy :: talk  00:06, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    In that case it should be moved to "Howard River". I'm fine with that but that's a move not a keep outcome. (t · c) buidhe 00:14, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: both targets seem to have equal notability, which means we need a DAB rather than a hatnote. The DAB should be fixed to place both on equal footing, rather than showing the NZ location as the primary and the Australian one as a "may also refer to". Owen× ☎ 14:06, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The related RM is still open, although there's enough opposition there that a successful move appears unlikely.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 15:32, 9 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 16:35, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kento Masuda[edit]

Kento Masuda (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 wp:ja page was recently deleted, citing "non-notable musician". At a glance, the page is filled out, has lots of references, yet is clearly promotional in tone. Two editors having made a huge proportion of the edits are fairly clearly SPA/promotional; one has a username in the Georgian alphabet, currently blocked for paid editing, the other (newer) has a username in the Hebrew alphabet. There is a whole web of articles, including Kentoverse, Loved One (album), All in the Silence, perhaps more. Everything I look at is sourced to blogs, unknown "Awards" sites, and similar ("We sell fame and fortune", one said). Apart from the music, he claims notability as a "European nobleman", but this refers to well-known paid-for bogus titles. There are also plenty of photographs of him "with" various supposedly famous people, but see the deletion discussion for Klaes Nobel. I suggest that anyone wanting to suggest Keep, should start with any single event, album or whatever, and investigate the chain of references. Imaginatorium (talk) 15:31, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Michitaro, Nuraa.sinora, Loriendrew, Kaori Muraji, and Tal Essen: Pinging other editors who have made significant edits to this or the related article Hiroko Tsuji (musician). Imaginatorium (talk) 19:21, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • It seems like Kaori Muraji and Tal Essen are both sockpuppets of Oruguro, who was one of the main editors behind this article: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Orugoro. I thought this article was suspicious from the start, but going through all the "citations" would not be easy. I think it is clear, from searches in Japanese, that there are no reliable sources in Japanese that can be used to prove notability. Michitaro (talk) 21:56, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for noticing my post from six months ago (Talk:Kento Masuda#Dubious claim). I do not know the deletion policy of the English Wikipedia, but I'd like to agree with the deletion of this page.Nuraa.sinora (talk) 14:11, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Stubify to borderline delete – I am not even sure where to start on this. Twisted truths fill this article:
    • sole player of the one million dollar Crystal Grand Piano: five were made
    • nobleman of Europe and Asia: what does this even mean? Appears to be purchased credentials
    • a voting member of The Recording Academy: not in source, he may be a member of NARAS like many others, but voting ability is not sourced
    • Maestro to the Vatican, UN Ambassador, etc.: all unreliably sourced
    • Awards: all but two are non-notable (do not have wiki articles)
There may be some valid BLP content once all the above-type promotional tone is removed, the glaring MOS issues (flag icons, etc.) and the list of purchased titles and honours is excised. The album articles may not meet NALBUM either, as they are non-charting with only questionably notable awards. What will be left will be very stubby and would barely meet GNG (does not meet WP:MUSICBIO). May review further in a day or two.--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 02:13, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your contribution. I wasn't sure how to approach this: I could have gone through removing claims one by one until nothing is left, but that is a lot of work. I think in the end it is better to leave the article as is; then editors can try tracking any one of the claims that might look plausible. It appears to me that the whole article has been generated by a bad-faith process; it is not just a few baseless flaky claims, there are chains of references all ending up at paid-for or blog sites. And in the end, if stubified it would just say "Kento Masuda is a Japanese pianist" with no sources, which might lead to endless effort hunting for such sources. Imaginatorium (talk) 15:38, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I have reviewed other Wikimedia projects and found a pattern where the articles about Kento Masuda appear to have been created by puppets. This pattern suggests possible promotion efforts, and I understand that this article is in violation of the anti-self-promotion policies. As we have delayed in detecting the problem, following the deletion policy, we should opt for deletion, as per item 8 of the reasons for deletion. Eduardo (talk) 19:05, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus‎ and I don't see an additional relist bringing on anything other than split input Star Mississippi 16:33, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Auburn–UAB men's basketball rivalry[edit]

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

Subject does not meet WP:NRIVALRY due to a lack of significant, independent WP:SIGCOV. Let'srun (talk) 21:47, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep as I added another source to the article from AL.com (major news source in Alabama) talking about the rivalry. It looks like other sources have been added since too. AuburnShuffle (talk) 02:21, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Esolo5002 (talk) 07:29, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Here's a look at the sources, in the order in which they appear in the article: Auburn Tigers fansite (not an independent source); seems to call every competition Auburn's teams have a "rivalry": "Auburn has a lot of rivals. The Iron Bowl .... The Auburn/Alabama rivalry is .... Auburn has great rivalries with Georgia, Florida, and Tennessee. ... Today, we're going to talk about one of Auburn's great but severely undervalued rivalries, UAB Basketball." So, this is basically meaningless opinion-mongering, and explicitly trying to promote as a rivalry something not generally recognized as a rivalry. Second source is an unrecoverable dead link. Next, no mention of rivalry. Fourth: ditto, and laments the lack of games between the two schools. Next even says "Both UAB and Auburn have a rich basketball history" but mentions no rivaly, despite covering a four-game non-league (exhibition) game series between them. No. 7 mentions no rivalry, and is just a listing of games available on WatchESPN streaming. Next, no mention of a rivalry, just coverage of a game's highlights. 9th source: Ditto. Last: Says "Auburn and UAB aren’t annual rivals", and "the budding in-state rivals"; i.e., it is trying to predict that a noteworthy rivalry might develop.
    It's become clear after half-a-dozen or so of these alleged-rivalry AfDs that what is happening here is that various editors are engaging in the WP:OR that if a series of games is set up between two institutions that this necessarily translates, as if by magic, into "a rivalry" in some encyclopedic sense, but this is clearly not the case. There is no in-depth coverage anywhere of any such rivalry existing, as a WP:Notable subject unto itself, between these two schools, or any of others in the similar AfDs. See, e.g., Liverpool F.C.–Manchester United F.C. rivalry for what an actually notable sports rivalry looks like, with significant in-depth coverage of the rivalry as "a thing" (with articles like "Manchester United vs Liverpool rivalry in 65 iconic images", "Liverpool v Manchester United: The bitter rivalry", "Man United v Liverpool rivalry in quotes", "Rival Fans Vandalise Old Trafford", etc., in major newspapers), not just passing mention of the word rivalry interspersed with some stats and some individual game coverage. A sports rivalry is a small subculture unto itself which can be written about as its own subject, not just the bare fact of two teams playing some games against each other (even if a sponspor pins a promotional name on the game series).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  10:46, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I feel like you are misunderstanding the point being made in the first source. Auburn is mainly known for football and has a lot of rivalries due to its long football history. In men's basketball, that is not the case, and many who are new to following the team may not have realized that UAB (a team that is not very significant to Auburn in football) has much more history with Auburn in men's basketball. The source itself is obviously a fansite so it doesn't meet the criteria but I think the rundown is good enough to be worth including in the article anyway.
    Also, all of the games between Auburn and UAB are regular season, non-exhibition games. Are you familiar with how the college basketball season is structured?
    And, frankly, if your criteria for a valid college basketball rivalry is one that garners equally significant coverage as a Premier League rivalry, then you may as well have almost all of the rest removed. AuburnShuffle (talk) 20:14, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    A website suggesting that some basketball competitions might turn into a "rivalry" to, um, rival that in football isn't encyclopedic material, per WP:NOT#CRYSTALBALL. And, yes, most of the rest of the articles on the alleged "rivalries" should be deleted. That's why they're all coming up for AfD. All sport competition involves "rivalry" of a general nature, pretty much by definition, but "a rivalry" as thing unto itself is not encyclopedia material unless there is a lot of significant, independent, and non-local coverage. Otherwise it's like writing about local bands and restaurants.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  16:35, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as this rivalry – defined not only as a "rivalry" in the "competitive" sense, but also as an annual series of official matchups –– meets WP:GNG. A quick WP:BEFORE search would have revealed many in-depth sources over a WP:SUSTAINED period of time (several of which have now been added to this article): "UAB, Auburn Begin Friendly Cage Rivalry" (about the first game in 1982); "Auburn, UAB renew entertaining rivalry" (1986); "Eagles: AU–UAB is healthy" (1990); "It's time to get reacquainted – Auburn–UAB: old rivalry, new faces" (1994); and "Lots of firsts should add a touch of drama to Auburn–UAB rivalry" (1996). Understand that not everyone likes basketball, sports, Alabama, or sports rivalry/match series articles, but WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not a valid reason to !delete. Cielquiparle (talk) 19:20, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment: With all due respect, none of these sources appear to be significant, independent coverage of the rivalry itself. All of the sources you've added are routine game previews with no WP:SIGCOV of the rivalry itself beyond rehashing the results of previous games and quotes from the teams coaches, which it can be argued leads to independence concerns. I'm a huge college basketball fan and would have no issues keeping this article if WP:SIGCOV can be found, but WP:FAN isn't a good enough reason to keep any article. Let'srun (talk) 19:35, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    If you actually read the articles, there are plenty of facts and figures independent of the coaches' quotes which are reported by quite a wide range of newspapers. Cielquiparle (talk) 19:45, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Let'srun - Can you please go into the issues with each of the sources? Specifically, the claims about these not being independent? What connections should we be aware of here between these teams and The Dothan Eagle/The Alabama Journal/The Birmingham Post? KatoKungLee (talk) 21:41, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The original sources are enough. What are the issues exactly with 1, 2, 3 and 4? KatoKungLee (talk) 21:36, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    1 is a fan blog, 2 is a routine game preview where the "rivalry" is a passing mention, 3 is not independent (as it is a interview of one of the teams coaches) and does not mention any rivalry, while 4 is also not independent as it is primarily interviewing one of the teams coaches. Let'srun (talk) 03:11, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    1 - There is nothing wrong with a site that is focused on covering certain teams. I'm not seeing a brief mention in the 2nd one, that would be a sentence. For #3, the person in the article was 13 years removed from UAB and was coaching Ole Miss. Again, I see no issues with the 4th one. It seems like you are looking for articles that aren't written by anyone who covers the team regularly, has never had any affiliation with the team at any point in time and isn't interviewing anyone. KatoKungLee (talk) 17:29, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Incorrect assertion. I am looking for WP:GNG level sources written by anyone who doesn't have a direct connection to the subject, which can include team beat writers. The third source doesn't even mention any rivalry, beyond the independence concerns. Interviews aren't GNG sufficient, and if you don't know that you should not be voting at AfD. Let'srun (talk) 21:15, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    That is an unreasonable standard (and slightly incoherent) and shows why it's probably important for you @Let'srun to either 1) take a break and slow down with AfDs and PRODs, and/or 2) get some more experience in other areas of Wikipedia, especially in creating content and making edits to mainspace. We all appreciate the hard work you have put in to deletion-related activities, but lately some of your PRODs and comments are starting to look and sound a bit "off". Most importantly you have to demonstrate respect for others per WP:AGF; a bit of humility goes a long way if you are trying to build consensus, and the whole point of the AfD discussion is to build consensus. What might help is to limit yourself to three comments per AfD. You need to have confidence that if you are correct, others will recognize this and support your argument including the closer, and remember it's not a !vote-counting exercise. It's also important to be able to admit when you are wrong and just relax and let go. We all make mistakes and an important part of being smart is to know what you don't know. Cielquiparle (talk) 03:21, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as there is substantial disagreement over the quality of the sources. I'll note that this often happens with sources that appear to be interviews which are not always disallowed as RS, it depends on the surrounding content.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:30, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. A few obscure newspapers calling it a rivalry doesn't make it so. Also, "least appreciated", "friendly" and "entertaining" are not an indication of a noteworthy rivalry. Clarityfiend (talk) 11:35, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    To clarify: "friendly" only applied to the first match and all sports is entertainment. I actually came to this AfD discussion thinking I was going to !vote delete, and was surprised to find so much focused secondary coverage about the rivalry. WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not a viable reason to delete. Cielquiparle (talk) 11:13, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Which is why I didn't use IDONTLIKEIT. Obscure newspapers I said, and obscure newspapers I meant: The Dothan Eagle and The Anniston Star are both in Alabama and both only publish three times a week, The Johnson City Press gets no press, and College and Magnolia is a publication about the Auburn Tigers. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:19, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    So? All of that is irrelevant to determining the notability of this subject. BeanieFan11 (talk) 13:50, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • The title of that first reference is "UAB-Auburn on its way to becoming full-blown basketball rivalry". On its way, not there, so not particularly convincing. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:24, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Yep. Classic WP:NOT#CRYSTALBALL material. I could write articles for various newspapers claiming that Cardi B and MC Lyte "on their way to becoming full-blown rap rivals" but that doesn't mean WP should have an article called "Cardi B–MC Lyte rap rivalry". This stuff is just fancruft.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  16:38, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Of course, you both ignore the rest of my comment and all the other sources... BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:40, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I made a source table for everything currently in the article. Up to you on how to interpret it. Conyo14 (talk) 05:35, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Source analysis by User:Conyo14
Source assessment by User:Conyo14
[29] SB Nation is a BLP source, but the author (Brian Spurlock) is a USA Today sports author. Green tickY
[30] Local newspaper separate from Auburn or Birmingham Green tickY
[31] Press company in Tennessee. Green tickY
[32] Fairly significant coverage Green tickY
[33] Third Alabama source outside the two cities Green tickY
[34] WP:BLOG and the source is mostly interview Red XN
[35] Partial
[36] Doesn't speak to the tone of a rivalry Question?
[37] WP:ROUTINE Red XN
[38] WP:ROUTINE Red XN
[39] WP:ROUTINE Red XN
[40] WP:ROUTINE Red XN
[41] WP:ROUTINE Red XN
  • Keep passes WP:GNG with the above mentioned sources. Alvaldi (talk) 16:42, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: per the in-depth analysis of SMcCandlish. Will every pair of neighbouring colleges with a varsity team end up as a "rivalry" article? The purpose of NRIVALRY is to ensure the only "rivalry" articles we have are those with a well documented history of such. In 2017, one fringe outlet described it as "on its way to becoming full-blown basketball rivalry". I doubt the six years passed since then have created a body of coverage sufficient to qualify as a documented history of rivalry. Owen× ☎ 14:53, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: There still is no strong emerging consensus regarding the question of the sources, hoping a second relist can help avoid a "no consensus" close.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Aoidh (talk) 14:57, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: Fails GNG. Agree with eval analysis of SMcCandlish. This seems manufactured for promo/booster purposes. Owen× points out above significant information from a source. Not seeing any sources showing this meets guidelines.  // Timothy :: talk  05:19, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep there is enough significant coverage to pass GNG based on Conyo14's source analysis above. Frank Anchor 16:19, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Daniel (talk) 20:52, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Vladyslav Kuznyechikov[edit]

Vladyslav Kuznyechikov (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 can't find any evidence to suggest that Kuznyechikov meets WP:GNG or WP:SPORTBASIC. His career consists of nothing more than appearances in Volyn Lutsk's reserve team. Searches in Ukrainian give some stories about a refugee of the same name but I can't find anything about the footballer other than the stats sites used in this article and the Ukrainian Wikipedia article, none of which confer notability. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 11:55, 9 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. Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 07:55, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Eat Me (interactive fiction)[edit]

Eat Me (interactive fiction) (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)

Potentially non-notable interactive fiction game on an article with fairly light reliable sourcing. This is a borderline case, so as ever I would like to be proven wrong. A search online yields two short but reliable sources out there from Rock Paper Shotgun [42] and Vice [43]. Almost there, but there seems to be little else. There is a review from Portage Magazine [44] which is a fairly obscure undergraduate Wisconsin student newspaper - not particularly reliable or mainstream coverage. Otherwise the article is sourced heavily from the author's own blog, user sites and forums, and a strange over-reliance on non-copyrighted reference images. The author, as impressive as his writing seems, does not have much of a public-facing profile; I could only really find his credits on writing a DLC for Fallen London. Either way, hopefully more eyes on this can help clean up the article into a better state, although I do think its notability leans on the dubious side. Thanks in advance for your help. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 11:46, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 11:46, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep: The wording "Potentially non-notable..." pretty much disqualifies this nomination. The wording suggests that is really is notable, but that the nominator wishes for more references. AfD is not cleanup, so the article needs tagging, not deleting. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 12:51, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Apologies - I can see that gives off the unhelpful impression that I'm using the process to fish for sources to improve the article. I've looked online and do believe the available sourcing doesn't establish what I'd consider to be the threshold of notability. I've been wrong enough times to maybe be not so certain about that threshold, prompting the soft language. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 21:24, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete While the nomination is poorly phrased ("potentially non-notable" suggests a degree of uncertainty, being "obscure" does not immediately equate to unreliability, and the article being "strange" is not grounds for deletion, but cleanup), I could not find much better sources than the Vice article and the small RPS blurb. The Portage magazine is published in a generic Wordpress blog and it's hard to vouch for it being a reliable source untainted by any form of bias whatsoever. It would be an ad hominem argument to !vote keep simply because of an error in the nomination process, and ignore any evidence of non-notability. If any further better sources can be found, I may change my opinion. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 13:21, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I would add that in the chance the article is kept, it should be moved back to its original name of Eat Me (video game) as the general consensus is that interactive fiction is not a separate category from games. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 15:55, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, I'll try to keep AfD nominations more focused on the aspects that make them purportedly non-notable next time. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 21:28, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep To my knowledge, interactive fiction is rarely covered in any mainstream media, and sources may therefore be difficult to find. But the Vice article is a legit review and focused entirely on Eat Me. The commentary is critical and detailed. The awards and multiple nominations at competitions for interactive fiction, as well as very high listings in the Interactive Fiction Database, make this game stand out. No source is "author's own blog", as claimed. The images are used for illustrations, not as sources. If one's main goal is to improve an article, then they can start by improving the article and then add maintenance tags pointing out the shortcomings. A nomination for deletion should not be used as a way to get "more eyes" to "help clean up the article". --Bensin (talk) 23:00, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I understand and agree the nomination should not have had a softer secondary purpose, and it was definitely a mistake to try and frame this in a conciliatory way which provided the appearance that I didn't feel it was non-notable. With respect to the statement No source is "author's own blog", the primary source for most of the article's content is the author's Infiction blog - I mean the author of the work. Other user-generated content, such as IFDB and blog posts, are generally discouraged as a source. That leaves the three secondary sources subject to the deletion discussion, which I should have restricted my discussion above to. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 23:49, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I reiterate: To my knowledge, interactive fiction is rarely covered in any mainstream media, and sources may therefore be difficult to find. But the Vice article is a legit review and focused entirely on Eat Me. The commentary is critical and detailed. The awards and multiple nominations at competitions for interactive fiction, as well as very high listings in the Interactive Fiction Database, make this game stand out. --Bensin (talk) 09:46, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I know we're at odds with what notability ought to be for a video game, and I imagine it's annoying and disappointing to have the notability of an article challenged that you put work into. I can explain my thinking a little to try and untangle my admittedly very messy framing of the nomination. I agree the Vice article is a good source of significant coverage, but notability requires significant coverage from multiple reliable sources. I would say that an argument that sources being difficult to find on niche topics begs the question as to whether quality sources for this article exist at all - from what I can see, there isn't really similar coverage in this case. IFD as a user-generated database is not notable for the same reason that IMDB is not. It is not official policy, but I think it is a sound opinion that an award nomination doesn't in itself create notability particularly as it's not a high-profile industry award and hasn't generated any commentary of its own. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 07:50, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    As for awards: I do agree that one single award nomination does not make a video game notable. But Eat Me received multiple nominations and also won in several categories. It was recognized at both the XYZZY Awards and the Interactive Fiction Competition. As for sources: I may have agreed if there were no good sources at all, but the Vice article is a legit review. No one contests that. In addition, Rock Paper Shotgun is a known source (but the coverage may be less than significant). Portage has significant coverage (but the source is less known). Given the fact that sources are admittedly scarce on this topic, then this may indicate that the sum of sources that corroborate the information in the article (there are no contradictions between sources to my knowledge) add up to meet notability. From a bigger perspective: I think most would agree that interactive fiction as an art form is notable topic. To properly cover this art form it would be expected to then also cover the top appreciated works in that art form. To my knowledge IFDB is the only source that somehow quantifies this. And IFDB lists Eat Me in both the top 100 based on user scores and in the 2023 vote for top Interactive Fiction of All Time. Finally: It is almost always a better solution to redirect an article than to delete it along with its history. That way the article history is preserved and work on the article can be picked up again by anyone should new information or sources appear. I did, as you write, put work into this and though not an appreciated outcome, a redirect is a less discouraging outcome. --Bensin (talk) 19:41, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    There's a lot of interesting threads to follow up on here and I'm sorry I can't react in detail right now. I think on awards, there's sadly no concrete guidance on the interrelationship between awards and notability, although I think there should be, and I'd love to think it out about it but also mindful it may not be helpful in this comment thread. One helpful question is - what would a useful redirect target be if an AfM were appropriate here? Creating an article on Chandler Groover may be a good outlet if his body of work as a whole has more coverage in total. Or a far more laborious task - as I understand you have started with other articles, is to try and compile a description and citations on a list of IFM winners as a primary article. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 09:12, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    This thread mentions some of Chandler Groover's works but i doubt none of them would be more notable than Eat Me. I find a few sources when searching for Groover, but most of them focuses on his games, not on him as a person. It would therefore make little sense to create an article on him rather than on what I believe to be his most prolific work. That is also why i redirected Chandler Groover to Eat Me (interactive fiction) and not the other way around. There is no obvious target for a redirect, but XYZZY Awards or interactive fiction would be acceptable and redirecting to any of them would be much better than deleting the article. Given the high profile Eat Me appears to enjoy, it may not be too long before more sources appears, and a redirect would make it far easier to continue building on my work than to start over or having to go through the process of requesting an undelete. A new editor may not know that option exists, and they may waste hours reading and searching for sources and writing and formatting rather then building on, or modifying, the existing work. But I would also appreciate if you, when you can, do respond to my points on "sources" and "bigger perspective" in my previous post. --Bensin (talk) 20:59, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, not stonewalling and will take a look when I can. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 22:56, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I added the RPS source as well as a mention in PC Gamer, both in which Emily Short (likely one the most known designers of IF fiction) comments on the game. Is that better? --Bensin (talk) 21:55, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Concerning preservation, there are other wikis that might accept your article like IFWiki or Libregamewiki. --Mika1h (talk) 18:46, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Vice article is SIGCOV, RPS is not. Not enough for WP:GNG. I don't think the XYZZY and IFC awards count towards notability, the 2017 results haven't been covered in reliable sources. --Mika1h (talk) 00:35, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The nominator/delete voters pretty much sum up my thoughts with the (very good) source analyzing and arguments. Speedy Keep vote jumped too quickly to the conclusions, as the nom demonstrated/edited. Vice stands as the only good enough source. I've tried to find anything usable in my searches, but didn't succeed in that. Fails WP:GNG. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 12:57, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Star Mississippi 15:58, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lounas Adjout[edit]

Lounas Adjout (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:SIGCOV and thus WP:NSPORTS. The only news piece currently cited in the article fails WP:PASSING with flying colours, only consisting of 4 sentences whilst covering not one, but two players. I wasn't able to find any other non-database sources. The footballer is early in his career, having only played 2 full senior games + 9 minutes as a substitute, so the lack of sources isn't very puzzling. Geschichte (talk) 11:14, 9 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! 08:47, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wrestling Tag Teams[edit]

Wrestling Tag Teams (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)

We don't need an unsourced list of current tag teams. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 10:30, 9 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.

If an editor wants to work on this article in Draft space, let me know or go to WP:REFUND. Liz Read! Talk! 08:46, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Hanka[edit]

Adam Hanka (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 would appear to me that this article fails any number of criteria for inclusion as an article about a living person, including but not limited to WP:BASIC, WP:ANYBIO, and WP:POLITICIAN. I note that there is no corresponding article on the Czech language Wikipedia As always, please do prove me wrong about this. Shirt58 (talk) 🦘 09:47, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hey @Shirt58,
I was actually of the opinion that Hanka already has quite a decent amount of coverage via various media, including international media. I've been interested in the Volt movement lately and came across him during my research. As chairman of a national section of a not exactly insignificant European movement and chairman of a party that is now also running in the European elections, I also considered him relevant from this perspective. In my view, the extent of the article after relatively short research also shows this. But yes, I don't speak Czech, so I can't help with an article in Czech, although I don't think that should be the deciding factor either.
But I would be happy to expand the article further and add more sources and information if the existing sources are not sufficient for notability. However, I have to say that I'll be travelling a lot over the next few days, so I can't say how much I'll get done and sometimes it takes me a little longer to reply. Heideneii (talk) 21:38, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per criteria in nom. He or his political party might become notable after the next election, but we won't make crystal ball predictions here, so WP:NOTJUSTYET. In its current state, the page is primarily a promo of his views and does not contain anything about what he accomplished and what would make him deserve to have his own page. FromCzech (talk) 08:01, 15 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! 08:38, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WebORB Integration Server[edit]

WebORB Integration Server (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. There are no independent sources Mdggdj (talk) 08:07, 9 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) 19:42, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hassan Zuaiter[edit]

Hassan Zuaiter (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)

Individual is notable only for WP:ONEEVENT, and fails WP:VICTIM criteria. PROD was removed.

Teammate Ibrahim Qusaya was also PROD, but was removed and is now up for deletion under the same rationale. DonaldD23 talk to me 21:48, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, already PROD'd, not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:46, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Textbook ONEEVENT case. Kirill C1 (talk) 19:13, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. First of all, he was a multiple volleyball representative of his country. Only then, unfortunately, is Zuaiter known about the circumstances of his early death. There are sources on the Arabic and Hebrew Wiki to expand our article. --Dominus Moravian (talk) 13:19, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the mentioned article looks to be notable enough to be kept, but it needs to add more text/sources... Ali Ahwazi (talk) 22:18, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Not terribly influenced by the two keep !votes but also looking for more participation to establish a consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 05:09, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong Keep He is a player of Palestine national team. As he represented his country in international level, he is automatically notable. But more sources and information should be added. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Showib Ahmmed (talk • contribs)
  • There is no rule or guideline on Wikipedia to support your claim of "automatic notability". Geschichte (talk) 11:28, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: 1E article, fails GNG, NBIO, meets NOTNEWS, NOTMEMORIAL. Sources in article and BEFORE showed nothing meeting WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth, sources are brief articles about a recent event which mention the subject. No sources show the event will meet WP:LASTING and fails NOTNEWS.  // Timothy :: talk  12:01, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Still no consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:59, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as WP:1E. gidonb (talk) 02:37, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete a clear case of WP:1E. No guideline stated that national players are automatically notable, so his career as a Palestinian team does not confer any notability. No sources/references before the incident showed that he didn't pass the notability bar. His name could be mentioned at Jabalia refugee camp airstrikes but he shouldn't have his own standalone article. ✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 19:54, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. SUSTAINED SIGCOV is lacking and there is no presumption of notability from playing internationally. A standalone is not warranted.
JoelleJay (talk) 01:30, 11 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. Sourcing is insufficient. If the target returns to mainspace, happy to restore the history for a merge. Star Mississippi 15:54, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Kirkman's The Walking Dead: Descent[edit]

Robert Kirkman's The Walking Dead: Descent (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 book. Entrierly article is a plot summary, upon looking for coverage all I found was articles announcing that the book was in produciton. No WP:SIGCOV Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 21:13, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep Here's a couple reviews:
  1. Booklist [45]
  2. Three-to-four paragraphs in Abilene Reporter-News [46]
I could see a merge of the set of Robert Kirkman's The Walking Dead series of novels into one page as well, but that outcome is probably out of scope for this AfD. Possible ATD is a merge to The Walking Dead (comic book) § Novels —siroχo 04:51, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. Wikipedia:Notability (books)#Criteria says:

    A book is presumed notable if it verifiably meets, through reliable sources, at least one of the following criteria:

    1. The book has been the subject of two or more non-trivial published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself. This can include published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, other books, television documentaries, bestseller lists, and reviews. This excludes media re-prints of press releases, flap copy, or other publications where the author, its publisher, agent, or other self-interested parties advertise or speak about the book.
    The two sources found by siroxo are sufficient for the book to meet the notability guideline. The first source is a detailed review of the book. The second source discusses the book and the series as a whole. Like siroxo, I could also see a merge to an article about the series but agree that it out of scope of this AfD as no series article currently exists.

    Cunard (talk) 12:14, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Cunard: If I indpedently created a Robert Kirkman's The Walking Dead page could a merge be made into it. The page doesnt exit right so its not a valid outcome, if the page was made during the afd could it be merged into it? Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 17:17, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
OlifanofmrTennant (talk · contribs), since the second source discusses both this book and the series as a whole, I am fine with Robert Kirkman's The Walking Dead: Descent being merged into a book series article. If a series article is created (and if no other sources are found for this book), I am fine with and supportive of a merge being done even if the AfD is closed as "keep". Cunard (talk) 09:43, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Its been made, but I am struggling to find sources. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 18:45, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As a note, the page was previously made, then draftified due to CV issues: Draft:Robert Kirkman's The Walking Dead. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 23:54, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 05:10, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: Fails GNG. Nothing found meeting WP:IS WP:RS with WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indpeth. Source eval:
  • [47], Library promo, titled "Plenty of zany zombie action at your local library"
  • [48], Database entry from Booklist.
  • [49], Upcoming release announcment, "For more ‘Walking Dead’ intel, follow Dalton on Twitter".
 // Timothy :: talk  23:58, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: There are a lot of options being floated around in this discussion but no consensus yet.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:56, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Abilene Reporter article has just a passing mention of the book. Booklist is more substantial but not what I would count as SIGCOV. EW.com link is just an announcement news, not in-depth coverage. --Mika1h (talk) 00:53, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure)‎ There is an actual article with relevant content now problem solved. PARAKANYAA (talk) 16:44, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Noble outlaw[edit]

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

Per discussion on talk page, this is an article that was started as vandalism by an IP 18 years ago and then became a sort of pseudo disambiguation/SIA despite not being either. This is one of many pseudo-SIAs that are popping up due to the change in class mask logic revealing articles classed as disamb that are actually not. This is not a relevant concept as far as I can tell and is not discussed as a term independently or in relation to either of the entries on the page. PARAKANYAA (talk) 04:27, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Consider a Redirect - A Google search suggests this article seems to have started life as a conflation of Young Noble and Outlawz. Consider a redirect to Young Noble. Alternatively this appears to be the title of a couple of books by different authors. Otherwise not an obviously notable term. - Cameron Dewe (talk) 06:32, 2 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! 07:43, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please read books, people!

References

  1. ^ a b c Kershner 1992, p. 210.
  2. ^ a b Smith 2016, p. 59.
  3. ^ Jump 2016, p. 72.
  4. ^ a b Lorenz 2017, p. 67.
  5. ^ Angiolillo 1979.
  6. ^ Babinski 1979, pp. 307–309.
  7. ^ Wilkinson 1969, p. 428.
  • Wilkinson, Endymion (1969). "Reviewed Work(s): The Chinese Knight-Errant by James J. Y. Liu". Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London. 32 (2): 428–429.
  • Thorslev, Peter Larsen (1962). The Byronic Hero: Types and Prototypes. Minneapolis.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (link)
  • Kershner, Richard Brandon (1992). Joyce, Bakhtin, and Popular Literature: Chronicles of Disorder. UNC Press Books. ISBN 9780807843871.
  • Jump, John D. (2016). "Heroes and Rhetoric 1812–1818". Byron. Routledge Library Editions: Lord Byron. Routledge. ISBN 9781317235057.
  • Lorenz, Matt (2017). "'The lightning of my being': The Byronic Struggle and Apotheosis of John Proctor". In Marino, Stephen (ed.). Arthur Miller’s Century: Essays Celebrating the 100th Birthday of America’s Great Playwright. Cambridge Scholars Publishing. ISBN 9781443896153.
    • also available as: Lorenz, Matt (2016). "'The Lightning of My Being': The Byronic Struggle and Apotheosis of John Proctor". The Arthur Miller Journal. 11 (1): 10–20. doi:10.5325/arthmillj.11.1.0010.
  • Smith, Thomas Ruys (2016). "'The Dying Confession of Joseph Hare': Transatlantic Highwaymen and Southern Outlaws in the Antebellum South". In Hobson, Fred; Ladd, Barbara (eds.). The Oxford Handbook of the Literature of the U.S. South. Oxford University Press. ISBN 9780199767472.
  • Angiolillo, Paul Francis Mathew (1979). A Criminal as Hero: Angelo Duca. Regents Press of Kansas. ISBN 9780700601844.
  • Babinski, Hubert F. (1979). "Reviewed Work(s): A Criminal as Hero: Angelo Duca by Paul F. Angiolillo". Italica. 56 (3): 307–309.
  • Keep, of course. Drmies (talk) 14:29, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please take a look at what it is you are voting to keep. It is a pseudo-disambiguation page that directs readers to either of two articles, neither of which so much as mentions the term. I don't disagree one bit that this is in fact a common trope -- but what there is at present under this title is not worth keeping. older ≠ wiser 15:17, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • I did. Drmies (talk) 15:28, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      • OK, and you think it is helpful to direct readers to articles that have nothing to say about the topic? older ≠ wiser 15:31, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
        • You know, Bkonrad, I don't have to dignify that with a substantive response; actions speak louder than words. Drmies (talk) 15:59, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
          • Whatever. If you mentioned that you were intending to start an article to replace the pseudo-dab, I would have said nothing. As things stood when you replied, my query was justified. older ≠ wiser 16:15, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
            • Bkonrad, I've been here almost as long as you. You asked a loaded question, and seemed to doubt my good faith: I try not to leave shit just laying around in a poor state. Same goes for my uncle. Drmies (talk) 17:14, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
              • I wasn't so much doubting your good faith -- just checking to be sure you knew what you were saying. On the face of it, you were voting to keep what at that time was a completely worthless piece of crap. I had no way of knowing what you might have intended. older ≠ wiser 18:07, 11 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! 08:31, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Pradeep Adatrow[edit]

Pradeep Adatrow (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 seeing notability here. The citation record seems to fall quite a ways short of what WP:NPROF crit. 1 would require, and there's no indication that any of the other NPROF criteria are met. My WP:BEFORE search didn't turn up any GNG-qualifying coverage either. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 07:41, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 00:28, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Karnataka Quiz Association[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Karnataka Quiz Association (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)

Sourcing not meeting "Intended audience" clause from WP:ORG. It is only covered in local newspaper (bengaluru) बिनोद थारू (talk) 04:47, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 08:24, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete clearly fails WP:ORG. Almost exclusively primary sources. LibStar (talk) 02:28, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:25, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - no indication of notability. Fails WP:GNG. Freinland (talk) 07:30, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 03:51, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Optimized Electrotech[edit]

Optimized Electrotech (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 to meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines for corporations, as explained in WP:NCORP and WP:ORGCRIT. WP:PROMO. Charlie (talk) 14:09, 2 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! 07:17, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete nothing significant except some routine coverages. Fails to meet WP:SIGCOV. Freinland (talk) 07:37, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy keep as nomination withdrawn per WP:HEY. (non-admin closure) Fermiboson (talk) 16:57, 11 December 2023 (UTC)‎[reply]

Social-Democratic Workingmen's Party of North America[edit]

Social-Democratic Workingmen's Party of North America (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)

NORG fail. I do think this is borderline, and a bit of digging is required. The detailed explanation post will come as a long reply. Fermiboson (talk) 04:55, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

So, there are sources covering this party. Both sources in the article appear to be Marxist blogs, which is neither independent nor RS. Most Google hits are also to blogs, catalogues, or "social-democrating workingmen's party of [somewhere else]", or those of the same name founded on a different year. There are, however, three academic sources which could potentially be usable. The issues are enumerated below.
  • Source 1: Stedman, Murray S. “‘Democracy’ in American Communal and Socialist Literature.” Journal of the History of Ideas, vol. 12, no. 1, 1951, pp. 147–54. JSTOR, https://doi.org/10.2307/2707542. This source is probably neutral and RS. It is a part of an overview of the evolution of Socialist rhetoric in the US throughout the 1800s to pre-WWII. The party is mentioned in the following paragraph only, which seems like a passing mention:

Students of political history will recall that in 1876 an organ known as the Social-Democratic Workingmen's Party of North America was formed. It is of interest from the point of view of this inquiry because of its name. Aside from the title of the party, the party constitution and platform contained no references to "democracy".

  • Source 2: Foner, Philip, "The Workingmen's Party of the United States: A History of the First Marxist Party in the Americas." Studies in Marxism, vol. 14, 1984. MEP Publications. [50] This source, as the title suggests, is entirely about the party itself. I would lean towards this source being usable, as the academic appears to be reputable and I don't see any immediate evidence of non-independence of the source. We do however find ourselves in the unusual situation where there is an entire book about something, and nothing else but primary sources, which is not GNG. A quick scroll through the bibliography of the book shows most of the references to be either about Marx/Engels and the general social situation at the time, or primary sources from the party and its successors.
  • Source 3: [51] Ghent, W. J. "Socialism: A Historical Sketch" This is one of a series of pamphlets explicitly "written by socialist authors", so it is definitely a biased source bordering on ABOUTSELF. The book mentions workingmens' parties of various countries in great detail, but its mention of the American one appears to be limited to the following on p30:

During this twelve-year period Socialism overflowed from Germany jnto the other countries of Europe. In the United States it had already made a beginning. Indeed, the organized movement here, which has a continuous existence from the Social Democratic Workingmen's party of 1874, is, with the exception of the two German parties which united at Gotha, the oldest in the world. If, as suggested by Hillquit, it be dated from the formation of the General German Labor Association in New York (1868), it outdates the Bebel-Liebknecht wing of the German party (1869), leaving only the Lassalle wing (1863) with an earlier origin.

The book then goes on to talk about the various efforts at international collaboration of socialist parties, and does not really mention the article subject by name anymore. This also seems to be a bit of a passing mention.
It does seem that, apart from source 2, all the mentions of the party come as a brief note that they were the "first" in the US. Possibly a merge could be done into History of socialism in the United States? I'm not well versed enough in the topic to judge, but I am unable to find evidence that this meets GNG. Fermiboson (talk) 05:19, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Fermiboson::
I agree that the Social-Democratic Workingmen's Party of North America is in a grey zone of notability; I can't find any sources solely dedicated to discussing it, for example.
I've added a few additional sources to the article, including all those that you've included. The Foner citation, in particular, goes into detail about the history of the SDWP before its merger into the WPUS. Given that the SDWP was the first major step toward a Marxist socialist party in the United States, and given that its history ultimately helped shape the Socialist Party of America, I think it is a useful if short page for readers interested in early modern American socialism.
I would strongly recommend against deletion of the article in its current state.
Aside: I know it's not relevant to notability, but I would also add: For niche historical topics like this, basically the only resource the general public will have is Wikipedia. Scattered scholarly sources are worthless to a casual reader. SocDoneLeft (talk) 06:33, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the reply, and while I do agree that it is useful to have an article, as you noted, it isn't relevant to notability. I do think a merge may be the better option here. But I'll let you do more writing (and anyone who comes across this to give feedback) and if no one votes delete, I may be open to withdrawing the AfD nom after a while. Fermiboson (talk) 06:37, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 07:05, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thor Vector Graphics (ThorVG)[edit]

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

Could not find any WP:SIGCOV from reliable sources. Wikipedia is not a software database and requires articles to pass WP:GNG. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 04:47, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games and Software. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 04:47, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nothing significant about this open-source software. There are thousands of such insignificant softwares available on github and Wikipedia is a not an indiscriminate collection of softwares. Freinland (talk) 07:44, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: I don't see any significant independent coverage. Owen× ☎ 13:27, 9 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 Materialscientist (talk) 07:32, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ackley function[edit]

Ackley function (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 things reads more like a documentation page (minus the commentary often seen in code) rather than an article. Also, I fail to see news sources (etc.) that demonstrate the notability of this function. Silcox (talk) 04:43, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Silcox (talk) 04:43, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The article was hi-jacked on Dec 7; the content was completely replaced with someone's program. Please look at an article's history when you find something like this. The function is covered in books on artificial intelligence. I will restore the original content. StarryGrandma (talk) 06:59, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. StarryGrandma (talk) 07:04, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep per StarryGrandma's observation that essentially, the wrong article was nominated. On a side note, the restored version is almost certainly a notable topic; a quick perusal of G scholar shows very wide use of this. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 07:30, 9 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 Withdrawn nom and speedy keep. With the new award NACTOR is likely met. Fermiboson (talk) 12:18, 15 December 2023 (UTC)‎[reply]

Calah Lane[edit]

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

A borderline NACTOR fail. There are secondary sources, but all of them (except the cosmopolitan source in the article) is a review of the Wonka musical, and anything else which isn't that is an interview (which is also usually in the context of the Wonka role). It smells a bit BLP1E. Most of the sources do meet significant coverage, but since this is the biography of a minor, I'm going to err on the side of putting this up for deletion. Fermiboson (talk) 04:39, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I beg to differ. I wanted to make sure I understood the rules for deletion based on BLP1E. After reading this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_BLP1E_is_not, I am sure it does not apply in this case. First of all, this is a professional actress who certainly doesn't shed the limelight. Secondly, even though Wonka (a $125 million dollar movie), is clearly her major breakthrough, she has a string of appearances in other TV and movie productions, starting in 2016.
I remember having exactly the same discussion when I created articles for Jodie Turner-Smith and Demi Singleton when they had their breakthrough roles. Both were saved from the brink of deletion and now have countless references to them from other articles. Calah Lane is not a one-hit wonder, but a young actress with quite a resume and more starring roles ahead of her. Tomdejong14 (talk) 09:40, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm gonna make a simple suggestion here. Since you did create this article, please do add more references to the article itself, for I'm sure it will easily satisfy WP:GNG and WP:BIO. -- Rsrikanth05 (talk) 05:26, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the suggestion. I've linked all mentions of Calah Lane in other Wikipedia articles to this page (there were quite a few already, certainly not all tied to the "Wonka" movie). I also added more references to external sources. Hopefully the editors will agree there is merit in keeping this article. That 'marked for deletion' banner still hurts. Tomdejong14 (talk) 19:09, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
On 13 December 2023 it was announced Calah Lane was nominated for a 2023 Critics' Choice Award in the category Best Young Actor/Actress. The author of the page listing the nominees linked to the Calah Lane article. Tomdejong14 (talk) 01:32, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus‎. I've decided to close this discussion as No consensus. If there were more participants here, I think the closure would have been more decisive. I'll just note that the article was tagged for discussion soon after its creation and has been subject to additional editing since its nomination. Liz Read! Talk! 03:06, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Isaac Saul[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Isaac Saul (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 was previously deleted via a deletion discussion (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Isaac Saul). Most of the sources provided on the pages are from before the previous discussion, which would indicate that Saul is still non-notable. However, a few sources have been published since the last discussion in 2021. As such, I wouldn't necessarily consider this eligible for CSD, but it's worth discussing whether Saul is now notable. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 20:01, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Lexington, Transylvania University 300 North Broadway; Fax: 859‐233‐8797, KY 40508 USA Phone: 859-233‐8300. "Creative Intelligence". Transylvania University | Calendar of Events. Retrieved 2023-11-17.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link)
  2. ^ Conley, Julia (2020-11-13). "Trump campaign presents 238 pages of ridiculous GOP poll watcher affidavits". Salon. Retrieved 2023-11-17.
  3. ^ Academy, NBCU (2023-10-11). "How Substack Journalists Are Growing Their Audiences". NBCU Academy. Retrieved 2023-11-17.
  4. ^ Avilucea, Isaac (August 2, 2023). "Tangle founder hosts high court chat in Philly". Axios.
  5. ^ Waldmeir, Patti (2022-05-30). "Two Americans talk across the political divide". Financial Times. Retrieved 2023-11-17.
Mover of molehillsmove me 21:36, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So my position is obviously keep, although I'm not sure if I'm allowed to comment on my own article. Mover of molehillsmove me 14:11, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Mover of molehills you're perfectly entitled take a position in the discussion. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 23:59, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Mover of molehills the guideline for notability of people is WP:BIO, which asks for "significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject", while WP:THREE suggests presenting three references to show that WP:BIO is met. I don't think the five sources you linked provide the required coverage

  • Transylvania University: listing for a talk by Saul at TU, not independent coverage
  • Salon.com: quote from Saul, not independent
  • NBCU Academy: looks like a mini interview, so not independent
  • axios.com: listing for a talk by Saul, not independent coverage
  • Financial Times: quote from Saul, not independent

TSventon (talk) 02:59, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep — sources should notability, particularly the ones in the "Recognition" section.

DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 13:32, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. The relevant notability criteria here is: WP:JOURNALIST, which says: The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors...The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews... At first glance Saul appears to satisfy this (given that this article makes the "influential" claim with regard to both the 2016 and 2020 elections). But it seems fair enough to have to take a closer look at whether the sources actually bear this out, as there is very little discussion about the specifics around the 2016 election, and rather thin discussion about his other work as a journalist throughout his career. Cielquiparle (talk) 17:20, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:00, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: I've found a few new sources about Saul since I published this article that I wanted to share, in case it's useful to other reviewers. I haven't added these sources to the article yet, because I'm not sure what specific facts they would support that aren't already in there. However, I thought they could help to establish notability: [1], [2], [3], [4].

References

  1. ^ "American Democracy Summit Speakers". American Democracy Summit. Retrieved 2023-11-24.
  2. ^ "Isaac Saul - Official Member of The Progress Network". The Progress Network. Retrieved 2023-11-24.
  3. ^ "Frank talks to Isaac Saul, Founder of Tangle News about the Israel-Hamas war. – 77 WABC". wabcradio.com. Retrieved 2023-11-24.
  4. ^ Hibberd, James (2022-11-15). "'SNL' Ratings Hit Season High With Dave Chappelle Amid Uproar". The Hollywood Reporter. Retrieved 2023-11-24.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to evaluate newly found sources not placed in the article yet. Right now, there is disagreement over whether existing sources are sufficient to establish notability for this journalist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:21, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: I just replaced the Transylvania listing of Isaac Saul's talk, which was justifiably critized by TSventon as not independent enough, with a more detailed article: [1] Mover of molehillsmove me 23:17, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Brother, Nate (2023-12-06). "Transylvania Hosts Journalist Isaac Saul in Creative Intelligence Series". The Rambler. Retrieved 2023-12-08.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 04:28, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. None of the sources above demonstrate anything approaching notability. School newspapers are not independent sources on people their university invites to speak, nor are profiles by organizations the subject belongs to. It takes MUCH more recognition than a handful of mentions surrounding one or two events for someone to meet NJOURNO.
JoelleJay (talk) 01:37, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Understood, although please note that the sources above are only the sources that I added recently – there are quite a few more listed in the article itself. Mover of molehillsmove me 23:51, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect‎ to Sportsnet 360#Programming. Liz Read! Talk! 02:40, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of programs broadcast by Sportsnet 360[edit]

List of programs broadcast by Sportsnet 360 (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 and WP:NOTTVGUIDE. No objection to a redirect to Sportsnet 360  // Timothy :: talk  03:17, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • By this logic, other related list shoul be nominated. Mr. C.C.Hey yo!I didn't do it! 04:01, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Sports, Lists, and Canada. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 11:37, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Sportsnet 360#Programming as an ATD with actual sourcing. Nate • (chatter) 22:48, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lists of programs broadcast by television network are not deemed to fail NOTTVGUIDE — that criterion bars using articles to provide schedule information, such as a complete grid that lists the entire current schedule by timeslot and gets updated weekly with specials and repeat airings and other variations from the "standard" schedule, and has never been deemed to preclude simply listing past and present programming. Tons of television channels and networks have one of these on Wikipedia, because the rule has never been that a network having one of these was a problem.
    That said, what is a problem here is the lack of any sourcing to verify that the channel actually aired these programs, and the fact that more than half of the list is redlinked or unlinked entries that may not be independently notable under WP:TVSHOW rules at all. So keep if sourcing can be found to support it, and delete (and/or redirect) if it can't. Also, why would Sportsnet 360 need one of these if we don't have one for Sportsnet proper, and even if we did have one for Sportsnet proper this could still just be merged there rather than needing to stand alone — so the real question is why would this need to be treated separately from the rest of Sportsnet? Bearcat (talk) 22:03, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting because of the variety of options mentioned by participants.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:07, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect to Sportsnet 360#Programming. Sportsnet is the main channel and it doesn't have this, but I am not opposed to keeping if reliable sourcing is found on this. Conyo14 (talk) 06:22, 9 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! 02:39, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

GTunnel[edit]

GTunnel (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)

Little evidence of notability or third-party source coverage outside of passing mentions ([52]). Searches for the product name itself largely direct to a different project of the same name on GitHub. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 02:33, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus‎. Liz Read! Talk! 02:38, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Louis Morneau[edit]

Louis Morneau (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:BLP of a filmmaker, not properly referenced as having a strong claim to passing inclusion criteria for filmmakers. As always, film directors are not automatically entitled to have Wikipedia articles just because their films exist -- notability is not inherited, so the notability test requires evidence of significance, supported by WP:GNG-worthy reliable sourcing about them and their work.
But existence is the only notability claim being attempted here, the article is completely unsourced, and even the films listed in his filmography are almost all direct-to-video B-movies whose articles are also not properly sourced as passing our notability criteria for films either.
Nothing stated here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to pass GNG on his sourceability. Bearcat (talk) 16:32, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Could you help finding references instead of asking for deletion? Which are suitable reference websites for this? There are several homonyms, so looking for the proper references is difficult. Yann (talk) 19:15, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Meets WP:DIRECTOR, which states: ""People are likely to be notable if they meet any of the following standards (..)The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews, or of an independent and notable work (for example, a book, film, or television series, but usually not a single episode of a television series)". That is the case for various films he directed. But the nominator was right concerning the sourcing at the time of nomination, the page was unsourced. Not the case anymore: I’ve added a few things for verification and coverage about him and his films in independent reliable sources; fwiw, am willing to improve the article when I have more time.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 23:52, 24 November 2023 (UTC) (edited Nov, 27)[reply]
  • Thanks a lot for the help with references. Yann (talk) 12:45, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Yann: thank you for creating the page. Just a note: what homonyms are you referring to above? Don't you want to delete that bit, as I think it might belong to some other discussion? (I forgot which but I seem to remember another ongoing Afd somewhere!). Of course, feel free to leave it if you think it's important but if so, you might want to elaborate so that everyone (including me, I confess) may understand what you mean. Best, -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 17:13, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Half of the 10 first hits of [53] seems to concern another Louis Morneau. Yann (talk) 20:23, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
OK! Thanks for clarifying. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 22:01, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:56, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Please assess the article in light of recent expansion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 02:26, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Meets WP:DIRECTOR, body of work seems to be well known for multiple reasons including for direct-to-video movies including sequels. Verifiability is not a problem thanks to expansion by Mushy Yank (with help from other editors). Given the era and the coverage that exists online, likely to be many print-only sources as well. —siroχo 04:19, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect‎ to TV Tonight. Liz Read! Talk! 02:15, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

TV Tonight Awards 2020[edit]

TV Tonight Awards 2020 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Completely non-notable 'awards' conferred by an albeit notable website. Lacks significant coverage in independent sources. At best, redirect to TV Tonight. There are similar articles for 2021 and 2022. Boneymau (talk) 01:20, 9 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. Consensus is that sourcing isn't sufficient, and a merger has been discounted for myriad reasons-rendering it not a viable ATD. Star Mississippi 23:14, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nick Philip[edit]

Nick Philip (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 and WP:ARTIST with no significant, independent coverage available. The books cited in the article appear to be trivial mentions, with the remaining few available sources being interviews. The NY Times source is paywalled but seems to be a trivial mention as well.

The unsourced claim regarding being a founding contributor of Wired magazine might suggest notability, but there doesn't seem to be any substantiation for this except this, which is of questionable reliability and is an interview anyway. The Wired (magazine) article does not currently mention him by name at all and I've been unsuccessful in finding anything about him on Wired's website itself.

The article's talk page had someone in 2007 argue for notability but the points appear weak and/or outdated. Regardless, there's a dearth of reliable sources available for many of the claims. Uhai (talk) 05:13, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Artists, Fashion, United Kingdom, England, United States of America, and California. Uhai (talk) 05:13, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anarchic Adjustment. Uhai (talk) 05:14, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    seems like vandalism to delete this page and the Anarchic Adjustment one, if you feel some of the info is false/fake you could just edit it out, but deleting these pages removes the fact Nick exists and the company he started, even if his name was a pseudo, it is still perfectly valid to be here on Wikipedia, and the company does/did exist, the proof is all the clothing they made Neoterics (talk) 00:25, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Neoterics That is not at all what vandalism is; please see Wikipedia:Vandalism. The prime concern of this AfD is Wikipedia:Notability, for which Wikipedia's standards are strict, not that there may be unsourced information or misinformation in the article. This discussion is currently trending in the direction of no consensus, meaning the article would be retained. Uhai (talk) 19:40, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep.
    • The books cited in the article appear to be trivial mentions - I disagree, WP:SIGCOV coverage does not need to be lengthy. Being characterized as a leading figure a particular genre or subculture by an authority like Simon Reynolds is not a "trivial mention".
    • I've been unsuccessful in finding anything about him on Wired's website itself. - I had no trouble finding several, and just added two of them as additional citations to the article. I changed "a founding contributor" to "an early contributor" because the source I happened upon is dated 1994 instead of 1993 (Wired's founding year), one would probably need to dig up a separate source about the magazine's early history to investigate this further.
    • Also not sure what outdated refers to. There is no requirement for sources to be recent to count as evidence for notability.
    • I also just added another SIGCOV citation (by David Pescovitz, focusing entirely on the article's subject) from 2016, additional evidence of WP:SUSTAINED coverage.
Regards, HaeB (talk) 03:12, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
By outdated I'm referring to what the notability criteria may have been in 2007 on Wikipedia. Maybe having an IMDb page or a product for sale on Amazon could have, alongside other points, justified retention of an article then, however they mean nothing today. I wasn't around this area back then so I wouldn't know. I was not arguing contrary to WP:NOTTEMPORARY.
Thanks for finding some additional sources including for Wired, though I'm still unconvinced WP:GNG or WP:ARTIST are met here especially since the reality of his work there may not be as grand as the "founding contributor" claim might have insinuated. And I disagree regarding WP:SIGCOV: it specifically mentions in detail so I would argue coverage should be at least somewhat lengthy. The cited portion of the Reynolds book mentions him once in the thesis statement for the section (pp. 149-150) and has a single paragraph about him, with much of the content of said paragraph being quotations from him (pp. 152-153). Aside from that, pp. 61, 155, and 307 contain additional quotations, each limited to one paragraph each. I don't see how his few mentions in this book are any more than trivial. If he's "characterized as a leading figure" of a genre or subculture, especially given the subject of this book being said genre/subculture, shouldn't there be more? Shouldn't there be a chapter or at least a section of a chapter dedicated to him? Uhai (talk) 05:42, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:08, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have augmented the article further using yet another SIGCOV RS citation, to i-D magazine. I saw that in the other AfD you had mentioned that piece, arguing that it's an interview [...] so isn't independent. But that doesn't apply the introduction of the piece, which was evidently written by the i-D journalist. (And the idea that a journalist or their publication somehow become closely affiliated with the subject of their coverage in the sense of WP:INDEPENDENT just by talking to that subject would be absurd; in fact, at least in the US, not doing so is considered a failure of journalistic quality standards, at least for some types of coverage.)
Thanks for the clarification regarding outdated and your various other thoughtful responses. But I don't follow those arguments for lengthiness requirements - the part of WP:SIGCOV you are referring to continues [...] so that no original research is needed to extract the content, making clear that the detail is a means to an end, an end which is served perfectly well in this specific case. As for If he's "characterized as a leading figure" of a genre or subculture, especially given the subject of this book being said genre/subculture, shouldn't there be more? - I'm sorry, but that argument is entirely off the mark. Simon Reynolds' book is not about a single "genre/subculture" but catalogs an enormous number of them as part of one broad paradigm (or several) spanning multiple decades across multiple countries, i.e. what the author calls "dance culture". The index alone is 21 pages long (I'm looking at the 2012 US edition, rather than the 1999 one currently cited in the article), consisting almost entirely of notable people, bands, venues etc. That's admittedly my subjective impression, but I actually just confirmed it empirically by going through the letter "Z", where all but one of the entries have a Wikipedia article, with the remaining one (Zone Records) being a redirect. And all of these have fewer mentions in the book than Nick Philip. In other words, your counterfactual seems highly implausible. A well-known expert's comprehensive overview, written years or decades after the fact, can't be examined in the same way for the purposes of WP:GNG as a contemporary news or magazine article, or a specialist book entirely devoted to a single obscure niche topic.
To clarify just in case and for the record: I didn't create this article and have had some issues with some wordings and claims in previous revisions. But at this point I think WP:GNG is clearly satisfied.
Regards, HaeB (talk) 06:40, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the i-D article: you are correct that I said that and are correct that WP:IS can still apply to the introduction of an interview. However, it is just a brief introduction and context-setter that any interview would have and doesn't really provide the substance I would look for to make a case for WP:GNG. Looking over the article again, I am now a little concerned if it is some sort of paid article because of the number of images at the bottom of the article of the upcoming (at the time of publishing) products along with a link to the store and release date and time for the products. I'm not sure if i-D does paid articles but per WP:VICE it does appear there is not currently community consensus on whether Vice Media publications are reliable. I haven't yet dug into the discussions to see why those who don't think it's reliable think so, whether it's for promotional or other concerns. Of course, there being no consensus doesn't mean Vice Media is not reliable, but I am concerned about i-D and this article in particular. If you or someone else more knowledgeable than I could weigh in, it would be appreciated. If the article is just a "let us interview you for clicks and we'll plug your stuff" type of symbiotic relationship, does this introduce WP:RS concerns—even if no money exchanged hands?
As far as the Reynolds book goes, per WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS I would not make the case that subjects with fewer mentions in the book than Nick Philip having articles justifies the retention of this one. These subjects may also not be notable or may have more significant coverage elsewhere than what Phillip has. The bigger issue with the book is that Phillip's <6 mentions across it mostly consist of quotations from the man himself.
Thanks for the clarification regarding your involvement and previous concerns with the article. While I mentioned in the other AfD that there appears to have been some COI editing on both articles over the years, the reasoning for the nominations comes purely from concerns of notability.
This is an interesting discussion so hopefully we can get some participation from other editors as well to arrive at some consensus. Uhai (talk) 12:07, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into Cyberdelic as he does seem to be a part of that movement, but does not merit a stand-alone article. So much of the article is a long-winded description of his day job. --WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 01:48, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I see no consensus here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:37, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Uhai: Generally speaking i-D is a well-reputed fashion magazine, founded in 1980 by a former art director of the British Vogue. (I actually started the German Wikipedia article about it way back in 2005, which the English one was based on ;) WP:VICE isn't really very pertinent here, as none of the community discussions that it summarizes covered or even mentioned i-D specifically (I just checked), and most of them appear to have been about the RS status of Vice (magazine), Vice News and other specific publications rather than Vice Media in general (although I haven't checked in detail).

"let us interview you for clicks" - to repeat myself: the idea that a journalist or their publication somehow become closely affiliated with the subject of their coverage (in the sense of WP:INDEPENDENT) just by talking to that subject would be absurd (in fact, at least in the US, not doing so is considered a failure of journalistic quality standards, at least for some types of coverage). Likewise, insinuating that a news publication can't be regarded as reliable because it publishes articles designed to attract readership (clicks) is far removed from both journalistic practice and Wikipedia policy. As for the particular worry that this article could be a covert promotion (I am now a little concerned if it is some sort of paid article): I'm not too familiar with UK advertising regulations for print and online news media, but I kind assume that they would require disclosure in that situation. (Some other i-D articles do disclose the use of affiliate links, which isn't really a RS concern - the New York Times makes quite a bit of money with these too.) And the mere fact that the article mentions the release date and time for the products (and depicts some of them) is no evidence of that. It is standard practice in reputable fashion media to cover new products, as it is indeed in cultural journalism in general - book reviews in RS publications will usually include specific purchasing information for the book including its price, movie reviews in quality newspapers routinely state "In theaters Dec 1" etc., respected art magazines will cover current exhibitions together with information specifically designed to facilitate visiting that exhibition (museum location, dates etc). And so on - a lot political news coverage is driven by politicians' press releases and announcements, many investigative journalism stories are triggered by what self-interested sources decide to make available to journalists, etc. Now, if all these general facts are new to you, sure, you can worry about symbiotic relationships, earned media, or otherwise engage in generic media criticism. But all this has little to do with whether the publication in question has a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy in the sense of WP:RS.

Re OTHERSTUFFEXISTS: That wasn't my argument above when comparing the level of coverage of Nick Philip in Reynolds' book to that of other (undisputably notable) subjects - rather it was a reductio ad absurdum of your shouldn't there be more? argument against notability.

@WomenArtistUpdates: Merge into Cyberdelic as he does seem to be a part of that movement - are there reliable sources supporting that claim? I doubt that it is true; at least the term appears to have never appeared in the article's 17 year revision history. a long-winded description of his day job - what kind of argument is that? Shouldn't an article about an artist or designer actually focus on their work in the profession they are known for? How is this different from articles like say Esther Heins?

Regards, HaeB (talk) 04:54, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

HaeB, I have struck the merge suggestion. The source I saw is https://jods.mitpress.mit.edu/user/nick-philip/authored but as you point out, not enough to classify him as part of the movement. The difference between Esther Heins and Nick Philip is that she is dead and her work is in the collection of the Boston Museum of Fine Arts. Philip is alive and not verifiably in any notable collections. Best, --WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 00:35, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for clarifying. The difference between Esther Heins and Nick Philip is that she is dead and her work is in the collection of the Boston Museum of Fine Arts - death doesn't contribute to notability, but I understand that with the latter part you are referring to WP:ARTIST 4.d). However, that's not the only possible notability criterion here, hence all the conversation above especially about WP:GNG. But come to think of it, your source (the MIT Journal of Design and Science page) says that his design work is included in the permanent collection of SFMOMA, so that would actually count towards WP:ARTIST 4.d) too. Regards, HaeB (talk) 05:08, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The SFMOMA claim is unverifiable. The bio on JoDS can't be considered reliable and I am not finding Nick Philip in the SFMOMA database. Also being dead doesn't confirm being notable, but the subject being alive certainly opens the article up to more scrutiny. The nominator's statement that there is no significant, independent coverage available has not been disproved. --WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 18:36, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I consider WP:GNG to be satisfied, as detailed above. (Btw, I've also since added another citation, to a Hypebeast.com article.)
As for the subject being alive, I still disagree about this being a factor in evaluating notability. Maybe you meant that article about dead people are not susceptible to COI editing (which would be at best half true), or that notable people often attract additional RS coverage upon their death? On that matter, I find it interesting that an obituary on legacy.com is presented as the only independent SIGCOV in the aforementioned Esther Heins article. I'm not sure that Legacy.com can be considered a RS in itself, and its claim that the obituary was also published by the Boston Globe seems very difficult to verify (I am not finding Esther Heins in the online database at https://www.bostonglobe.com/ - a search results in "0 Results for 'Esther Heins'", as does a site search with Google), and leaves open the question whether this was WP:INDEPENDENT coverage written by the Boston Globe's journalists or a paid obituary. (I'm not trying to make an OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument and I'm also not planning to nominate this or other of your articles for deletion. I'm just surprised to see an editor who appears to have created various borderline notable biography articles come up with several spurious deletion arguments here that are not grounded in policy.)
Regards, HaeB (talk) 03:12, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, my media skepticism was leaking into my reply. I understand you believe i-D is reputable though it would be nice if there was some discussion in this community regarding i-D's current reliability; it being under the umbrella of WP:VICE should give cause for contemplation at the very least given lack of consensus for other Vice publications being reliable. Though at the end of the day, the i-D article is still an interview, so even if we posit the article isn't paid and i-D is a 100% reliable publication (both of which may very well be the case), there's nothing there, again, besides the brief introduction of the interviewees. Could this introduction be used as a source for some information in the article? Sure—and it is for two sentences, which is about the most you'll get out of it. Does it contribute at all to whether the subject meets WP:GNG? No.
The fact that we've dug into this much detail regarding the sources I think is a litmus test for the lack of notability here. When we're debating whether an interview introduction and a few quotes from the subject in a book contribute to a claim of the criteria of WP:GNG being met, the point is proven. The reason some articles like this are stubs and have issues with unverified or unverifiable information—and the reason these things have been the case since the article's inception in 2006—is simply because there's a scarcity of coverage and there always has been. Obviously I'm not the first to believe this given the PROD back in 2007 that was contested by yourself, and what limited coverage has emerged in the years since then has not improved the case for notability. Uhai (talk) 00:05, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. Has GNG been met? Some dispute over it, more (other editors) eyes may lead to a consensus either way on this issue.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 00:51, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No, the lengthiness of AfD discussion is not is a litmus test for the lack of notability. Rather, what's been taking most room above are multiple spurious arguments for deletion - not just this digression into generic media criticism that I felt compelled to respond to by outlining various journalistic standards, but also other arguments for deletion that either had nothing to do with policy or were factually wrong (say the insinuation that the Wired website does not mention him), and their debunking. In fact, that "litmus test" argument is another such faulty argument in itself. Similarly, I think the claim that the article has been a "stub" and [has had] issues with unverified or unverifiable information [...] since [its] inception in 2006 is rather misleading - the 2006 version cited no references at all and was considerably shorter, whereas most of the information in the present version is well-sourced at this point. I also just removed one remaining unsourced sentence about an exhibition and added another sourced sentence about a different, more recent (2022) exhibition.
I have explained in detail above why I consider the i-D and Reynolds SIGCOV and mentioned other SIGCOV too. And we haven't even discussed other existing sources yet, e.g. the 1998 piece from "Shift", a Japanese magazine that I am not familiar with but which appears to have been used by editors in many other articles and which (as article topic) has been a requested article for a long time. Regards, HaeB (talk) 00:44, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
PS: I found another book ("Psychedelics Reimagined", published by Autonomedia in 1999) which based on this Google Books preview is clearly another SIGCOV RS (quoting the article subject at length in one part, and summarizing his views in another, some other pages that mention him are not displayed in this particular preview for me). Regards, HaeB (talk) 00:56, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think we've both made our opinions quite clear at this point so I will not address further your criticisms of the arguments made here as this discussion may approach WP:BLUDGEON territory. I do hope we can gain participation from other editors otherwise I will give it some time and re-nominate at a later date in another attempt to seek consensus. Thanks for your thoughts and your efforts to find sources and improve the article. Uhai (talk) 02:41, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Fails GNG. I do not find the Reynolds book to be significant coverage because the discussion of Philips there is not sufficiently in depth. The i-D interview weakly contributes to notability because although it's an interview, I think i-D is sufficiently reliable and notable in itself such that the fact that they chose to interview him establishes some notability. The Joi Ito Wired article mentions Philip twice, and the author acknowledges that he was the distributor of Philips' clothing. The NY Times and East Bay Express articles contain passing mentions of Philip. The Boing Boing articles and the other Wired article do not discuss Philip in depth either. voorts (talk/contributions) 03:06, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:ARTIST. --WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 02:44, 13 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. The consensus is Keep, including a change of opinion by the nominator. Liz Read! Talk! 02:14, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Easy Redmine (software)[edit]

Easy Redmine (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)

Non-notable software fails WP:GNG. Note that this appears to be distinct from Redmine, which does have coverage. Open to redirect as WP:ATD, but is not mentioned at target page (and I can't find WP:SIGCOV of Easy Redmine in relation to Redmine, so I would consider a mention WP:UNDUE) A412 (Talk • C) 00:44, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

https://forbes.cz/miliardu-ale-pomalu-jak-cech-ktery-premysli-jinak-dostal-svuj-software-do-celeho-sveta/
https://cc.cz/hlavni-software-statni-spravy-kazachstanu-je-z-ceska-firma-easy-software-se-nenapadne-rozprostrela-po-svete/
https://komoraplus.cz/2022/03/11/vyzkum-odhalil-trendy-managementu-na-dalku/
Is there an implied concern of these sources not being sufficiently reliable or independent? PaulT2022 (talk) 00:55, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, I have WP:INDEPENDENT and WP:SIGCOV concerns. Several of the sources (in particular the two Forbes cites) lean heavily interview, and the first link feels like a CEO profile. More importantly, the bulk of the WP:RS coverage doesn't actually discuss Easy Redmine. I think we'd be able to write a WP:V article on Easy Software the company, or on CEO Filip Morávek, but RS says precious little about Easy Redmine aside from that it exists, this company develops it, and some companies in other countries use it. A412 (Talk • C) 04:10, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    That's a good point. I'd support a move to Easy Software unless someone comes up with a reason to suspect that the facts about the company are false.
    WP:INDEPENDENT is a lesser concern in my view, as it's plausible that local media would like the story of worldwide success and produce coverage like this without improper influence. PaulT2022 (talk) 05:42, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the software is notable due to its coverage in independent international and Czech sources like Businessinsider, Forbes, CzechCrunch, and Komora Plus. The software has a global reach, being available in 80 countries, and is used for instance by the Kazakh state administration, that highlights its notability in project management. I don't object the renaming of the page too. I have also found additional good coverage in several notable books ana PCmag about Easy Redmine and addded it to the page. ThanX yall (talk) 10:27, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep due to its significant recognition in the software industry, as evidenced by references from reputable sources like Biztweet.eu, Czechstartups.org, and Computerwoche.de. It represents a notable innovation in project management software, extending the functionalities of Redmine and offering unique features like advanced user management and dynamic project planning. The software's global expansion, including its market influence in Japan, and its mention in academic research, such as the thesis from there, further underline its relevance. Additionally, its contribution to the open-source community and practical application in various businesses demonstrate its wide-ranging impact and justify its presence on Wikipedia. --Loewstisch (talk) 14:12, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as I see new sources, reviews and books were found, and the local Czech are quite good for general notability. --Old-AgedKid (talk) 14:03, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment from nom: New Czech-language sources look good. Leaning keep. A412 (Talk • C) 20:24, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Star Mississippi 23:09, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Karl von Möller[edit]

Karl von Möller (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 insufficient in establishing notability, nor could any reliable/ independent sources be found online containing more than just a passing mention. ––– GMH Melbourne (talk) 00:04, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom
AaronVick (talk) 02:42, 2 December 2023 (UTC)(sock strike Liz Read! Talk! 00:36, 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! 00:36, 9 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_9&oldid=1190278830"