Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 January 22

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< January 21 January 23 >

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. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 04:13, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fillmore Condit[edit]

Fillmore Condit (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 individual which lacks third party reliable sources. Tinton5 (talk) 23:31, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I do not think this is a non-notable person. The Los Angeles Times's obituary for him noted he was an oil company founder and ex-Long Beach mayor. Scannell and The Political Graveyard are standard references. Many of the other Long Beach mayors who have Wikipedia profiles have less said about them, fewer accomplishments. If there is an effort in Wikipedia generally to try to winnow out minor notables, that is a good plan. But there are many interesting contributors to history you will lose if you start removing people who are not notable currently but interesting people of their time. Panicale (talk) 00:03, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Japan Air Lines Flight 123#Tailstrike incident. Liz Read! Talk! 23:39, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Japan Air Lines Flight 115[edit]

Japan Air Lines Flight 115 (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 minor aviation incident is relevant only as the background of the crash of Japan Air Lines Flight 123, where the events of Flight 115 are already adequately covered. It is therefore proposed that this page be turned into a redirect to Japan Air Lines Flight 123. A merge is not necessary as all information is basically already present in the target article. Note that another editor had already blanked the page and turned it into a redirect. [1] Deeday-UK (talk) 23:16, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect per nom. Pointless content fork. Mccapra (talk) 23:19, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Aviation, Transportation, and Japan. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 08:28, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect as suggested. Nom's analysis is correct. The other case that could be made would be for a highly selective merge. Yet, with a regular redirect, the history will remain available. So supporting Deeday-UK's conclusion. Where possible, we need to keep things simple. gidonb (talk) 13:20, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per nom. This is only of significance in relation to the crash over 7 years later. The information should be within that article rather than put somewhere else, requiring the reader to go to another article to access it. On its own, this flight is not notable enough for its own article. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 14:01, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Japan Air Lines Flight 123#Tailstrike incident per nom, but provide a more specific redirect. Jumpytoo Talk 20:56, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Heroes characters. Liz Read! Talk! 23:42, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Petrelli[edit]

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

Not enough out-of-universe information for a separate article to be needed, or demonstrate notability of the character. Could be merged to List of Heroes characters and/or Heroes (season 1) Indagate (talk) 11:38, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Indagate (talk) 11:38, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 13:03, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep discussed in scholarly sources including:
    • Carol A. Stabile (2009) “Sweetheart, This Ain't Gender Studies”: Sexism and Superheroes, Communication and Critical/Cultural Studies, 6:1, 86-92, DOI: 10.1080/14791420802663686
    • Investigating Heroes: Essays on Truth, Justice and Quality TV, Ed. David Simmons. ISBN ‎ 978-0786459360
    ... and from Google News [2]. Additionally, [3] and [4] provide a bit more, but the first three should be evidence enough that the character can be written about in an encyclopedic manner. Jclemens (talk) 21:35, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The urls don't seem like significant coverage of the character. The screenrant link is duplicated, did you have another? Thanks, Indagate (talk) 14:05, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete or redirect. I checked Stabile's academic article and it totally fails SIGCOV, the character is mentioned there twice in passing the context of having superpowers and being one of Claire protectors, arguably he doesn't even get a sentence dedicated to him! Given this, I am not even going to bother to check other sources listed by Jclemens, as they seem to be simple google hits results and Stabile's article certainly does not provide any "evidence enough that the character can be written about in an encyclopedic manner"; this is a patently false claim and I am very disappointed to see it made here as it casts doubt on any other sources provided by Jclemens. Please provide an analysis of the sources and show us they contain SIGCOV and go beyond a plot summary.
Anyway, the article doesn't contain anything that goes beyond a plot summary, and as such, I recommend that this is redirected to the List of Heroes characters, with no prejudice to this being restored or kept if someone actually writes a proper reception/analysis section. In the current state the article fails GNG, my BEFORE shows some mention of him but someone needs to check whether any meet SIGOV and I am not motivated right now. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:56, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's unfortunate that you seem happy to spend more time to type out excuses why you won't read more than one reference, rather than actually, oh, click through any of them. The second one is particularly interesting, in that it's a book about Heroes and Petrelli is mentioned in multiple sections. But seriously, I appreciate your honesty that your opinion here is intentionally under-informed due to your own lack of effort. Jclemens (talk) 09:54, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me. Unless you provide quotes here to justify your claims about a source you didn't even link to an accessible repository, I am not inclined any longer to take your word for whatever claims about significant coverage you want to make. I am sorry, but you've lost my trust. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 13:37, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Would you like me to read the various passages to you on a WhatsApp recording, so you don't even have to search in Google Books for a book where I clearly posted the ISBN? Jclemens (talk) 00:54, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nah, please just quote the passages here. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:25, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 18:17, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. I reviewed the sources provided, and did my own search. There is a lot of plot summary, and some passing character analysis, but most of what I'm seeing is material that is analyzing the series, not the character, and as such belongs in the parent article. I see no justification at all for a standalone. I also do not consider ScreenRant a good source for this type of article. They're known for producing any number of listicles that are regurgitated plot summaries; these add nothing to our understanding of the topic, and are useless for determining due weight. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:42, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:50, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, these are passing mentions. Redirect is my call here. Oaktree b (talk) 23:03, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect is the right call. Only WP:TRIVIALMENTIONs in the sources, which focuses more on the series. Shooterwalker (talk) 19:27, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect Given the sourcing situation, clearly this character is better described in a more limited summary in the article for the narrative work itself. SnowRise let's rap 15:25, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to Kielsen VII Cabinet. Liz Read! Talk! 05:52, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kielsen VIII Cabinet[edit]

Kielsen VIII Cabinet (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)

Kielsen was the leader of seven cabinets. A Kielsen VIII cabinet never existed as can be seen the official Greenlandic list from their ministry of interior: link. On this site you can see the actual 7th cabinet, and also see that no 8th cabinet existed. The confusion is likely because the Democrats left the cabinet in february 2021. and then a good-natured editor assumed that a new cabinet would be formed. But Kielsen's 7th cabinet continued until the next election. I propose merging the article into Kielsen VII Cabinet, since having an article for an 8th cabinet is just straight up incorrect information. Kaffe42 (talk) 13:46, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 18:19, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:49, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge. Nominator stands correct. Please merge! gidonb (talk) 15:22, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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! 23:43, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of spy films[edit]

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

There are 999 films in subcats of Category:Spy films by century per PetsScan so the scope of this list is too broad and WP:INDISCRIMINATE so not useful to readers. Indagate (talk) 15:30, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Indagate (talk) 15:30, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Only 999? Delete per nom. Clarityfiend (talk) 20:04, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. North America1000 00:02, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect, to Spy film#Films. This article passes WP:NLIST as spy films are discussed as a group in many reliable sources, however this particular page largely duplicates the main article, and there is a larger list of spy films there too. SailingInABathTub ~~🛁~~ 01:47, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Nominated for deletion a day after it was created. List articles are more useful than categories, this one already has a table listing the director and year released. The size of a list is not a valid list to delete it. If someone could use a bot to search for everything in the relevant category, then grab information from the infobox, to populate the list with automatically, that'd save some time. Dream Focus 03:27, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note that Category:Lists of film lists shows how many list articles there are for this sort of thing. Lists of action films and others like it always divide the long list into smaller list by decade. Being a spy is a defining feature in spy films. Dream Focus 03:30, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep It is well-cited and of value to the public. JRed176 (talk) 18:12, 11 January 2023 (UTC) - WP:SOCKSTRIKE - Beccaynr (talk) 23:59, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 18:21, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep There is unambiguous encyclopedic value in listing all films in a major genre, and the category is over half an order of magnitude smaller than many overbroad lists that get deleted at AfD. If the list were completed based on the category contents, the article would be approximately 352 KB (about the same size as 2021 in video games or Glossary of cue sports terms),[1] but this can be easily handled by splitting into sub-lists by decade. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 13:42, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Based on a 32.0 KB list of 91 films, plus 3.6 KB of non-list content.
  • Comment Note, creator of article indef blocked, probably not worth anything as wasn't when created but noting anyway. Thanks, Indagate (talk) 13:51, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:48, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the list of spy films as suggested. This list is much too long. Oaktree b (talk) 23:08, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the mere fact a list is big or could be big is not in itself a reason to delete it. WP:SALAT does say "Lists that are too general or too broad in scope have little value, unless they are split into sections", but this could be achieved by splitting the list up when it gets big, probably by decade. WP:INDISCRIMINATE is more about whether content has an encylopedic purpose or is suitable for an encyclopedia. Genre is a very natural categorisation to use for films and the concept of spy films is definitely encyclopedic. Furthermore, while this isn't binding Template:Films by genre lists a lot of other similar lists of films by genre, e.g. Lists of comedy films or Lists of crime films, and if we're going to decide that these aren't acceptable then that change should be considering the lists as a group rather than individually. Hut 8.5 19:42, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per arguments by Dream Focus, LaundryPizza03 and Hut 8.5. Lists of films by genre have existed since Wikipedia's earliest days and are certainly useful to users engaged in film research. This entry is analogous to List of biographical films, List of conspiracy-thriller films and television series, List of Contemporary Westerns, List of dystopian films, List of religious films, List of romantic comedy films or List of science fiction comedy films. There are of course numerous other film lists, but the ones listed here are among those using the same sortable format and style as the nominated list. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 00:58, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. As noted by others above, this list article would seem to be completely consistent with a long-established practice of creating such lists for films of well-recognized genres. Personally, I do agree that the utility is limited, but I can certainly imagine contexts in which readers would find the listing useful, and as WP is WP:NOTPAPER, there is no prohibition against articles of niche interest, provided they are, at least in some sense, encyclopedic in nature. Further, and also as noted by others above, WP:NOTINDISCRIMINATE does not apply here. SnowRise let's rap 15:32, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. I think this outcome is partially due to the fact that the deletion rationale doesn't make much sense. Liz Read! Talk! 05:55, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

João Gonzalez[edit]

João Gonzalez (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 think it does not meet Wikipedia criteria to comment for you friends Opps Noor (talk) 21:35, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:45, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Albeit early in his career (age 26), appears to have won several significant awards in the movie industry. David notMD (talk) 21:41, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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! 23:49, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Raymond Ko Mun Cheung[edit]

Raymond Ko Mun Cheung (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)

Bio of a person whose entire claim to notability is that he was executed for drug trafficking. Although there was of course some press coverage of the case, I don’t believe this amounts to a case for inclusion. Mccapra (talk) 22:29, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep hi all, i created this article and others of a similar style to provided info on foreign drug mules who were caught moving drugs via Singapore's changi airport, info is impossible to find online so i had to dig into archived newspapers (i have provided links throughout). i wanted to record the circumstances of their arrest and their attempts to present legal arguments to get off the charge, which always failed ... if others think its not Notable there isnt much i can say in reply as that is their opinion, howevere i will point out there are countless other articles that could be considered not notable, such as Duncan McKenzie (murderer), that have been on wikipedia for many years without any issues at all — Preceding unsigned comment added by WorldTravleerAndPhotoTaker (talk • contribs) 08:31, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a reason for keeping. LibStar (talk) 07:27, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete A rather run-of-the-mill crime, only reported in one local newspaper. WorldTravleerAndPhotoTaker, if you haven't done so you should read about WP:NOTABILITY and RELIABLE SOURCES. There are even rules for perpetrators of crime on the WP:NOTABILITY page. The decision about which information is suitable for WP must be based on those rules, not a subjective sense of importance. I think you will see that this person does not meet the criteria. Lamona (talk) 03:03, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    one guideline for perpetrators of crimes is: "The motivation for the crime or the execution of the crime is unusual" so it could be argued that being one of the fewer than a dozen Hongkongers caught smuggling heroin via Changi airport and then being executed for it would meet that criteria, however 'Notability' is subjective depending on who is reviewing the content i suppose WorldTravleerAndPhotoTaker (talk) 16:01, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There is an entire section in Capital punishment in Singapore for those executed for drug smuggling. It makes sense to start there. Not everyone who has been executed is notable, and if you look at Chijioke Stephen Obioha you see that information about that case was taken up as a cause and reported in more than one source and more than one country. Lamona (talk) 16:45, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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! 23:52, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sailesh Kolanu[edit]

Sailesh Kolanu (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 was previously deleted. I hope that the general note will be considered. Opps Noor (talk) 21:26, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Linguist111 (talk) 22:17, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: He have already directed three notable feature films. Although there are few independent sources, it still needs an expansion...but not deletion..Jayanthkumar123 (talk) 16:56, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Subject seems to pass GNG from the reliable source reference on the page.--Doctorlimp (talk) 18:53, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 20:17, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Limnor[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Limnor (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) 18:04, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is no procedural reason to go against this and stop accusing other editors of being LTAs without evidence. Canterbury Tail talk 13:08, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete doesn't appear to be notable, almost zero reliable sources turning up on a search most are primary. No real news or discussions about it. Canterbury Tail talk 23:40, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no book sources either. Tails Wx 00:24, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Not finding any reliable sources myself, and no evidence the subject can meet any notability standard. What "procedural grounds" does Amitie 10g allege are valid here? Ravenswing 04:50, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete How this article ever came into existence with exactly zero references is rather concerning and it's a tautology to state it fails WP:N with that in mind. --(loopback) ping/whereis 08:12, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Actually seems like a kind of interesting project, but as others have noted above, there are no WP:RS establishing the topic's WP:Notability (nor indeed any sources at all) in the article, nor did a brief search by myself turn any up. As such this is a clear WP:SNOW call. SnowRise let's rap 15:53, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Pope Paul VI#Death. Eddie891 Talk Work 18:01, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Testament of Pope Paul VI[edit]

Testament of Pope Paul VI (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 topic does not appear to be covered enough to make it notable. The article is not long enough to justify keeping it as a standalone article either. The article is also completely unsourced.

Therefore, I suggest this article be turned into a redirect to Pope Paul VI#Death, where the topic is mentioned. Veverve (talk) 17:13, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 Talk Work 18:02, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dallas Chapman[edit]

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

Non-notable musician. Fails WP:MUSICIAN. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 16:47, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and United States of America. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 16:47, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – I was creating an AfD nomination myself, so I'll add my rationale here. The draft has no independent sources, and I fail to find anything to support notability per WP:GNG or WP:NMUSIC. Looks like an up-and-coming musician who might become notable in the future, and at that point there could be an article about him, but not before. The article was created as a draft and rejected, after which the draft creator added a bit of content and a couple of sources and moved it to mainspace. It was draftified again, but since the draft creator chose to move it back to mainspace without any changes, here we are. --bonadea contributions talk 16:53, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I can find no sources that mention this person apart from discographies, lyrics sites and similar. No evidence of notability. CodeTalker (talk) 17:04, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Good luck to him as he gets started, but he is in purely self-promotion mode now and has not been noticed by significant and reliable media. Uploading his own stuff to the usual streaming and social media sites doesn't count for Wikipedia. It's too soon, at least. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 19:14, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Self-promotion with no information from reliable sources to suggest any notability criteria are met. --Kinu t/c 18:37, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Pope Pius XII#Final illness and death. Eddie891 Talk Work 18:02, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Testament of Pope Pius XII[edit]

Testament of Pope Pius XII (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 topic does not appear to be covered enough to make it notable. The only mentions of this testament in secondary sources I found is on this Catholic newspaper (transcribed here), and an extract mentioned by The Times.

The article is not long enough to justify keeping it as a standalone article either.

Therefore, I suggest this article be turned into a redirect to Pope Pius XII#Final illness and death, where the topic is mentioned. Veverve (talk) 16:23, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep per WP:SNOW. Clearly there's consensus against deletion here; editors are welcome to continue the discussion on the talk page if there are still issues that need to be addressed. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 07:45, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Founding Fathers of the United States[edit]

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

Delete WP:NPOV, a 1910s neologism, with too much unrelated content. Most of the content duplicates that found elsewhere in more targeted articles, such as Signing of the United States Declaration of Independence and Signing of the United States Constitution. At the very least, it should be renamed Founders of the United States, and most of its content moved to the respective main articles with per section main article hatnotes.

This term "Founding Fathers" was explicitly rejected by actual founders of the US, such as Adams and Jefferson. It was promulgated in the early 20th century by Harding as a counter to Women's suffrage, and resurrected 60 years later by Reagan who was against the Equal Rights Amendment. This dog whistle has mostly been used as an ultra-conservative or reactionary gloss.

This article has become a target of White Christian Nationalist sentiment demanding inclusion of religions of various such founders. The article has long been a target of persistent vandalism and sockpuppetry, and repeatedly been protected.

Its presence is currently being used to argue for the reinstatement of long-deleted categories. In 2007, Category:Founding Fathers of the United States was deleted. Its subcategories Category:Signers of the United States Declaration of Independence and Category:Signers of the United States Constitution were retained. The inclusion criteria are overly broad and allow for too much of a gray area for the interpretation of who was a "leader" during the American Revolution. Several other categories already specify exactly what these people did to contribute to the foundation of the United States....

This article has been further expanded by Additional Founding Fathers. My own distant relative Ethan Allen is the first such listed alphabetically. At no time in his lifetime nor his death was he termed a founding father.

Moreover, the article has been expanded with Founding Mothers. That speaks to the need for renaming to Founders.

Finally, the article is replete with a recapitulation of the entire American Revolution, the demographics, and other material far better suited to specific main articles.
William Allen Simpson (talk) 15:54, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy keep I'm not reading all of that, but 'founding fathers' is a common American term and if it's been protected against extremist vandalism the issues involving that have been ushered out. Deletion isn't happening, and please discuss your issues with this page on its talk page. Nate • (chatter) 16:22, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Politics, and United States of America. Shellwood (talk) 16:38, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. While the phrase may be sexist by current standards, it is a notable topic nonetheless. No less than Britannica has an article on this precise subject (here), so it is hard to argue this is not encyclopedic. (As for the assertion that non-founders have incorrectly been included, that is an editing issue that can be taken up on the article talk page.) Cbl62 (talk) 17:17, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree with most of what you say, but it should also be said that referring to a body of men as Founding Fathers is not "sexist", it's a reflection on the truth. Not everyone is in line with "current standards", in spite of the distortions the media tries to feed us.. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:59, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • It should also be said that there is no section entitled Founding Mothers as was claimed in the opening statement above.. While there is a sub-section entitled Women it is under the general heading of Additional Founding Fathers, some of whom are questionable as to whether they were actual founders .i.e.Those who play actual roles in conceiving, drafting, debating and signing the documents outlining the foundation, independence, nationhood, and its governing laws and precepts. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:12, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: No valid rationale for deletion has been given, and the nomination is borderline WP:POINTy. This is obviously a notable topic, with coverage in an immense number of reliable academic sources. NPOV, disruption, and name concerns should all be handled article-side, as that is not the purpose of AfD. Curbon7 (talk) 17:28, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Possibly split -- Much of this article is a list of people (all with bio-articles) who are considered to be founders. Mixed up with this is a series of sections on the institutional development of USA prior to the adoption of the Constitution, which I am sure we must have done better elsewhere. The founders were mostly men, but if it is desired to enable then women not to be out of place, it might become Founders of the United States (which redirects to this article). Peterkingiron (talk) 17:36, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep -- William Allen Simpson: Many of your criticisms are well taken. Nonetheless, I believe the following:
  • The "neologism" (founding fathers) while only a century old is nonetheless now part of the language, how a significant number of people thinks of and refers to our "progenitors".
  • The article on average garners over 1 million page views annually. During the first year of the pandemic, 2020, the number of visits doubled (2,371,782), attracting more readers than the Constitution, Declaration of Independence, American Revolution, and any other related topic that year except the Revolutionary War (2,683,128). So the subject as a separate matter is of extremely high interest.
  • Redundancies are common to articles on subjects of an expansive nature, such as the American Revolution and Civil War, where certain sub-topics warrant separate focus. While I agree the article should be shortened to eliminate unnecessary repetition, that's probably true of every sub-topic article.
  • The inclusion criteria has been based on whether multiple WP:RS's specifically assign the term to someone, and not marginally, for example, as a "forgotten founding father". While I believe you're correct about Ethan Allen, I have reviewed at least 95% of the candidates to assure this. That's an easy matter, however, since most founding fathers are signers (or delegates) and therefore, are widely recognized.
  • "Founding Mother" developed in response to the sexism of the general term though I think it's a somewhat dubious construct and not the "prevailing view". Yet a fair number of reliable sources have taken up the cause, and this article seems like the appropriate place to address this. Without changing its title.
  • As for target of White Christian Nationalist sentiment demanding inclusion of religions of various such founders. The article has long been a target of persistent vandalism..., I don't think that's reason to delete an article and may be more a sign of this one's importance. In any case, I've been editing and watching the article intensively for more than a year and have seen very few problems along these lines (probably because of its protected status).
You've diligently covered the lay of the land, so to speak, but I don't see much point in addressing every issue you've raised. IMO, I doubt this effort will gain traction, but see nothing wrong with determining whether that's the case. Allreet (talk) 17:58, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - It's a common and notable term. Also, the purported sexism is covered by WP:NOTCENSORED. CoolJamesII (talk) 20:32, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notability is not temporary. While I think there are some copy edits that need to be made that can make the prose more inclusive, that should be discussed on the talk page, rather that at AFD. --Enos733 (talk) 20:53, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep Propose a page move or removal of offending sections, but there's no basis to just delete the article on a widely used term and grouping of historical people. Reywas92Talk 21:08, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Snow Keep - As is. If there is an issue with any part of this article, then edit it. But Americans are taught in school that these are the "founding fathers" who helped create the new nation and its basic rules of law. Political speeches and news items often refer to the "founding fathers". If there's a problem with the wording "Founding Fathers", then the problem is not in this article. — Maile (talk) 23:32, 22 January 2023 (UT
  • Keep This is clearly a notable topic. Several books have been published about this topic. A phrase that has been widely used for 110 years is no longer a neologism. Cullen328 (talk) 00:58, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep. Rather than delete, the page is near feature status. It's a wonderful page, one of the best crafted, collaborated on, multi-argued, and edited pages I've read or experienced on Wikipedia. Randy Kryn (talk) 01:31, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Although good point in the nom about Ethan Allen. Even though there are two good references naming him as a Founding Father, have moved his entry so he is no longer on the Founders list. The nominator is lucky to have such a proud family heritage. Randy Kryn (talk) 01:50, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep pretty sure I created this page in—checks page history—2004, at which time it entirely was unsourced bullshit. (It was so hard adding citations back then guys!!) Anyway, it looks like team Americapedia has done fine work here and I'm biased but I think it should stay. jengod (talk) 03:32, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep — It's sort of amazing that this proposed deletion was even allowed to take place. Ridiculous. Yes, there is much about the Revolution in the article -- always in context with the role the Founders played. This is not simply a list of Founding Fathers.-- All the criticisms are highly opinionated, with very little real substance to back them up. -- Esp the part about the term Fathers. Though a couple of women like Abigail Adams lent their advice, all the actual Founders were men --i.e. those who drafted, debated and signed founding documents and or played major roles in the war. If this doesn't sit well with the gender denial crowd that is unfortunate. User Jengod did well to give the article its appropriate name. She has my thanks. - Gwillhickers (talk) 19:15, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Pope John Paul II#Final illness and death. As this stub is completely unsourced, I'm not merging anything now, but content from the page history can be added to the target section as long as it's sourced properly. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 11:31, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Testament of Pope John Paul II[edit]

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

The topic does not appear to be covered enough to make it notable. The article is not long enough to justify keeping it as a standalone article either. The article is also completely unsourced.

Therefore, I suggest this article be turned into a redirect to Pope John Paul II#Final illness and death, where the topic is mentioned. Veverve (talk) 14:58, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Christianity and Poland. Veverve (talk) 14:58, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and BLAR per nom. - UtherSRG (talk) 15:23, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per nom. Mccapra (talk) 17:05, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge -- Not enough content to merit a separate article. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:54, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The stub is very poor. There article on pl wiki is longer but poorly referenced. Here's an academic source that may be relevant, but I am not sure if it covers the same document: [5]. This is also covered for several paragraphs in a Polish academic paper available here: [6]. Searching in Polish is problematic as some sources cover a documentary named in the same way ([7]). I'll ask for help on pl wiki, see if anyone can find better soruces. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:30, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Update: some Polish news sources on this topic from a while back RMF FM [8], Interia [9], TVN24, [10]. I am skipping links to coverage on minor religious portals; the above media are major mainstream Polish ones. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 13:40, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. The discussion hinges on whether or not there is significant coverage of the topic. I find no consensus on this point, hence no consensus in the deletion discussion. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 04:11, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Cyme Lulaj[edit]

Cyme Lulaj (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 Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 04:22, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 04:29, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - I think the characterisation of the Dritare source as "bloggy" is a bit harsh! It's listed at List of newspapers in Albania as an online news portal and when I googled it there was various Linkedin pages for its journalists, so it's run to professional standards. Cielquiparle is right that some editors do try to disallow interviews but that's always been bunkum, frankly. I'm not too sure why the TV interview source is being discounted either? Looks okay coverage to me, albeit I dunno exactly what's being said. Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 14:16, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Sounds good to me! Cielquiparle (talk) 14:30, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Interviews that don't provide any significant secondary independent commentary cannot be used for GNG. The Panorama Sport interview only has around 3 brief sentences by the interviewer, so Red XN. The TV interview has a little discussion outside the interview, but I don't speak Albanian so other than picking up a couple "Cyme"s (and "30 Seconds to Mars"...) it's hard to gauge how much is secondary direct coverage of Lulaj versus primary comments or focused on the other players. The fact that she was interviewed at all has zero bearing on notability as it is not a criterion of ANYBIO or GNG. JoelleJay (talk) 21:17, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - that's 2 paragraphs or more in 2 reputable Albanian-language news sources plus a TV interview, good enough for me. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:45, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify or redirect. There is one marginal source (Dratire) but GNG requires multiple pieces of SIRS SIGCOV, and I am not finding this for Lulaj. JoelleJay (talk) 21:22, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 14:48, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Draftify - The Dritare source is quite good, although I agree that it's probably not enough by itself to meet the GNG. Let's see if an editor can find something more to bring it up to our notability standards. Jogurney (talk) 18:24, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I don't consider "fails WP:GNG" with no further explanation to be a valid reason for deletion. Partofthemachine (talk) 22:57, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per lack of established WP:SIGCOV - one, two or a mere handful aren't just enough imho. Angelo (talk) 23:15, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to Heresy in the Catholic Church#Formal and material heresy. (non-admin closure) Atlantic306 (talk) 22:51, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Material heresy[edit]

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

The subject is not notable enough, nor is the article long enough, to deserve a self-standing article.

Therefore, I propose this article be merged into Heresy in the Catholic Church#Formal and material heresy, where the subject is already treated along with its counterpart, the formal heresy. Veverve (talk) 14:10, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:52, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Results of the 2022 Swedish general election by constituency[edit]

Results of the 2022 Swedish general election by constituency (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:NOTSTATS - this article analyses the results of the 2022 Swedish general election down to område level (third level administrative division), equivalent to precincts in the US and parishes in the UK. We already have constituency articles and Results of the 2022 Swedish general election which analyses the results down to county and municipality levels (first and second level administrative division). Analysing down to område level is overkill. Obi2canibe (talk) 13:24, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agree this is overly granular. There's Results_of_the_2022_Swedish_general_election#Results_by_constituency, but the sources for this should be linked there. Reywas92Talk 17:06, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Commment - Fair enough to debate whether this should be an article, but WP:NOTSTATS doesn't apply, as they are provided with context and in tables. Onetwothreeip (talk) 20:52, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I'm confused as to why we'd have a stats article showing results for three parties only, out of the eight parties represented in the Swedish parliament. That makes no sense in the Swedish political system. /Julle (talk) 03:16, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • STRONG KEEP The charts are collapsed, which means they are not taking up much space at all. The three largest parties received 70 % of the vote, compared to just 28 % for the five minor which makes it an easy distinction, especially since coalition results remain. There is a potential to change it to a 10 % municipal threshold and add a fourth party where this applied, though. This is absolutely not inappropriate stats, this is a constituency-based breakdown of the results. I would have preferred to have it in the main results column like it initially was, before someone flipped it. Above all, after all of this work by myself for three months with no complaints, this sudden terrible nomination for deletion is highly disrespectful and inappropriate and whoever did that now rather than back when this project started should be ashamed of themselves. I can't believe this nonsense. I didn't even start this article because it fit into the main results article, someone decided to split the two and I didn't complain about it and now this? Merge it back into the main results article anyway, it's about halfway home so it's not going to swell to uncontrollable levels. If you scroll without opening a chart, this article looks like nothing in terms of a wall of text. At some point, you have to have sympathy for the good-faith work I've done with this rather than figuratively dropping the jewellry of a cliff for no reason after three full months. Like seriously, why? Glottran (talk) 13:39, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I just want to finish this article in a few months and then be done with it. Like a once-in-a-lifetime project this and I won't even want to try and do something this intensive again so all I really want is for this to remain and be properly finished :) Glottran (talk) 14:09, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If the article is deleted, we should retain the considerable content so that it can be used in other articles. I lean towards keeping this article, but I believe it is possible that the content may be more appropriate elsewhere, if an editor were to make a convincing argument for that. Onetwothreeip (talk) 09:04, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
My preferred solution in the event of the tragic deletion, would be to put this back into the main results page like it used to be prior to someone arbitrarily splitting the articles without consulting anyone else. The thing is that while there will be 290 charts once it is finished, like previously mentioned it does not take up excessive space due to every chart being collapsed. What would be the best solution if put back there would be if it was possible to have the charts "double-collapsed" if possible, which would make them visible only if a) opening each constituency's municipal list, b) then opening the respective chart. I'm not a technical expert, so I'm not sure on how feasible that is though. Even then, I don't believe a list of 290 collapsed articles is particularly bad per se. The main thing for me is that my work should live on and enable me to finish it in due course, be it this year or until 2024. I have no plans to do anything like this again in the future, so it's supposed to be the pinnacle of my work here. If these are to be in separate articles, there are 29 constituencies, with 1 and 2 being larger than the others (Stockholm city and county). My suggestion would be to have it divided into 1-5 (Stockholm and valley counties to north and south of it, 33 % of votes), 6-14 (the south, 23 % of votes), 15-20 (western, includes Gothenburg, 20 % of votes) and 21-29 (mostly rural counties and 24 % of votes). Glottran (talk) 10:03, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In addition, it would be possible to divide it into three different alphabetically listed articles: constituencies named B-N (33 %), S (35 %) and U-Ö (32 %), although the simplest course of action is just to leave this article as is.Glottran (talk) 13:01, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The content is too much for the current page, and would be too much for the main results page as well. Onetwothreeip (talk) 01:12, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Fine, either the letter separation or by number into three or four parts then. Like Results of the 2022 Swedish general election by constituency (1-5), (6-14), (15-20), (21-29) or Results of the 2022 Swedish general election by constituency (A-R), (S), (T-Ö).Glottran (talk) 12:48, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Glottran, you are ignoring the reason why the article was nominated for deletion, the granular level of detail, which is not appropriate for an encyclopedia. It doesn't matter whether it's in Results of the 2022 Swedish general election, in an article of its own or split into several articles as you're now proposing, this micro-level of detail isn't needed in Wikipedia. If anyone is genuinely is interested in the percentages (not votes) obtained by just the top three parties at a precinct level, they can get it at the Swedish Election Authority website.--Obi2canibe (talk) 16:00, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 13:40, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The chart is useless without listing each candidate, and that's part of the problem, it doesn't represent all the parties running nor give much of a description for anything. We need a detailed explanation for each, rather than a wall of text and colours. This is likely too granular for wikipedia, without further details given for each and every person listed/represented. Oaktree b (talk) 21:08, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Looking at the singular category this article is in, I see 80 other articles about elections, none of which are at the constituency level. This supports the claim for removal under WP:NOTSTATS. - UtherSRG (talk) 15:21, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As for the last two, all I can say is bad faith nominating and bad faith arguments. Just terrible and selfish nonsense all round. Some people truly only live for tearing down work of others. This whole article does not take up much reading room at all, purposefully being designed to contain a lot of data without becoming a wall of text.''Glottran (talk) 16:09, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The chart is fine, but we need much more details than what this is. A political chart here usually has links for each candidate or political party, pointing to an article about them; from what I understand, this is only 3 of the eight parties than ran, and has no listings for any candidates that ran. Red and blue colours and a wall of text don't really offer much critical discussion or analysis here. This would be impressive if it had more details for each candidate and a discussion of local matters in each "parish"; otherwise, this isn't much beyond a wall of text. Oaktree b (talk) 21:11, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, article has a lot of interesting information and there will surely be readers looking at it to find out partisan results in local areas. Agreed with Oaktree that candidate details might be good, but an article having potential improvements doesn’t mean existing info isn’t good to have. Chessrat (talk, contributions) 21:38, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Just plain data. No meaningful analysis. WP is not a collection of data, so delete. Cinadon36 08:51, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Oaktree and UtherSRG. This is classic WP:NOTSTATS in my opinion. Daniel (talk) 01:00, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete, for multiple reasons: re-creation of an article deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Abhineet Maini, created by a block-evading editor: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Neiltyson12/Archive, and a hoax. JBW (talk) 23:48, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Abhi Maini[edit]

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

Subject does not appear to be notable as all sources are self-published and promotional ElKevbo (talk) 08:34, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note also that the editor who created the article appears to have a conflict of interest based on what they have written on their User page. ElKevbo (talk) 08:40, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That source, like all of the other sources in the article, are not reliable. To the contrary, they're all clearly self-published sources written solely to promote this person. I'm not sure if there are some cultural differences to which I am not attuned, overzealousness that simply rubs me the wrong way, or outright deception but the available evidence makes it clear to me that this person doesn't meet our notability standards. ElKevbo (talk) 17:03, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: Please feel free to make changes to the article as necessary. I am a little new to the encyclopedia format :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by JeffKrum1 (talk • contribs) 16:59, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Subject clearly passes the notability criteria for academics, as they are an elected representative of The National Academy of Sciences, India. The nominating editor seems to have something against the subject, based off of their previous comment on this discussion page. Sources seem reliable.Williamrcup (talk) 17:09, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Please provide a reliable source supporting that claim. And lay off the personal attacks. ElKevbo (talk) 18:01, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - in terms of notability WP:NACADEMIC states if the person "has held a highest-level elected or appointed administrative post at a major academic institution or major academic society", they are notable, not necessarily any elected scientific position - but regardless, even giving benefit of the doubt that the position here is indeed notable, the notability/position must be substantiated by reliable sources. So - I took a look at the sources. The first group of sources are all posts on a site called vocal.media, a site where anyone can make an account and make posts called 'stories', by this account, posting only about the individual in question, all in only the last month. The second sources come from what seems to be a custom-made website that specifically only has 'posts' about the individual in question again. I don't see any other secondary sources about the individual's positions other than those two websites - and researching for more sources has yielded nothing for me, and so since these are not journalistic sources, I would not call them reliable. So if it isn't clear already, this seems very much to be a faked article and a WP:HOAX. I'd also note that both keep votes seem to be involved in the creation of the article. Meszzy2 (talk) 20:29, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll also note that google scholar returns no matches for his name Meszzy2 (talk) 20:40, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete smells of promotion. I can't find any sourcing to confirm this person has done anything suggested. Oaktree b (talk) 21:16, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
All of Google gives me NINE hits, some of which are for a female/different person than this individual. There is nothing in GScholar or Jstor. Oaktree b (talk) 21:18, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. I see valid objections being raised to many of the sources presented here, but in some cases the interpretation of NCORP is excessively stringent. Ultimately at least three sources have been provided for which some agreement about meeting SIGCOV exists, and which lack a policy-backed challenge. Vanamonde (Talk) 05:20, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

STFA Group[edit]

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

does not seem notable Chidgk1 (talk) 21:01, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Turkey. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 21:02, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: This was the last AfD of 2022. jp×g 16:15, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. WP:BEFORE throws up plenty of significant coverage in the Turkish newspapers of record, but is a little inaccessible because it's in Turkish. Fiachra10003 (talk) 03:52, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment -- Hurriyet and Sabah are the largest and second largest circulation dailies in Turkey. Milliyet is ninth largest. See List of newspapers in Turkey for details. Fiachra10003 (talk) 19:38, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      • Hi Fiachra10003, this is a company therefore NCORP guidelines apply. As you know, "plenty of significant coverage" sounds good but it isn't enough for deciding. The content of each article is important and must be evaluated against NCORP criteria. We need to see links to sources. Can you link to some (two or three) that you believe meet NCORP criteria for establishing notability? Thank you. HighKing++ 13:30, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:48, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 22:42, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Most coverage appears to rely entirely on announcements and other sources that fails NCORP criteria. Happy to change my !vote if Fiachra10003 can find links to what he believes meets NCORP criteria, he might have spotted something I missed. HighKing++ 13:30, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please focus on the Hurriyet [11], Sabah (newspaper) [12], and Milliyet [13] articles cited, all of which are in national daily newspapers and none of which rely on company announcements. Also, see the source assessment table below, and let me know what you disagree with. I've added links to google translations of each of the Turkish language sources to make it easier to review these. Fiachra10003 (talk) 17:00, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Daily Sabah is now considered an unreliable source Chidgk1 (talk) 16:43, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Source Significant? Independent? Reliable? Secondary? Pass/Fail Notes
1. Milliyet question mark Maybe Green tickY Green tickY Green tickY question mark Maybe [14] 438 word (in English translation) 2014 article discussing new company executives in a major daily paper that summarizes the company's foundation and then provides bios of new execs, likely from the company.
2. Hürriyet 2004 Green tickY Green tickY Green tickY Green tickY Green tickY [15] 824 word (in English translation) 2004 article in Turkey's largest-circulation daily paper. 48% of the article, by word-count, is about the development of the company, its international expansion since the 1970s, and its major projects from the 1940s to contemporary times. 52% of the article is on the life and career of one of the two founders.
3. Sabah (newspaper) Green tickY Green tickY Green tickY Green tickY Green tickY [16] 438 word article written 1998 in Turkey's second-largest circulation daily paper on the other founder and on milestones in the development of the company. 70% of the article, by word-count, is about the founding of the company and its landmark projects over the years. 30% of the article is on the life and career of the other founder.
4. Daily Sabah Red XN Green tickY Green tickY Green tickY Red XN Short article in another major daily paper that only briefly discusses the company.
5. Construction Week Green tickY Red XN Green tickY Green tickY Red XN Trade press article that likely relies heavily on company releases.
6. Hürriyet 2013 Green tickY Green tickY Green tickY Green tickY Green tickY [17] 706 word article (in English translation) in Turkey's largest-circulation daily paper (see above) on Abdullah Gul's involvement with the company's contract to expand Kuwait's main port.
7. Hürriyet Daily News 2013 Green tickY question mark Maybe Green tickY Green tickY question mark Maybe 649 word (in English translation) 2013 article in the English-language edition of Turkey's largest-circulation daily paper (see above), but appears to be a cheer-leading piece by an opinion writer.
8. KHL Magazine Green tickY Red XN Green tickY Green tickY Red XN Trade press article that reports a speech by a company executive.
9. Hürriyet 2014 Green tickY Red XN Green tickY Green tickY Red XN [18] Short article in another major daily paper that reports a speech by a company executive.
Total qualifying sources 3
There must be multiple qualifying sources to meet the notability requirements
  • Response The first Hurriyet piece is an obituary for one of the founders Feyzi Akkaya, but it doesn't have an attributed author/journalist. We don't know who wrote that piece - that's a problem for WP:RS but since most of these articles you mention appear to omit the name of the journalist I'm going to ignore that. Looking solely towards NCORP - as per WP:CORPDEPTH the "depth of coverage must be considered" - the parts in this article that are *about* the company is little more than a summary. Nothing in-depth, no details. The very next section of NCORP is entitled "Significant coverage of the company itself" and it excludes (as an example) a biography and says that a biography of a CEO is a significant coverage for the Wikipedia article on the product or the CEO, but not a significant coverage on the company (unless the article or biography devotes significant attention to the company itself). So for me, an obituary has the same failings as a biography and fails NCORP criteria.
In a similar vein, this Milliyet reference announcing three new executives to join the topic company fails for the same reasons. It focuses on each of the executives but it is not significant coverage for the company itself and it provides no more than an overview/summary rather that detailed information about the company.
This Sabah reference, again, is about one of the founders and fails for the same reasons as above - fails CORPDEPTH and fails as it is not significant coverage of the company itself.
This other piece in Hurriyet (which lists the jounalist as Vahap Munyar) is strange as the point of view of the article appears to be from the company itself as a back-and-forth between the company and Hyundai. There's no attribution as to the information - so how can the journalist know that Hyundai though the price was too low or what the company response was? With no attribution of this type of information I don't see how it can be viewed as a reliable source to be honest.
Finally, one last thing that concerns me about Hurriyet as a source is that it specifically states that news contents cannot be quoted without permission, even by showing the source. I don't know how that would affect using this publication within Wikipedia but I imagine it would be a problem. HighKing++ 18:22, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've redrafted the WP:SIRS table above to respond to your points. Where did you see the news contents cannot be quoted without permission, even by showing the source point? I didn't see any English language text in any of the Hurriyet articles cited. In any case, we don't actually quote any texts, even in translation, in the article, so I think it's a moot point. Fiachra10003 (talk) 23:45, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
To avoid confusion, I've restored the SIRS table. Can I suggest that, rather than editing my comments on an AfD page, which might conflate my understanding with yours, you insert your own SIRS table, if you wish to? Fiachra10003 (talk) 03:57, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • You deleted my comment too. And again ignored the points raised.
  • I don't think I can agree that you've responded to any of my points? How exactly? All I can see is you've ignored everything that has been said, inserted a "word count" to make the articles appear bigger than they are, focus on a word count instead of the actual content and point out in-depth "Independent Content" and you didn't address the point about the section of NCORP entitled "Significant coverage of the company itself" nor Chidgk1's point that the Daily Sabah is not considered a reliable source. I've corrected the table. Perhaps you can now understand the points made and hopefully address each one. HighKing++ 12:21, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
    1. Karasapan, Ömer (September–October 1986). "Turkey's Super-Rich". No. 142. Middle East Research and Information Project. Archived from the original on 2023-01-22. Retrieved 2023-01-22.

      The article notes: "STFA became a major Middle East contractor in the 1980s, and is currently engaged in several large projects in Libya. [32] In late 1985, a subsidiary of STFA won a consultancy commission to design an eight kilometer expressway and a 700 meter bridge in Niger. [33] STFA has also moved to establish ties with South Korean and Western contractors to lessen the impact of decreasing Middle East work. It is currently involved in joint projects with the York Manufacturing Company (US). [34] STFA has Turkey’s largest private shipyard, Sedef, which is building for the European market as well as STFA’s own line. In 1985 an STFA-led consortium was awarded a $550 million project for the second Bosphorus Bridge and a $30.9 million contract for a bridge over the Golden Horn. [35] STFA net assets for 1985 were estimated in the $250 million range."

    2. "STFA`nın `Reis`i de gitti" [STFA's 'Reis' also left]. Hürriyet (in Turkish). 2004-12-10. Archived from the original on 2023-01-22. Retrieved 2023-01-22.

      The article notes from Google Translate: "During the 1943-1973 period, STFA built many bridges, piers, ports, dams, tunnels and high voltage lines across Turkey, including Sivas-Erzurum railway bridges, Kuşadası, Bartın and Ereğli ports, and Kadıncık Hydroelectric Power Plant. The most important contribution of Sezai Türkeş and Feyzi Akkaya to Turkish contractors was to open up the heavy construction sector, which was usually built by foreign companies in Turkey at that time, to local contractors. In addition, the two contractors opened the doors of foreign countries to Turkish contractors as the first contractors to go abroad. STFA, which went abroad in order not to leave the existing machinery park idle and not to liquidate its personnel in the 1970s, when the Turkish economy was in a difficult situation, participated in the tender for the construction of the Tripoli port in Libya in 1972 and signed the first international contract at the beginning of 1973, after great efforts."

      Although the article is an obituary of a company co-founder, there is enough detailed coverage about the company to pass Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Significant coverage.

    3. Strauss, Delphine (2010-05-05). "Profile: STFA emerges from 'nightmare'". Financial Times. Archived from the original on 2023-01-22. Retrieved 2023-01-22.

      The article notes: "When Ilker Keremoglu took the helm 11 years ago at STFA, one of Turkey's most venerable family companies, the half-built ski resort was the least of his problems.By the death aged 90 of Sezai Turkes, who co-founded the group in 1938, its core construction activities sprawled across 20 countries. Besides the ski centre, it owned 43 businesses ranging from a granite tile factory to a small port. Most made losses, but long-serving executives picked by the founder were avoiding reality. ... STFA's troubles were similar to those of many Turkish family-owned conglomerates, built by powerful founding fathers, which diversified into the wrong areas and struggled with the transition to the next generation." The article includes quotes from people affiliated with the company but there is enough independent analysis to meet Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Significant coverage and Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Independent sources.

    4. "MEED Middle East Economic Digest article". MEED. 1987. p. 54. Retrieved 2023-01-22 – via Google Books.

      The article notes: "For example, one company could not use Turkish timber because it did not meet the specifications for a housing contract. STFA, which pioneered the Libyan market, had major problems and delays with its first job on Tripoli harbour, mainly because of supply difficulties. STFA, like some other companies, now has purchasing offices in London and Milan."

    5. Cowell, Alan (1992-08-04). "Turks Find Demand, but Few Deals So Far, in Central Asia". The New York Times. Archived from the original on 2023-01-22. Retrieved 2023-01-22.

      The article quotes from STFA in one sentence. The 1992 article calls STFA "one of Turkey's biggest construction companies".

    6. Ince, Elif; Forsythe, Michael; Gall, Carlotta (2022-10-23). "Russian Superyachts Find Safe Haven in Turkey, Raising Concerns in Washington". The New York Times. Archived from the original on 2023-01-22. Retrieved 2023-01-22.

      The article mentions STFA in one sentence. The 2022 article notes: "Port Azure, touted as the first “mega-yacht-only marina” in Turkey, was opened last year by STFA, one of Turkey’s biggest conglomerates."

    There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow STFA to pass Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Primary criteria, which requires "significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject".

    Cunard (talk) 07:19, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • In 1992, The New York Times called STFA "one of Turkey's biggest construction companies". In 2022, The New York Times called STFA "one of Turkey's biggest conglomerates". This strongly establishes notability. Cunard (talk) 07:19, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Response As per WP:SIRS each source must meet all of NCORP criteria - like significant, in-depth and with "Independent Content" *about* the company. Single sentence descriptions like you've highlighted might suggest notability, but doesn't establish notability. HighKing++ 15:05, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • When a highly quality reliable source calls a company "one of Turkey's biggest construction companies" and "one of Turkey's biggest conglomerates", it is strongly established that the company should not be deleted for being non-notable. From Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#No inherent notability, "When evaluating the notability of organizations or products, please consider whether they have had any significant or demonstrable effects on culture, society, entertainment, athletics, economies, history, literature, science, or education." It is clear that one of Turker's largest construction companies and conglomerates has had a significant effect on society, especially when this is supported by the quote I provided for Hurriyet 2004 about the important construction work the company did from 1943–1973. Cunard (talk) 00:07, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Eh? Where in the guidelines does it say that if a highly quality reliable source calls a company something, then it is strongly established that the company should not be deleted for being non-notable? Nonsense. And if the company has had a significant effect on society, please produce a reference/source that supports this. HighKing++ 18:21, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting a third time since a substantial !vote came in very late in the process.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 08:29, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Response That analysis ignores inconvenient parts of NCORP. I'll also point to (again) the section in NCORP entitled Significant coverage of the company itself which specifically highlights example of coverage that fails NCORP including as an example of a biography of a CEO as follows: Therefore, for example, an article on a product recall or a biography of a CEO is a significant coverage for the Wikipedia article on the product or the CEO, but not a significant coverage on the company (unless the article or biography devotes significant attention to the company itself). So lets look at the latest sources in detail.
  • The reference entitled "Turkey's Super Rich" is about ... well, rich Turkish people. It includes profiles of many rich Turkish people including the founders of the topic company. The references to financial details relative to the topic company originate from the company's published accounts and the rest to the Middle East Economic Digest (MEED) which for the most part simply regurgitates press releases with no major analysis/commentary/opinion. No "Independent Content" and this piece is neither in-depth nor significant (despite the blanket of such claim over all of these sources). The piece is not about the company, it is a bio of the founders (see above which that also fails). This reference fails CORPDEPTH and ORGIND.
  • I've dealt with the Hurryiet piece above already, no need to repeat it as it makes no effort to counter the previous points raised. In summary, it is neither "detailed" nor in-depth, it is a summary or a couple of sentences.
  • This summary conveniently omits the fact that The Financial Times piece is entirely based on a back and forth interview with Iker Keremoglu who took over the company when the original founders died. There is nothing in this piece that is the opinion/analysis/etc of the journalist, simply regurgitating the interview. Fails ORGIND.
  • The MEED piece is a mention-in-passing and is neither significant nor in-depth, fails CORPDEPTH. I have looked at maybe 20 MEED pieces and they're either mentions-in-passing or they regurgitate announcements. I suppose that why MEED is a "Digest".
  • Again, it is conveniently omitted that the NYT piece isn't about the company and simply includes the following quote from Mukrem Erkin, the head of STFA. "There will be plenty of opportunities," said Mukrem Erkin, head of STFA, one of Turkey's biggest construction companies, "but no money for three, four, five years." Fails CORPDEPTH, is not significant, is not in-depth. It is nonsense to even suggest that this source meets *all* of NCORP's criteria (as per WP:SIRS).
  • The final NYT piece is another single sentence mention-in-passing. Fails for the same reason as the above NYT piece.
None of these references are any better than the ones previously mentioned and all to date fail NCORP criteria for establishing notability. HighKing++ 15:05, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep looked at ALL the sources and descriptions above, I think it's just enough for GNG. Would need a few more big sources, but I think it's ok. Oaktree b (talk) 16:55, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hey Oaktree b, which particular two sources (because we don't combine as per WP:SIRS? And do you mean enough for NCORP? HighKing++ 18:26, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I was looking at the Huriyet, but if we can't combine sources, that's about all I find. I just go for GNG, it's the lowest common denominator for notability. NCORP is above that for notability I suppose, in the hierarchy. Oaktree b (talk) 18:37, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    There's coverage about them building a rail line in Qatar, such as [19]. It's not substantial, but there are enough mentions of it, we could use them to build an article. Oaktree b (talk) 18:49, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Daily Sabah is not a reliable source Chidgk1 (talk) 19:17, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    You have mentioned this before. Are you relying on this discussion? In any case, as per our above discussion in this AFD, I don't think anyone is relying on Daily Sabah here. Fiachra10003 (talk) 22:43, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources says Daily Sabah is unreliable. But now you have improved the article thanks I don’t have a view on whether the article should be deleted or not. Chidgk1 (talk) 13:00, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Each of Karasapan 1986, Hurriyet 2004, and Strauss 2010 meet the "deep coverage" requirement of Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Significant coverage, which says, "Deep or significant coverage provides an overview, description, commentary, survey, study, discussion, analysis, or evaluation of the product, company, or organization. Such coverage provides an organization with a level of attention that extends well beyond brief mentions and routine announcements, and makes it possible to write more than a very brief, incomplete stub about the organization."

    The quotes I provided show that the sources have provided a detailed overview, discussion, and analysis of STFA Group. While some of the sources discuss other topics (like the co-founder) or contain quotes from people affiliated with the subject, it is my opinion that there is enough significant independent discussion and analysis in each source about STFA Group to meet Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Independent sources.

    For example, Strauss 2010 notes, "STFA's troubles were similar to those of many Turkish family-owned conglomerates, built by powerful founding fathers, which diversified into the wrong areas and struggled with the transition to the next generation.""

    Cunard (talk) 00:07, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    • Response Again (and I feel like a cracked record so apologies), you're ignoring the subsection of NCORP entitled Significant coverage of the company itself which specifically highlights example of coverage that fails NCORP (coverage which isn't *about* the company but tangentially related). For example, a biography of a CEO as follows: Therefore, for example, an article on a product recall or a biography of a CEO is a significant coverage for the Wikipedia article on the product or the CEO, but not a significant coverage on the company (unless the article or biography devotes significant attention to the company itself). Can you address that point? As for Hurriyet, you've ignored the points I made - continuing to say it meets NCORP won't change the fact that it is a orbituary for the founder. As for Strauss 2010, once you exclude content that originated from the company/interview, there's nothing left. Even the long quote you extracted originally shows it is all from the interview and fails ORGIND. It's all very well chopping a quote so as to exclude the fact that the information was provided via a quotation and then saying here's in-depth info which meets ORGIND, but that bubble pops as soon as someone else actually reads the article. HighKing++ 18:21, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      As you say, "... (unless the article or biography devotes significant attention to the company itself)." One obituary devotes half its contents to a discussion of the company, not the founder; the other is 70% company history, 30% founder's life. I think it's better for !voters to review the content of the articles themselves and form their own view. To my mind, the Hürriyet 2004 piece is more clearly WP:SIGCOV. Even though less of the article is about STFA, the treatment of the company's history is more comprehensive than in the Sabah obit. Fiachra10003 (talk) 21:55, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Following up on Fiachra10003's point, one common misconception I see on here is that things like WP:NOTINHERITED, WP:CORPDEPTH, WP:BLP1E, etc. are valid reasons to deny coverage of a topic that has received significant coverage entirely. No, they don't say that we shouldn't have an article on something; the question is just where the article belongs. If an obituary fails WP:CORPDEPTH, then retitle and restructure the article to be about the founder. (I'm not saying actually do that, just that it's not a valid reason for deletion when no article on the founder exists. Neither am I suggesting this obituary actually fails CORPDEPTH, just that it wouldn't matter even if it did.) -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:37, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd say the founder is notable for sure. HighKing++ 11:34, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Which founder? There are two - ST and FA. See the first section of the article. In either case, I don't think available sources support their individual notability. When I searched for them, almost everything that came up was about the company, not them, plus a little about their family and philanthropic activities. Typical civil engineers: they seem to have poured their lives into their business and their families. Fiachra10003 (talk) 12:10, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Different notability guidelines and interpretations for people - see BIO. HighKing++ 20:20, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, it’s pretty clear that no reasonable interpretation of WP:CORPDEPTH can exclude the vast quantity of non-routine coverage available in Turkish media of this company, clearly they pass WP:GNG and WP:NCORP. Devonian Wombat (talk) 02:53, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can you link to two specific sources that meet NCORP taking into consideration the issues raised above? There are more sections than CORPDEPTH being discussed. Also, saying there's a "vast quantity" of coverage implies combining sources - this is contradictory to WP:SIRS. HighKing++ 12:08, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Cunard's source analysis showing that the topic meets WP:NCORP. Or, if you don't accept that, ignore WP:NCORP per the following reasoning:
  • WP:NCORP motivates its emphasis on the quality of sources -- tightening the GNG's independence, depth, and reliability requirements -- as follows: to prevent gaming of the rules by marketing and public relations professionals ... to address some of the common issues with abusing Wikipedia for advertising and promotion.
  • In this instance, I see no concerns about gaming of the rules or promotion with the article as it stands. While not perfect, it is not promotional. There are no cleanup tags on the article, no complaints on the talk page, and no one in this discussion is making WP:PROMO- or WP:COI-based arguments.
  • On the other hand, we have reliable sources refering to the company with phrases like "one of Turkey's biggest construction companies", "one of Turkey’s biggest conglomerates", and "one of Turkey's most venerable family companies". One can infer that people might reasonably look to obtain information about such a company from an encyclopedia, and reasonably expect to find it in Wikipedia as such.
  • Therefore, if we're using WP:NCORP as a justification for deleting the article, when the article does not suffer from the issues that motivate NCORP, NCORP is preventing us from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, and we should ignore it in this instance. Jfire (talk) 05:15, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • That doesn't make any sense. NCORP and GNG are the same thing, just NCORP provides detailed explanations on how to apply GNG. If it fails NCORP, it also fails GNG. Which means what you're really saying is WP:IAR and lets just keep this topic anyway, notability guidelines be damned. HighKing++ 13:14, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think his argument could be summarized as follows (not saying I agree or disagree with it): NCORP prescribes certain hard requirements in an attempt to uphold soft principles. Per WP:LAWYER, it is more important to follow the spirit of the rules than the letter of the rules. If the letter of the rules says that the sources do not meet NCORP, but this is not the type of company that the spirit of NCORP is intended to keep out, then GNG can be interpreted in a way that is not necessarily compliant with the strict letter of NCORP. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:34, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The article has greatly changed in the last week or so. Can I suggest that editors read the article, and peruse the citations, with fresh eyes? Fiachra10003 (talk) 20:14, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 06:38, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Speaker Knockerz[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Speaker Knockerz (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)

Recreation of a prohibited article on an unknown or less known person that fails at WP:MUSICBIO, WP:NOTABILITY and WP:REFERENCE. This page should be prohibited from ever being recreated on Wikipedia ever again like other lesser known people or facts. Darrion "Beans" Brown 🙂 (my talk page / my sandbox) 06:30, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • information Administrator note - this discussion was closed early (after only 5 minutes) by Callanecc as a WP:G4 speedy deletion. This action was challenged at deletion review, where multiple editors observed that the recent creation is not similar to the version that was deleted by discussion eight and a half years ago, and so the deletion criteria was invalid and the action has been reverted. Please allow this discussion to run for the full seven days to determine consensus regarding the current version. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 20:57, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Sufficient volume of coverage in reliable sources to at least pass WP:NBASIC. —Alalch E. 23:30, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Significant non-primary coverage in multiple reliable music related sources (per WP:MUSIC/SOURCE) such as Pitchfork, Complex, and MTV as well as in dept coverage by The Post and Courier. This should satisfy for a WP:GNG pass. Perhaps Speedy Keep should be in question considering that the nominator failed to a provide specific reasoning choosing to make vague statements about the rapper not being non-notable and wanting its deletion because it was deleted in the past. Applying the logic that articles that were deleted once in the past should never be recreated ever again as the nominator suggested in the Talk Page, prominent rappers such as Nicki Minaj and Lil Uzi Vert would not have articles right now. As the final nail in the coffin, I would like to remind the nominator that in the first AfD, the nominator himself recognized that Speaker Knockerz was potentially notable and explicitly expressed a non-prejudice against recreation would the article be of quality.
Célestin Denis (talk) 15:16, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 06:39, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Gule Sheikh[edit]

Gule Sheikh (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)

Fitness model and athlete fails to establish notability per WP:ATHLETE and WP:BIO. Primary and unreliable refs just covered first Pakistani fitness competitor and interviews. Nothing found in any source about her competitions. M.Ashraf333 (talk) 04:30, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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! 17:00, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Biel TVZ[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Biel TVZ (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 notability, fonts are paid promotions. He even made a video himself teaching how to write an article about yourself on Wikipedia. Horcoff (talk) 03:03, 8 January 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! 03:23, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: self-promotion WP:SOAPBOX. In the pt.WP, this article was deleted four times for this same reason. Fails WP:N and any other notability criteria, reinforce that this entry is not qualified to remain as an entry, I agree to permanently delete this entry and block future creations. Moniiquedecastro! Dimmi!!! 17:14, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Moniiquedecastro, what is your connection to Kacamata? You offer almost the exact same deletion argument and you have an identical signature. Do we need to open an SPI case here? Liz Read! Talk! 06:28, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
They likely copied my signature. Which is odd, is that the account opened the first AfD on this article, but they did it without a proper rationale. They also are normally in the other side of a AfD voting to "keep", since they normally create a lot of article with questionable notability. I would really like to understand their behavior and intentions here. Kacamata! Dimmi!!! 13:52, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Moniiquedecastro, I just agree with the position, I make it clear that my contribution is in good faith. I have no connection with Kacamata. Moniiquedecastro!!! 4:15, 20 January 2023 (UTC) Moniiquedecastro, I'm new here so I don't have all the knowledge, but every day I learn more. I'm not fluent in your language, but I'm specifying myself in English. I can prove that this person paid to be here with an entry, this artist produced a video teaching how to have a page on Wikipedia, that is self-promotion, and as I know, creating an entry is not right, but now I leave it to you to decide. https://web.archive.org/web/20221020061035/https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0tVa196YoKg&feature=youtu.be I make it clear that I will abstain, because I see that my presence is not adding up, I am sad to have as much dedication Wikipedian here and to be frowned upon. — Preceding undated comment added 04:19, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:05, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 04:21, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Giraffe danio[edit]

Giraffe danio (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)

Species does not seem to exist. Search of FishBase on 21-Jan-2023 revealed no species with the common name Giraffe, no hits on GScholar, etc. Possibly a variant of an existent species that became popular in the pet trade Kazamzam (talk) 02:14, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Biology-related deletion discussions. Kazamzam (talk) 02:14, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No idea what species that is supposed to be about, no indication of where to look or whether it is anything other than a trade name or color morph. No basis for an article. - Nominator: I removed you !vote - your nomination is your !vote, you don't need to/get to make another one. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 09:36, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Elmidae - thank you for clarifying! I've seen other people do that in AfDs and wasn't sure if it was established practice or not. Will keep in mind for the future. Kazamzam (talk) 14:26, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment there is a brief description of this fish (as Devario "giraffe") in a scientific paper, Barcoding and Border Biosecurity: Identifying Cyprinid Fishes in the Aquarium Trade (Collins et al., 2012); in supplementary table S1. It is treated as an undescribed species. Collins cites another description by Cottle in the book Danios and Devarios, which I am not finding online, although Cottle does maintain a website, which has a page for this fish, albeit with very little information. The NCBI and BOLD taxonomic databases have entries, presumably due to Collins. Collins cites some additional sources, but they all appear to be general taxonomic works that don't mention this fish (and I found the Collins paper via this site, which also cites additional sources that are apparently general taxonomy). Plantdrew (talk) 20:58, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nice! Apparently searching for "sp. 'giraffe'" would have been smarter. That is quite a lot of material actually. However, I assume being a an undescribed species in a potential new genus makes this a little more difficult to handle than the previous cases of undescribed species in an accepted genus. "Informal name in undescribed genus" seems rather fuzzy to base an article on. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 07:20, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Elmidae:, Devario isn't a new genus. While there is a lot of material in the seriouslyfish page, much of borders on WP:NOTHOWTO (although I think HOWTO information is actually what a lot of people who might search the internet for this fish would want). Wikipedia policy aside, a lot of the HOWTO material at seriouslyfish is boilerplate apparently applicable to any species of Devario (or danionin?); the page for Devario xyrops (described in 2009) has many sections that are completely identical. Plantdrew (talk) 22:49, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Now why did I think this was a new genus. Bleh... --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 06:50, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Content might be put in the Devario article, but it's certainly not notable enough for a separate article. Edward-Woodrow (talk) 22:41, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not a valid species as recognized by FishBase and almost all other authority. May be merged as a section into Devario, but certainly not notable enough for its own article.
Jj1691 (talk) 20:09, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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! 00:11, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Adventures of Mabel[edit]

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

Fails GNG, no mentions around the web other than in a television show TheManInTheBlackHat (Talk) 22:49, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Updating to Keep per additional sources located by Cunard. Well done on the sourcing! Jfire (talk) 02:00, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Feetfeet 341 (talk) 20:13, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Feetfeet 341 WP:AFDNOTAVOTE, please expand your rationale. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 14:35, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Jfire: Thanks for finding the NYT review. I also found this brief review from Kirkus Reviews, and a review from The Bookman which was criticised by an article from The Wrap that briefly comments upon this book as being a non-independent review (Then, he used the literary journal The Bookman, which he edited, to publish a glowing review of “The Adventures of Mabel,” not disclaiming his rather obvious conflict of interest.) Unfortunately I didn't find substantially more from Google or The Wikipedia Library, so notability is sort of borderline. VickKiang (talk) 23:31, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @VickKiang Technical note: WLib link seems to be temporary, just wondering if you could try to generate a working one? I'd like to know myself as I recently started linking to sources available to TWL myself. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 14:39, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Piotrus: Does this link work? According to this link I found lots of links related to The Unlikely Adventures of Mabel Jones, a different book, and two paywalled reviews from The Bookman, 1, 2. However, The Wrap noted that the first review (published prior to 1910) had a rather obvious conflict of interest (source), but the 2nd review appears to be independent. They might be SIGCOV but somehow the Wikipedia Library doesn't provide full access. VickKiang (talk) 20:56, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @VickKiang Nope, "Session Ended"/expired. I guess it's best to link paywalled links that we then pipe to our gates, WL or others... and yeah, there are some issues with WL, recently I run into a CEEOL article that wasn't accessible through WL and just let me "suggest it to my librarian". There's always LibGen for backup too. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:54, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    As far as I know there is sort of a related issue here with some other resources, e.g., Oxford Dictionary of National Biography and American National Biography. Still, the sources currently include two brief reviews and two reviews from The Bookman, of which one is independent, so I agree that notability appears to be weak. VickKiang (talk) 05:32, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Harry Thurston Peck. The 4-sentence NYT capsule review fails WP:SIGCOV. I cannot access the Bookman's article - if anyone can, please throw a link my way. Even assuming it would meet SIGCOV, we are one in-depth (SIGCOV-meeting), reliable review short of this meeting WP:NBOOK, I am afraid. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 14:37, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Piotrus: You might like to have a look at the new reviews found. Thanks. VickKiang (talk) 01:15, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Tnx for the ping, changing my vote to weak keep as I concur with your assessment. Thank you, User:Cunard, for rescuing this. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 07:01, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lord Roem ~ (talk) 01:08, 22 January 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.
    1. "The Adventures of Mabel". The Bookman. Vol. 53, no. 315. December 1917. p. 121. ISSN 2043-1503. ProQuest 3212704.

      The article was published in 1917, so it is in the public domain.

      The article notes: "By Harry Thurston Peck. Illustrated in colour and black-and-white by Harry Rountree. (Harrap.) For any youngster who has never read "The Adventures of Mabel," here is a chance of reading them that ought not to be missed. It is one of those fascinating tales for children that strikes exactly the right note at the start—"Once upon a time there was a little girl named Mabel, who lived in a cottage with her grandma, and her brother Walter, and Jane the cook"—and keeps it up most alluringly right to the last line when you have forty men shouting: "Hurrah! Hurrah! Hurrah! Mabel!" There was the best of reasons for their enthusiasm, for it comes at the close of one of the most exciting episodes in the book. Mabel plays a part in all twelve of these stories, but Walter shares in her adventures, so does Towser the dog and Rex the horse, the Goat and the Grey Rat, Kitty-Cat, the little Pig, and others. The word delightful has been used in describing so many books that it is getting a little worn, but it is the one word that really does describe the book. "The Adventures of Mabel" are delightful adventures and the illustrations of Harry Rountree add to the delight of reading about them."

    2. "The Adventures of Mabel". The Evangelist. Vol. 68, no. 47. Harper & Brothers. 1897-11-25. p. 27. Retrieved 2023-01-22 – via Internet Archive.

      The article was published in 1897, so it is in the public domain.

      The article notes: "The Adventures of Mabel are charmingly related by Rafford Pyke and have evidently been told first to interest the little "Constance," to whom they are dedicated in its more permanent form. Mabel, the six-year-old heroine while gathering strawberries in the woods, finds a green lizard with his tail caught under a stone, and goes to his rescue. He proves to be the King of all the Lizards, and to show gratitude to his kind deliverer, he teaches her to understand "animal talk," and to make them understand her, and also to whistle a little call that will make all animals good to her. Armed with this secret talisman, Mabel goes about winning friends among the dumb creatures. Even a hungry wolf, a wild horse, and a cruel giant yield instant submission to her gentle sway, and the little readers cannot fail to gain through her eyes and ears a new sympathy with dumb creatures, and to learn that kindness and unselfishness can work miracles. The book is beautifully printed by the University Press at Cambridge, on antique paper, and the many quaint illustrations by Melanie Elizabeth Norton are most original and amusing. (Dodd, Mead and Company, New York $1.75.)"

    3. "Other Books for the Young". The Critic. Vol. 28, no. 825. 1897-12-11. p. 363. Retrieved 2023-01-22 – via Internet Archive.

      The article was published in 1897, so it is in the public domain.

      The article notes:  "There is plenty of work cut out for the infantile imagination in "The Adventures of Mabel," by Rafford Pyke, and more in the illustrations, by Mélanie Elisabeth Norton. Mabel has quite an assortment of animal enemies and friends who helped her into and out of difficulties, and a careful and matter-of-fact Grandma, who laughs at her stories and tells her that she is certainly a very original little girl. The Grandma is really the more original of the two; for, if Mabel whistles, she has been taught by a lizard; if she is not afraid to be out late, it is because the wolf sees her home; when she fastens their crime upon the two robbers, who cry Ha! at their work, it is because Rex, her horse, has informed her of their doings. The pictures are in black, white and gray. (Dodd, Mead & Co.)

    4. "Children's Books". The Nation. Vol. 75, no. 1690. 1897-11-18. p. 401. Retrieved 2023-01-22 – via Internet Archive.

      The article was published in 1897, so it is in the public domain.

      The article notes: "'The Adventures of Mabel,' by Rafford Pyke (Dodd, Mead & Co.), inspires a degree of respect by its beautiful type and paper, and by its simply expressed pictures, for which three values have sufficed; but when one comes to read the story, indifference or disapproval arises. Some will stop at indifference when they find positive merit lacking, and think us over-critical to object to a childish heroine who, thanks to a fairy gift, tames a fierce wolf in the forest and a wildly unmanageable horse, who takes the lead in a piece of defective work, and copes single-handed with a monstrous giant of the old-fashioned child-devouring kind; and, in consequence of these and like actions, often hears her grandmother says, "You are a very wonderful little girl"—a judgment she accepts without disclaimer. Such incidents, to be sure, may be told in a harmless burlesque way, but unless better guarded than in this instance nothing would be more likely to foster conceit."

    5. Less significant coverage:
      1. Reed, Helen Leah (1900-12-08). "Books for Children. Twenty of the Best Among Recent Ones". The New York Times Saturday Review of Books. Retrieved 2023-01-22 – via Internet Archive.

        The article was published in 1900, so it is in the public domain.

        The article notes: "For the very littlest ones, the readers under ten, I may name as the best of all "The Adventures of Mabel," (Dodd, Mead & Co.) Although issued anonymously two or three years ago, as it now first appears with the name of its author, Prof. H. T. Peck, it is practically new. The adventures of Mabel are with animals, spiders, giants, and other creatures dear to the heart of children. The thought is clear, and the language suited to the thought."

      2. Winthrop, Robert C. (1897-10-21). "Book Reviews". The Congregationalist and Herald of Gospel Liberty. pp. 577–578. Retrieved 2023-01-22 – via Internet Archive.

        The article was published in 1897, so it is in the public domain.

        The article notes: "From Dodd, Mead & Co. come The Adventures of Mabel ($1.75) by Rafford Pyke, with original and striking illustrations in black and white by Mélanie E. Norton. The book deals largely with animals of all sorts and its stories are thrilling and delightful. They will fascinate the younger boys and girls. The pictures and binding also are original and effective. It will be one of the most popular juvenile books of the season, we have no doubt."

      3. "New Books for the Young". The Independent. Vol. 49, no. 2558. 1897-12-09. p. 23. Retrieved 2023-01-22 – via Internet Archive.

        The article was published in 1897, so it is in the public domain.

        The article notes: "The Adventures of Mabel. By Rafford Pyke. (Dodd, Mead & Co. $1.75.) This is a beautiful book in every respect, strikingly illustrated by Mélanie Elisabeth Norton, and written to engage the interest of children. It is a book well suited to the Christmas gift-box."

      4. "The Adventures of Mabel". Publishers Weekly. Vol. 52, no. 16. 1897-10-16. p. 640. Retrieved 2023-01-22 – via Internet Archive.

        The article was published in 1897, so it is in the public domain.

        The article notes: "Mabel, who was about six years old, went into the woods one day to gather strawberries; hearing a queer little sound, as if some one was in pain, she looked about her and found a little green lizard fastened to the ground by a big stone that had fallen on its tail. Mabel releases the lizard, who in turn teaches her to understand animal talk, and how to make animals understand her when she talks, and also how to make animals good to her. The result is many odd adventures, in which animals figure.

    There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow The Adventures of Mabel to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

    Cunard (talk) 01:10, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Keep. Thanks to Cunard for the new sources- the four reviews found appear to lean on the short side but still borderline passes WP:SIGCOV (somewhat more than 100 words and does not fall under examples of trivial/routine coverage) or non-triviality per WP:NBOOK#1, in addition to being reliable and independent. Overall, notability is IMO met, albeit a bit weakly, so I'm updating to weak keep. VickKiang (talk) 01:15, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Cunard @VickKiang Semi-relavant and ironically, on Polish Wikipedia, a certain forceful editor prevents using reviews as establishing notability for literature, while promoting arguments that the number of translations, editions and even copies printed should be used instead... ugh :( --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 07:02, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Piotrus (talk · contribs), I am sorry to hear that as I think that editor's arguments are the exact opposite of how notability should be determined. I hope the Polish Wikipedia community do not agree with that editor. Cunard (talk) 07:38, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Cunard Unfortunately, it's a very small community, that editor is vocal and I think an admin, and nobody seems inclined to fight over that interpretation, I started a discussion in which nobody agrees with her, but she still reverts me and insists the consensus is with her as nobody but me bothered to revert her (when I tried to add a note to the policy that coverage in reliable reviews is an indicator of reliability). Eh, we are getting off topic here... Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 07:48, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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! 04:50, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Zoom TPU[edit]

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

does not seem notable Chidgk1 (talk) 20:47, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:49, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 22:42, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist, hoping for some discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lord Roem ~ (talk) 00:57, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. All coverage appears to be routine or passive mentions. Doesn't appear to have any significant coverage. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 04:43, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Liz Read! Talk! 01:39, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

John Hartwell[edit]

AfDs for this article:
John Hartwell (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)

Athletic directors are not automatically notable (see WP:ATH) - lacks significant coverage about the individual in any independent secondary sources. All sources provided in previous AfD were simply related to his appointment as athletic director not about any notable achievements. Dan arndt (talk) 00:38, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Cleary notable subject. In addition to the sources provided in the last AFD, see [21], [22], [23], [24], [25] for significant coverage that establishes notability of subject. Jweiss11 (talk) 00:57, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Appears to pass GNG per sources listed above and at the prior afd. BeanieFan11 (talk) 01:03, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Appears to pass GNG per sources listed above and at the prior afd. Cbl62 (talk) 01:20, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per sources presented by Jweiss, subject passes GNG. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 05:12, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Meets WP:GNG and WP:BASIC, just like he did at the last AfD. Nothing has changed since then. Ejgreen77 (talk) 12:54, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Liz Read! Talk! 01:38, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Landspeed[edit]

Landspeed (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)

Procedural nomination per discussion at RfD. This is a poorly sourced stub which was created in 2009, and BLARred in 2020. Seems to be about an obscure film. Fails WP:GNG. CycloneYoris talk! 00:36, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Sports. CycloneYoris talk! 00:36, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Utterly obscure movie, fails the GNG and all elements of WP:NFO. Created as a sub-stub 14 years ago, notability tagged for most of that time, and substantively unimproved. Ravenswing 01:20, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete Fails WP:NFILM DonaldD23 talk to me 01:51, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Changing vote to Keep based on Cunard's sourcing below. DonaldD23 talk to me 13:22, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
    1. Cannelloni, Valter (2022). "Landspeed – Massima velocità". Ciak... si gioca 2 [Ciak... we play 2] (in Italian). Albatros, Roma: Gruppo Albatros Il Filo. ISBN 978-88-306-5953-7. Retrieved 2023-01-22 – via Google Books.

      The book covers Landspeed on 2.5 pages. The publisher's website says from Google Translate: "On average, less than 5% of the works received finally become books."

      The book notes: "Deserto del Nevada, USA, 1972. Durante un'esibizione di macchine-razzo dal motore supersonico, perde la vita, a causa di un incidente che gli fa incendiare l’auto, il pilota Fincher. Ad assistere alla tragedia sotto i propri occhi, la piccola figlia di Fincher, Linda, e il suo migliore amico, Brian Sanger, pilota di massima velocità anche lui, e progettista del bolide. Sono passati venticinque anni, e quella bambina è diventata una bellissima donna: è progettista capo della Vectramol, la società del cinico e arrivista magnate Winfree che, pur di pubblicizzare la sua azienda che sta per essere quotata in Borsa, non esita a sponsorizzare una gara per macchine supersoniche mettendo in ballo quindici milioni di dollari."

      From Google Translate: "Desert of Nevada, USA, 1972. During an exhibition of supersonic-engine rocket-machines, the pilot Fincher loses his life due to an accident that causes his car to catch fire. witness the tragedy before their eyes, the little daughter of Fincher, Linda, and his best friend, Brian Sanger, also a top speed pilot, and designer of the car.Twenty-five years have passed, and that little girl has grown into a beautiful woman : he is the chief designer of Vectramol, the company of the cynical and upstart tycoon Winfree who, in order to advertise his company which is about to be listed on the Stock Exchange, does not hesitate to sponsor a competition for supersonic machines by putting fifteen million dollars at stake.

    2. Thornton, May (2002-05-22). "Video Verdict". The Advertiser. Archived from the original on 2023-01-22. Retrieved 2023-01-22.

      The review notes: "Zane quips and smirks his way through, enjoys a little subplot about childhood sweethearts, but the real stars are the cars, backed with impressive special effects. The final word: Going, going, gone in 90 minutes."

    3. "Filmes". Folha de S.Paulo (in Portuguese). 2005-06-20. ProQuest 335782120.

      The review notes: "(Landspeed). EUA, 2001. Direção: Christian McIntire. Com Billy Zane. No ano de 1972, no deserto de Utah, EUA, um carro-foguete pilotado por John Fincher corre rumo ao recorde de velocidade terrestre, mas um problema mecânico faz com que o carro perca o controle e capote. Duas crianças, Linda Fincher, filha do piloto, e Michael Singer, filho de Brian, o engenheiro criador do veículo, presenciam tudo. Vinte anos depois, uma empresa desafia equipes a baterem o antigo recorde. O primeiro, em que Linda é engenheira, inscreve um carro-foguete. O segundo terá Michael ao volante. Ninguém vence nesta corrida nem neste filme."

      From Google Translate: "(Landspeed). USA, 2001. Director: Christian McIntire. With Billy Zane. In 1972, in the Utah desert, USA, a rocket car piloted by John Fincher races towards the land speed record, but a mechanical problem causes the car to lose control and overturn. Two children, Linda Fincher, daughter of the pilot, and Michael Singer, son of Brian, the engineer who created the vehicle, witness everything. Twenty years later, a company challenges teams to beat the old record. The first, in which Linda is an engineer, enters a rocket car. The second will have Michael behind the wheel. Nobody wins in this race or in this movie."

    4. Tyrkus, Michael J., ed. (2017). Video Source Book: A VideoHound Reference. Video Program Listings J–M. Vol. 4 (59 ed.). Farmington Hills, Michigan: Gale. p. 2017. ISBN 978-1-4103-2499-3. Retrieved 2023-01-22 – via Internet Archive.

      The book gives Landspeed 1.5 stars. The book notes: "A $50 million prize is offered to any racing team capable of breaking the land speed record of 1,000 miles per hour. Six of the world's top racing drivers and their teams volunteer to race the rocket cars that have been made for the attempt. It's helpful to forget your knowledge of physics. 94m; DVD."

    There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Landspeed to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

    Cunard (talk) 09:57, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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'd like to close this as Keep given the later comments that came after the article was improved but I have to acknowledge the valid advocates stating they believed the article should be Deleted so this is No Consensus. Liz Read! Talk! 01:37, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lisnave[edit]

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

Clearly an in-progress work that's not ready for mainspace. Was draftified twice but subsequently reverted by the author with no explanation provided. Thus AFDing it is the only action that can be taken to prevent move warring (skipping PROD here as the author will likely just de-PROD it without improvements) Taking Out The Trash (talk) 23:22, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Transportation, and Portugal. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 23:40, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The company might be notable, but what's here is entirely unsourced and so promotionally written as to merit the application of TNT. Since the article's author will not allow it to be anywhere besides mainspace, the only alternative is to delete it entirely. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 00:03, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Amending to weak keep per the improvements made, and per the results I found upon doing a search for the topic. The original deletion nomination was proper, but now that an editor has improved the article and it appears to meet GNG, I am going to err towards keeping. I am not persuaded by the pearl-clutching on display below, however. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 19:20, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. XtraJovial (talk • contribs) 00:09, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would've said draftify, but that has happened twice already, with no results, so delete. The ⬡ Bestagon T/C 15:47, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No sources in the article, that reads like a brochure. I find some sources in PR websites, mostly in Portuguese. If it's been draftified twice already, I don't think it can be improved. Oaktree b (talk) 00:03, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete,Unsourced text, may be better that goes back to draft and work on it again. Alex-h (talk) 08:22, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reluctant delete I hate to discourage anybody translating from Portuguese, especially in the business TA, but if they keep undraftifying it without improving it, that tells me they think it's fine when, clearly it's not. Has anyone tried talking to them? In any event, I guess they can get their work refunded, and it might get their attention if they aren't answering at their talk page. The company does seem somewhat important in its niche, and the Portuguese article is much longer, if that matters to anyone, and also, I definitely am not volunteering to fix it. Elinruby (talk) 11:24, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I have found some good sources and completely reincarnated the article as a stub. There is plenty of information in the sources to make a long article. BruceThomson (talk) 04:07, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The original editor had omitted to link the article to the and pages. These are poorly sourced but there is enough material to make a notable English language article if even part of the history can be properly sourced. Good job to @BruceThomson sorting this mess out. Fiachra10003 (talk) 13:49, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Thanks to BruceThomson there are now sufficient references that meet NCORP criteria for establishing notability. Topic therefore meets the criteria and the sources can be used to considerably expand the article. HighKing++ 17:27, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. When there is no case for deletion, or the case is unclear, an article should NEVER be prodded! As pointed out above, the notability of the topic has been established. Not taking away anything from BruceThomson's excellent work (KUDOS and THANK YOU!!!), per WP:NEXIST topics are notable if the sources exist. Not after they are referenced! gidonb (talk) 18:08, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not enough coverage by reliable independent sources to establish notability. Serratra (talk) 17:11, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment for the closer: this is the first and only edit of a new user. gidonb (talk) 17:35, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So my vote should be discounted? Is that what you’re saying? Serratra (talk) 21:37, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I am saying that the closer should weigh this information with all the other information, as they see fit. Nothing personal. Welcome to Wikipedia! gidonb (talk) 22:41, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I'm not buying that a new editor comes along and !votes at an AfD as their first edit. Heard all the excuses before - long-time lurker, alt account, forgot original account, etc, but at the end of the day with no other information, this isn't normal above-board behaviour. HighKing++ 15:09, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Linguist111 (talk) 00:25, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment There is a full chapter in a shipbuilding book on the company, and entire book on the company in Portuguese, so it's notable. BruceThomson (talk) 08:00, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to Wilmington, Ohio. Liz Read! Talk! 01:34, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wilmington Public Library (Ohio)[edit]

Wilmington Public Library (Ohio) (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)

Public library in a town of 12,660 people. Fails WP:GNG. Hirolovesswords (talk) 09:51, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 00:23, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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! 01:31, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kempinski Marsa Malaz[edit]

Kempinski Marsa Malaz (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)

Was draftified in hopes of improvement, without any. Other than promotional fluff pieces, not enough in-depth coverage from independent, secondary, reliable sources to pass WP:GNG. Onel5969 TT me 15:46, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 22:35, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Linguist111 (talk) 00:22, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 06:00, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mathura Bikash Tripura[edit]

Mathura Bikash Tripura (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 don't think International Mother Language Award is a major well-known and significant award (Government of Bangladesh gives many such awards every year) for which you will get automatic notability. Apart from some passing mentions, i am unable to see/find any significant covarage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Fails WP:GNG, WP:ANYBIO. আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 15:33, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors and Bangladesh. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 16:11, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete While his job title and award are reliably sourced, I agree with the nominator that the "International Mother Language National Medal" (so far as I can tell issued on only one occasion, in 2021) does not constitute a well-known and significant award. Having received it does not allow us to presume he has received significant coverage somewhere. The cited sources mention him only briefly, such as "Mathura Bikash Tripura, Executive Director of Jabarang Kalyan Samiti, Khagrachhari Hill District Development Agency spoke on the occasion." Per WP:WHYN, we have inclusion criteria so that we can actually write a whole biography. If only a few sentences can be written and supported by independent sources, the subject does not qualify for a stand alone article. --Worldbruce (talk) 20:09, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: A soft-deletion isn't going to stick here given current editing by new and unregistered users, so relisting.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 22:35, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment an hour after semi-protection expired, an IP again started breaking the AfD notice. Would ComplexRational or Daniel (or any passing admin) please extend the semi-protection of the article for the duration of the relisted discussion? --Worldbruce (talk) 17:10, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I extended the semi-protection three weeks, in case this gets relisted more than once. Happy to unprotect if the AfD closes sooner. Complex/Rational 19:42, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Linguist111 (talk) 00:21, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was merge to Thampanaikkulam. Liz Read! Talk! 01:24, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thampanaikkulam East[edit]

Thampanaikkulam East (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)

Unsourced and a WP:BEFORE didn't produce much other than Wikipedia and its derivatives Paradise Chronicle (talk) 12:51, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 22:30, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Linguist111 (talk) 00:20, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - or merge as nominated above. Can't find anything myself and the external link doesn't go anywhere direct. EmeraldRange (talk/contribs) 20:38, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Star Awards. Liz Read! Talk! 01:23, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Star Awards for London Choco Roll Happiness Award[edit]

Star Awards for London Choco Roll Happiness Award (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 award. Only source I could find was this, which doesn't seem like enough. Darylgolden(talk) Ping when replying 11:23, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 22:30, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Linguist111 (talk) 00:20, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. There is no consensus here on what should happen with this article but there isn't a strong push for deletion. I suggest that editors interested in this subject discuss on the article talk page whether a redirect or merger would be appropriate. Liz Read! Talk! 01:21, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mohawk Dutch[edit]

Mohawk Dutch (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)

Lawrence Gwyn van Loon was a forger. In 1936 he wrote: Crumbs from an Old Dutch Closet. The Dutch Dialect of New York in which the only introduction to Mohawk Dutch has appeared. Van Loon claimed to be the last speaker of Old Dutch. In 1980 he published Het Poelmeisie, a story in Mohawk Dutch that was told in his youth by a certain Mrs. Dewitt Link. Mrs. Dewitt Link was also used a source in his earlier 1936 publication. According to a research from Charles T. Gehring it was revealed that a Mrs. Dewitt Link was of Scottish descent and not of Dutch descent and furthermore her name was Mary Jone Lowe. The neighbors of Mary Jone said she didn't knew any word in Dutch. Van Loon's work was therefore a forgery. The language might not be real. . Tomaatje12 (talk) 19:45, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The article also misrepresents the sources. One source of 1885 mentions nothing about creole. Tomaatje12 (talk) 20:26, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • What about a Redirect to something like Jersey Dutch language, and then maybe create a section there about such forgeries? based on the sources you mention and others I was trying to get a look at. Replayful (talk) 18:34, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Cnilep, can you take a look at my proposal below? gidonb (talk) 20:13, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As gidonb suggests, Dutch-based creole languages is a possible place to discuss this, but only verifiable content should be merged. Cnilep (talk) 00:53, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Cnilep, thank you for this support. As I see it, we should write something LOSELY ALONG THESE LINES in Dutch-based creole languages under a header Mohawk Dutch: "A" researched "Mohawk Dutch".[A] "B" and "C" found that "A" did not preserve scientific ethics in other research.[B][C] "D" also mentions the existence of a Mohwak Dutch dialect.[D] Others mention the same community, not mentioning a dialect it may have had.[E][F][G] With so much unclarity, we should tone down the supposed existence of this dialect. Not only by removing the article but there are also maps, lists in infoboxes, categories, and more. Everywhere that Mohawk Dutch remains mentioned as a dialect a high visibility word of caution should come alongside. gidonb (talk) 14:14, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment If this is indeed a forgery, might I argue that it is still a notable forgery?★Trekker (talk) 12:53, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Lawrence Gwyn van Loon may have been a forger, but that does not mean that Mohawk Dutch wasn't real or that the article should be deleted. Even Loon's article accepts the existence of Mohawk Dutch, saying "He learned the remains of the Mohawk Dutch language, the taol, from his maternal grandfather, Walter Hill ", I'll do some digging to look for reliable sources that predate Loon's book. Meters (talk) 19:53, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I was trying to look at this article, but I don't really know Dutch enough. And I cannot get access to the article "van MARLE, J. (2008): Myths and Forgeries Relating to American ‘Low Dutch’, with special Reference to Walter Hill’s Notebook. In: LACY, M. B. a.o. (eds) From De Halve Maen to KLM. 400 Years of Dutch American Exchange, Münster, p. 321-329." Replayful (talk) 21:28, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Getting several distinct hits on Google Scholar for "Mohawk Dutch". Would like to dig into this further. Elinruby (talk) 18:54, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    A lot of them are about "Mohawk-Dutch" relations and not the language. Replayful (talk) 21:07, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. No valid rationale given. If it is a hoax, edit the article. If there's not enough coverage, merge or redirect with Lawrence Gwyn van Loon, Jersey Dutch language, or wherever it fits. Nardog (talk) 02:43, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It's irrelevant to this article whether van Loon forged some of his work. The OP has not sourced the claim that can Loon's book is the first mention of Mohawk Dutch or that the claims about Mrs. Dewitt Link were false, and simply speculates that the language did not exist. The concept of Mohawk Dutch is relatively well known to those who research the Palatine Germans of the Mohawk Valley. There is likely sufficient coverage of Mohawk Dutch to warrant keeping the article, even if the language was not real. If it's not real then find the reliable sources saying so, and put them in the article. A fraud that has been generally accepted is notable. If the language was real, then find the reliable sources saying so (preferably at least some predating van Loon's work) and add them, along with coverage of the van Loon incident. Meters (talk) 08:02, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Netherlands, and New York. Curbon7 (talk) 15:59, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I have not accessed the full text yet, but "The Old Mohawk Turnpike Book" by Nelson Greene (1924) apparently mentions the Mohawk Dutch language, so van Loon's 1936 book is not the first mention of the language. Meters (talk) 20:23, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    full text is here: http://www.fulton.nygenweb.net/history/turnpike/index.html and one specific ref is here: https://fulton.nygenweb.net/Turnpike/Yosts.html ' "Mohawk Dutch" is a puzzle to linguists not raised on the Mohawk. It is said to be a combination of the Holland Dutch, German and Mohawk languages.' Meters (talk) 20:32, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into Dutch-based creole languages in a VERY selective manner. The indications that this was a thing or not can be briefly discussed in the parent article. gidonb (talk) 22:43, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Linguist111 (talk) 00:19, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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! 01:16, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Don't Leave (Simba Tagz song)[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Don't Leave (Simba Tagz 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)

Should have been deleted the first time around; sources mentioned at the first AfD were promotional material that literally says it came from his reps. People voting keep maintained that there may offline sources (which is fine), but simply saying that WP:SOURCESEXIST is not valid. Why? I Ask (talk) 06:32, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Despite two full rounds of AfDing, it appears that the argument that holds truest is that which Spiderone made in the 2nd: "more than enough time has been provided for people to find sourcing that confirms an WP:NSONG or a WP:GNG pass and nothing has been provided so deletion is the only valid option". That was said nearly a year ago and yet it remains true today. Unless the allegedly existing newspaper sources that just don't exist online anywhere are presented here, then we can't take the claim that they're at there at face value, and we're left with only one option. QuietHere (talk) 16:48, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as I have added two more substantial references that were listed in the 2nd AFD. "more than enough time has been provided" is certainly not a reason to delete. It appears that this meets WP:GNG based on available references. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:34, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Wow, a literal press release and a single incidental mention from a now defunct blog. Great sources. You know better than this. Being a developing country is not excuse for a lack of proper coverage. Why? I Ask (talk) 22:57, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    On its own, the amount of time wouldn't be a reason to delete, but given the complete lack of improvement to the article by keep voters who swore this coverage exists but never provided it despite the amount of time available to do so, I think it's a given that's not the actual reason being proposed here. And I second Why?, the newly added sources are no good here. QuietHere (talk) 23:52, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - As noted above, there were two previous AfDs for this article and I was involved in both, much to my detriment. Both ended with Admin actions that I found severely disappointing and I even considered investigations, but that would have just resulted in he-said-she-said sniping. (Note the unprofessional sarcasm and veiled threat against me by the Admin in the second closure statement.) The point is that a highly questionable article survived twice for reasons other than the song's notability or lack thereof. Good luck to everyone who contributes here, you're gonna need it. --- DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:51, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
doomsdayer520, I think the sarcasm came from you opening a 2nd AFD right after the 1st one was closed. Usually more time is suggested between AFD nominations, we're talking about weeks and months, not a few hours. Liz Read! Talk! 06:38, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
And sarcasm is appropriate behavior for Admins? See your talk page. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 15:42, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know if sarcasm is "appropriate" for anyone, editor or admin. But admins are human beings and at times might express themselves in ways that are not appropriate. None of us are "professional", this is a hobby and we are all volunteers. Admins aren't perfect (as we are constantly reminded). But I don't think it was a personal attack. I was just trying to put the comment in context but it's not my place to explain other people's behavior so I'll bow out now. Liz Read! Talk! 16:21, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Meh, I think admins should also exercise some more in-depth reasoning and not just look at how many people vote keep or delete. If a keep vote is explicitly listed as something at WP:ATA, then discard it. If the sources transparently don't meet the requirements, then discount them. Just because a small group of editors at an AfD vote keep based on faulty reasoning does not mean you can override global consensus. And honestly, you can't just use the excuse that Zimbabwe lags behind in digital media; that's both ethnocentric and disingenuous (and irrelevant as far as policies on GNG and verifiability go; you can't establish GNG by "word of mouth" as one editor put it). Any vote that made that argument the first go round (which is several) should have also been discarded. Why? I Ask (talk) 17:54, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I still have not voted in this one and don't intend to. Previously that only got me into arguments with people treating me like I was born yesterday. However, I request an in-depth policy-based analysis of all votes by the closing Admin this time, who can then make a tough but fair choice and explain the reasoning for that choice. That already failed twice for this song article. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 19:31, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I don't see how this meets the WP:GNG. Nothing at the prior AFDs are helping either. The sourcing just isn't there. Sergecross73 msg me 16:22, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Still meets WP:NSONG with sources presented in the previous AfDs. They're reliable and in-depth enough IMV. SBKSPP (talk) 01:36, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Can't believe no one bothered to improve the article after the previous AfDs. SBKSPP (talk) 01:36, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Because there's nothing to improve it with? There are literally no suitable sources, and people have explained it as such. Why? I Ask (talk) 01:55, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Anyone can improve that page. They can pick any of the sources in the previous AfDs and put 'em in the article. There's nothing wrong with that. I believe that the sources in the previous AfDs are reliable and in-depth enough IMV. You can never change my mind. Ever. SBKSPP (talk) 10:23, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I really hope the closer takes into account your unwillingness to engage in consensus, then. It's blatantly obvious the sources listed prior are neither reliable nor independent. Why? I Ask (talk) 15:17, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    By saying that, it's blatantly obvious that you're forcing me to !vote to delete the article. SBKSPP (talk) 00:22, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not forcing you to do anything; it doesn't matter what you vote. If you're objectively wrong (and I do mean objectively; these sources are the type that are pretty much word-for-word unsuitable), then hopefully the closing admin will overlook your vote. Why? I Ask (talk) 02:15, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    "Not" forcing me, huh? Pfft. SBKSPP (talk) 01:16, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Linguist111 (talk) 00:15, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Like others have been saying, yes, it has sources, but they are not the best.
  • www.shonaboyco.co.zw - Blogger blog, not reliable
  • www.thenetnaija.net - A look at the homepage today shows that it's a spammy blog (with titles like "Why sex is important in keeping your relationship in 2023", "WhatsApp will soon stop working on these iPhone and Samsung devices", and better yet, "Marathon sex may cause penis fracture, impotence - Urologists")
  • www.naijareview.com - African music blog that seems to have been abandoned since April 2022
Three spammy blogs should not be the basis of any Wikipedia article. I'd CSD this if the big artist wasn't listed. It should also be noted that a WP:BEFORE search had little to no results. TheManInTheBlackHat (Talk) 02:36, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - So much effort wasted over three AFDs, and for what? The RSs are simply absent. Fails WP:GNG. About as clear-cut as it gets.  Velella  Velella Talk   04:54, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - None of the sources presented can be considered reliable sources, and WP:THEREMUSTBESOURCES is never a valid argument without any kind of evidence that those sources actually exist. Rorshacma (talk) 17:47, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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_January_22&oldid=1136784019"