Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 June 16

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< June 15 June 17 >

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. Star Mississippi 13:44, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Downsizing (property)[edit]

Downsizing (property) (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)
Move-up home (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)

Wikipedia is not a dictionary nor a "How To" guide. Apart from trying to be both, these two connected articles contain no encyclopaedic information, nor have a potential for any IMO. Much like we don't create articles on "walking", "eating", "living", "moving homes", etc. — kashmīrī TALK 22:26, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Not every English word is an encyclopedic topic; the sources are quite thin. As a second choice, redirect to Relocation (personal), but honestly if such a redirect happened then there'd be basically 0 content to port over anyway, since this is just a phrase describing one very specific type of relocation. SnowFire (talk) 00:01, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete While an article such as this COULD have merit, this is a DICDEF, perhaps a bit longer than a simple def, but I can't see the need for this. Oaktree b (talk) 00:03, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Articles can be improved. Both articles are just 2 years old. At AfD, we should be judging things based on their potential, not their current state. WP:DEMOLISH, WP:NOTCLEANUP, WP:NODEADLINES ~Kvng (talk) 13:57, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.

    Analysis

    The concept of "downsizing" property has been studied by numerous peer-reviewed journals. The studies discuss numerous aspects of downsizing:

    1. how downsizing can reduce energy demands (Huebner & Shipworth 2017)
    2. the controversy about the facts around downsizing (Banks et al. 2010)
    3. the socio-cultural meanings about downsizing and the (in)voluntariness of downsizing (Sandberg 2017)
    4. downsizing behaviours among older Australians (Judd et al. 2014)
    5. recommendations for downsizing houses to improve quality and resource efficiency in the United States (Boehland 2008)
    6. downsizing as a policy goal in England (Burgess & Quinio 2022)
    7. the factors that increase or decrease the chances of downsizing (Painter & Lee 2009)
    8. the reproduction of gender norms through downsizing (Addington & Ekerdt 2012)
    9. downsizing's appeal to Finnish residents with certain characteristics (Gibler & Tyvimaa 2015)
    10. the psychological effects of downsizing (Luborsky, Lysack & Van Nuil 2011)
    The subject passes Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline. There is enough information about the socio-cultural, psychological, environmental, political/policy aspects of downsizing to support an encyclopedic article about the topic such that this would not violate Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a dictionary or Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a manual, guidebook, textbook, or scientific journal.

    The current article is well-sourced and does not violate any policies. It discusses the reasons people downsize, the difficulties that come with downsizing, and how people who downsize need to dispose of personal items after moving the basic fundamental items. This is encyclopedic information. The article can be expanded and improved. Per Wikipedia:Editing policy#Wikipedia is a work in progress: perfection is not required and Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Editing and discussion, the article should be kept.

    The nominator wrote, "Much like we don't create articles on "walking", "eating", "living", "moving homes", etc.". There are articles about walking, eating, personal life, and relocation (personal).

    Sources

    1. Huebner, Gesche M.; Shipworth, David (2017-01-15). "All about size? – The potential of downsizing in reducing energy demand". Applied Energy. 186 (2): 226–233. doi:10.1016/j.apenergy.2016.02.066. Retrieved 2023-06-14.

      The article notes: "Residential energy consumption is one of the main contributors to CO2 emissions in the UK. One strategy aimed at reducing emissions is to increase retrofitting rates of buildings. In this paper, an alternative approach is discussed and its potential impact on energy use assessed, that of downsizing (moving to smaller homes)."

    2. Banks, James; Blundell, Richard; Oldfield, Zoê; Smith, James P. (2010). "Housing Price Volatility and Downsizing in Later Life". In Wise, David A. (ed.). Research Findings in the Economics of Aging (PDF). Chicago: University of Chicago Press. ISBN 0-226-90306-0. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2023-06-14. Retrieved 2023-06-14.

      The book notes: "In this chapter we will document and model the housing transitions of the elderly in two countries—England and the United States. One important form of these transitions involves downsizing, but there remains considerable controversy even about what the facts are about downsizing at older ages."

    3. Sandberg, Maria (2017-12-19). "Downsizing of Housing: Negotiating Sufficiency and Spatial Norms". Journal of Macromarketing. 38 (2). doi:10.1177/0276146717748355. Retrieved 2023-06-14.

      The abstract notes: "This study analyzes socio-cultural meanings about downsizing as well as norms about dwelling size. The study analyzes naturally occurring, cultural texts (media texts and corporate communications about small-sized dwellings). The study offers a view on how the meaning of downsizing is negotiated, the (in)voluntariness of downsizing emerging as the main point to be negotiated."

    4. Judd, Bruce; Liu, Edgar; Easthope, Hazel; Davy, Laura; Bridge, Catherine (January 2014). Downsizing amongst older Australians (PDF). Australian Housing and Urban Research Institute. ISBN 978-1-922075-42-0. ISSN 1834-7223. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2023-06-14. Retrieved 2023-06-14.

      The executive summary notes: "Much urban policy is premised on the assumption that an ageing population will require more diverse (implying smaller) housing stock into which older people will (or should) downsize. However, little is known about older people’s downsizing behaviours (Judd et al. 2012)."

    5. Boehland, Jessica (2008-02-08). "Small is Beautiful U.S. House Size, Resource Use, and the Environment". Journal of Industrial Ecology. 9 (1–2). doi:10.1162/1088198054084680. Retrieved 2023-06-14.

      The abstract notes: "This article examines some of the trends in single-family house building in the United States and provides recommendations for downsizing houses to improve quality and resource efficiency."

    6. Burgess, England Gemma; Quinio, Valentine (2022-04-22). "Unpicking the downsizing discourse: understanding the housing moves made by older people in England". Housing Studies. 36 (8). Taylor & Francis: 1177–1192. doi:10.1080/02673037.2020.1754346. Retrieved 2023-06-14.

      The abstract notes: "This paper looks into this mismatch between observed housing choices and the construction of downsizing as a policy goal. It suggests that theoretically speaking, the very notion of downsizing is problematic and difficult to define and is an over-simplistic concept which in reality applies to a heterogeneous group of people."

    7. Painter, Gary; Lee, KwanOk (November 2009). "Housing tenure transitions of older households: Life cycle, demographic, and familial factors". Regional Science and Urban Economics. 39 (6): 749–760. Retrieved 2023-06-14.

      The abstract notes: "At the same time, very few life changing events immediately lead a homeowner to become a renter, although they do influence the decision to downsize or consumer home equity. Finally, living next to one's children lowers the probability of becoming a renter or downsizing, and having richer children increases the probability of downsizing and thereby consuming one's housing wealth."

    8. Addington, Aislinn; Ekerdt, David J. (2012-10-29). "The Reproduction of Gender Norms Through Downsizing in Later Life Residential Relocation". Research on Aging. 36 (1): 3–21. doi:10.1177/016402751246308. Retrieved 2023-06-14.

      The article notes: "For this circumstance, the social relations of gender offer solutions for possession distribution and downsizing labor. Between male and female, who does what and who gets what may not be equitable, but the reliance on gender at least expedites the work."

    9. Gibler, Karen M.; Tyvimaa, Tanja (2015-11-17). "Middle-Aged and Elderly Finnish Households Considering Moving, Their Preferences, and Potential Downsizing Amidst Changing Life Course and Housing Career". Journal of Housing For the Elderly. 29 (4). Taylor & Francis: 373–395. doi:10.1080/02763893.2015.1055029. Retrieved 2023-06-14.

      The abstract notes: "Downsizing appeals to residents with lower incomes who live alone, and who have been in their current houses longer."

    10. Luborsky, Mark R.; Lysack, Catherine L.; Van Nuil, Jennifer (August 2011). "Refashioning one's place in time: Stories of household downsizing in later life". Journal of Aging Studies. 25 (3): 243–252. doi:10.1016/j.jaging.2011.03.009. Retrieved 2023-06-14.

      The abstract notes: "This article examines how key contours of the experiences of place during residential downsizing are infused with unexpectedly heightened awareness and cultivation of one's sense of place in multiple timeframes."

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

    Cunard (talk) 11:11, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: Pinging Kvng (talk · contribs), who removed the proposed deletion. Cunard (talk) 11:19, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    That's blatant CANVASSING. — kashmīrī TALK 15:09, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Arguably appropriate per Editors who have participated in previous discussions on the same topic. ~Kvng (talk) 15:38, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Except that there have been no previous deletion discussions on this topic. — kashmīrī TALK 17:47, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    You PRODDED with Wikipedia should not be turned into a dictionary nor a "How To" guide. Apart from trying to be both, this article contains no encyclopaedic information of any value to the reader. I DEPRODDED with edit summary improve, don't delete flawed articles. You can't seriously argue that's not a deletion discussion. ~Kvng (talk) 18:50, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't feel like arguing about the obvious. You did not comment on the content, and you were not pinged because of your knowledge of the subject matter. You're just in the business of mass PROD removal, as your edit history demonstrates, and you were pinged only because Cunard felt you would support their standpoint. — kashmīrī TALK 19:45, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Responding to your message on my talk page and here. Wikipedia:Canvassing#Appropriate notification says: "An editor who may wish to draw a wider range of informed, but uninvolved, editors to a discussion can place a message at any of the following" including "On the user talk pages of concerned editors". The editor who removed the proposed deletion tag from the article before the article was nominated for deletion is a "concerned editor". My pinging of a single concerned editor does not violate the Wikipedia:Canvassing guideline. I routinely have pinged editors who have removed the proposed deletion from articles in the subsequent AfDs and will continue doing so. If you continue to think that this is canvassing, I recommend that you post at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents to receive input from the community about whether they agree. I am fine with my actions being open to community scrutiny. Cunard (talk) 06:54, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Meets notability standard. Clear potential for development beyond DICDEF. Yes, we do have articles on walking, eating, living, moving house. ~Kvng (talk) 14:01, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, notable per Cunard. Also the nomination rationale is weak, wish you checked the pages for walking, eating, living, and moving homes pages. Merko (talk) 22:38, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to assess new sources.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:38, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:13, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Explore Learning[edit]

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

A company whose only claim to notability are being the recipients of two minor awards. The coverage from Mumsnet was clearly promotional in nature, and the coverage from UK Business Tech Awards did not establish how the company is notable either. Searching online, I only located one ad on the Telegraph and multiple trivial mentions. Does not seem to pass WP:NCORP. Tutwakhamoe (talk) 15:59, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:25, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previous WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:42, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Unfortunately, no sources found for this entity. They seem like a decent outfit, I just can't find any supporting documents. Oaktree b (talk) 23:54, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Quite a lot of sources on the school [1], seems to meet WP:GNG. 33ABGirl (talk) 06:18, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:32, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Delete. I found numerous sources discussing the opening of new branches ([2], [3]), an interview ([4]), a somewhat non-trivial mention on an article about tuition ([5]) and some bdaily articles ([6] [7] [8]). I'm unsure of the reliability of bdaily as it seems to be a form of content marketing site, but the reference to the company being on the Sunday Times "Best Big Company To Work For" list starts to build a picture of notability. But none of these are what led me to my vote, as they are all a little schmoozy. Instead, I'm voting keep because of this Telegraph article which is not only non-trivial coverage, but also critical, which ameliorates the promotional tone of the others. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 07:48, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Changed vote after discussion below. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 07:22, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Still have sources about new branches opening. CastJared (talk) 11:16, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is a company therefore GNG/WP:NCORP requires at least two deep or significant sources with each source containing "Independent Content" showing in-depth information *on the company*. "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. In plain English, this means that references cannot rely *only* on information provided by the company - such as articles that rely entirely on quotations, press releases, announcements, interviews, website information, etc - even when slightly modified or reworded. The Keep !voters above appear to have based their !voters on; 1) The quantity of sources; 2) Sources based on announcements, interviews and PR; 3) Source that rely entirely on information provided by the company/execs; and 4) Mere mentions and/or inclusions in a list. None of those references meet GNG/NCORP criteria for establishing notability. HighKing++ 20:01, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    A Times article, A Guardian article…
    I think that plus the Telegraph article makes at least three sources meeting the NCORP criteria. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 21:49, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Times "article" in an infomercial for the most part which relies totally on a "customer" testimonial and an interview with the CEO. There's no "Independent Content" and it fails ORGIND
  • The Guardian article is mostly a series of anecdotes from parents who are "customers" and information from the company itself. There is insufficent in-depth information, outside of the anecdotes and the information about one of their locations, there's nothing that isn't available on their website, no independent opinion/analysis/investigation/etc. Fails both CORPDEPTH and ORGIND.
  • The Telegraph article has no in-depth information about the company which wasn't provided by the CEO in his rebuttal of a criticism. Also fails CORPDEPTH and ORGIND. HighKing++ 22:06, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    On what basis are you accusing the Times article of being an infomercial and why the scare quotes around customer? Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 22:27, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Apologies, I meant to say it was advertorial (although infomercial isn't exactly wrong either) for the most part. It uses "customer" testimonials to promote a positive view of the company as well as quotes/info from the company. I use quotes around the word "customer" to highlight that the parents of the children attending the school are customers providing a positive testimonial and are therefore not unconnected to the subject company. Rather than taking umbridge at my wording, I think you'll agree the article fails NCORP criteria for establishing notability as it contains no in-depth information which is "Independent Content" (as per WP:SIRS). HighKing++ 13:37, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't see any evidence that the article is an advertorial. Giving a positive account of a subject doesn't imply that money changed hands. I also don't agree that an interviewee having a customer relationship with the subject implies that the article is not independent. It doesn't seem unusual that an article about a company should interview customers of that company, and if the customer gives a positive testimonial, that doesn't automatically taint the independence of the article. It would be a problem if the author of the article interviewed many customers and only selected the positive ones, but we don't have any evidence either way on that, and the fact that The Times is generally treated as a reliable source with editorial standards should indicate a degree of integrity in content published as an article. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 16:03, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Customer testimonials are considered Primary sources. In the "Secondary Sources" subsection of ORGIND, it says A primary source is original material that is close to an event, and is often an account written by people who are directly involved. Primary sources cannot be used to establish notability. In a business setting, frequently encountered primary sources include: and goes on to list customer tesitominials or complaints. The Times is of course a reliable source, but that reliability and integrity extends to faithfully reproducing the material, whether an interview or quotation or information from a website. It does not imply the content meets our criteria for "Independent Content" or other content that meets our criteria for establishing notability. HighKing++ 12:54, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    But we’re not using a primary source to establish notability, we’re using a secondary source that quotes several primary sources and puts them in context. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 15:26, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • You're missing the point. I'm saying there's no "Independent Content". You're saying you think a customer testimonial is independent. I'm pointing you to a part of the Guidelines which shows you that customer testimonials are not independent - so much so they are considered primary sources, that's how un-independent they are. I am not saying the article is a Primary source. I'm saying that the article doesn't contain Independent Content and customer testimonials are not Independent Content. HighKing++ 10:27, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not saying customer testimonials are independent, I'm saying the Times article is independent. We're not using the customer testimonial as the source. We are using the Times article as the source. The Times article uses several primary sources, not all of which are customer testimonials, to which the author adds her own observations and analysis, seemingly based on a visit to the centre. The article combines the primary sources, including the non-independent ones, puts them in context and offers points and counterpoints from two headteachers. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 13:33, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think you've wrapped your head around Alpha3031c's explanation below better than mine. He is correct and it is what I was trying to help you understand but I think my advertorial label threw you into a different thought process. HighKing++ 16:28, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not really satisified with the current THREE wrt CORPDEPTH, even if they are much better than "new branches opening" which might be the most "standard notices" of standard notices, but I intend review in more detail if there are any plausible sources not yet linked tommorow, so reserving my judgement until then. Alpha3031 (t • c) 14:20, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    [9] - here's another article of very similar structure to the Times one. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 13:40, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Barnards, I think one of the sticking points here is that you are looking at independence primarily from a functional perspective (i.e., editorial and authorial) whereas for WP:ORGIND we do want the content to be independent as well. My interpretation would be closer to HighKing's for that reason. Once you take out the direct quotes and other clearly attributed content, well... there just isn't very much left is there? From the Times article, I'd say the two paragraphs (the ones before and containing the second mention) are maybe usable from that perspective if we squint a little, and that's 6 sentences, but it doesn't really have enough context to extract much. Like, yes ok we'll write something about SuccessMaker into the article, what will be the actual content? They do computer stuff? I haven't found anything better either so far, this Guardian article might have been worth taking a look at but I'd say the ones you've found are better. Alpha3031 (t • c) 15:32, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    We only need enough to establish notability. Article content can come from sources that we haven't put forward as notability-establishing, such as [10] and [11] (archive link: [12]). There are lots of little articles like these - not SIGCOV by themselves, but coverage is sustained across decades. We can even use the non-independent content as article content with caution (noncontroversial details). Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 18:15, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    A qualifying source is required to address the subject directly and in detail, it is not possible to use a source to establish notability if it does not provide sufficient context to write some content. The sources I've found do not meet WP: CORPDEPTH so this is a delete from me. Alpha3031 (t • c) 01:55, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I suppose you’re right. I’ll change my vote. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 07:19, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete insufficient sources, is a company so WP:NCORP applies, however is not met. Karnataka (talk) 20:41, 23 June 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! 03:22, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WOH G17[edit]

WOH G17 (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)

PROD removed with the contention that this *may* meet WP:GNG. It doesn't. Also fails WP:NASTRO. As per the PROD, the article was created on the weak assumption that this was an exceptionally large star, as shown in a database rather blindly assuming it was an LMC star rather than a more conventional foreground object. Lithopsian (talk) 20:40, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Keep @Lithospian, you seem to be one of the primary authors who made most of the contributions to this page. Someone else proded it, but you took it upon yourself to AfD it? Why? you are unhappy with your work? What made you change your mind? 67.198.37.16 (talk) 00:55, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't create it. I tried to improve it but at the end of the day it still doesn't meet the grade. I felt the PROD was appropriate and was disappointed to see it rejected on such weak grounds. Lithopsian (talk) 13:34, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry my WP:DEPROD was disappointing. I was under the impression this was reported as one of the largest known stars. That's not correct but I assumed the claim and the correction may have garnered enough coverage to meet WP:GNG. I apologize that, since we have only 7 days to review and WP:PRODPATROL is understaffed, I don't have time to do comprehensive research on all the PRODS I review. Thanks for bringing this to WP:AFD for discussion. ~Kvng (talk) 20:56, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you summarised it very well. The article claimed the star was one of the largest known, but nobody else ever really made that claim and it very probably isn't true. Just an outlier in a large dataset with limited sanity checking. Lithopsian (talk) 21:04, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:43, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:31, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom and SpaceImplorerExplorerImplorer. The weak keep vote should be discounted about because it gives no reasoning besides asking the nom questions. Should have been a comment instead. JML1148 (talk | contribs) 02:07, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: it is clear that the subject of the article fails WP:GNG and WP:NASTRO. The weak assumption that this was an extremely large star is likely untrue, and even if there is merit to it there is still no WP:SIGCOV to establish notability. InterstellarGamer12321 (talk | contribs) 10:02, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: This isn't notable at all. No WP:SIGCOV. CastJared (talk) 11:17, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 23:35, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hylics[edit]

Hylics (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:WORDISSUBJECT: It's just a not-notable word. -- Apmh 20:22, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:44, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:31, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, cannot find sources/coverage relating to the word from Google, as per nom and Wp:WORDISSUBJECT Karnataka (talk) 20:44, 23 June 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! 06:08, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

CSWF Hardcore Championship[edit]

CSWF Hardcore Championship (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 notable independent wrestling title. Not enought coverage to prove notability. HHH Pedrigree (talk) 10:08, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previous WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:10, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 23:36, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Elie Ndisanze[edit]

Elie Ndisanze (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)

PROMO for a non-notable individual. Gsearch goes straight to social media sites, with nothing written about the person in RS. Oaktree b (talk) 14:54, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:05, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, sources are non-notable, before steps also indicate that this doesn't meet WP:NBLP. Karnataka (talk) 20:46, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:15, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Murder of Carrim Alli[edit]

Murder of Carrim Alli (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)

PRODded twice.

Non notable individual - bio article stub based on single event.
— User:Mccapra 21:21, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Removed PROD after renaming article. I agree that as a person he is not, but as a event it may be notable and has sustained coverage
— User:MarkZusab 06:03, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

article lacks information and sourcing, is not relevant enough for wikipedia page to exist
— User:BusterBuster123 18:18, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

–LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 02:31, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm going to recuse myself from voting here, because he was a (very distant) acquaintance. A small amount of Googling for "Carrim Alli murder" reveals that case received coverage over a period of years in multiple WP:RS, indicating it meets WP:GNG. WP:NOTCLEANUP and WP:WORLDWIDE apply as well. [13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20] [21][22][23][24][25]. I'm surprised that there are no hits on Google News, but that's more a reflection of the Google News algorithm than anything else: the main Google search seems to bring forth a lot of information. Also found an academic article that mentions his murder [26] in the context of Whistleblower protection in South Africa, and another that discusses his murder in the context of police corruption. [27]. A South African Police newsletter states that the "whole country was shocked by Capt Carrim Alli's brutal murder" [28] (whether that newsletter is an RS is open to debate, but it does capture the level of coverage of the murder). Park3r (talk) 06:59, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I added some links on to the page and i think we can keep this article page, the event is very significant and it doesn't happen much, am sure it went down in the history of South Africa's police department. Nenerue (talk) 11:10, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Murders of non-notable people are almost never notable. All WP:SIGCOV of this event is based on breaking news and updates. This is a textbook example of an event that saw coverage while it was ongoing but did not generate WP:SUSTAINED sigcov after the dust settled. If someone can find retrospective articles that analyze the sequence of events after the fact, or maybe a book about the murder, then I will change my !vote. An event like this is better suited for an article like Timeline of Pretoria, where I've just added it. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 18:14, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • I’m not sure if “timeline of Pretoria” is the the appropriate place for a murder of a South African police captain, since South Africa has a national police force, not local forces like the US. He happened to be killed in Pretoria, but the killing was not specifically related to Pretoria, it was related to a probe into large-scale corruption in the South African Police headquarters [29]. I also specifically provided two academic articles above that discuss his murder in the context of whistleblowing and police corruption in South Africa. At some point, despite WP:OTHER being a thing, one has to wonder why articles like Shooting of Ralph Yarl are deemed notable, but an event like this murder (that was, unlike most such incidents in South Africa, covered over a period of years by multiple RS) is deemed non-notable. Park3r (talk) 21:08, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      I seriously considered nominating Shooting of Ralph Yarl for deletion when it was created, but people tend to get really huffy is you nominate a non-notable event for deletion shortly after it occurs, so I didn't. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 21:32, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Going by WP:EVENT the Yarl shooting probably fails, but it would be hard to argue that it doesn't meet WP:GNG, and any nom would probably fail for that reason. Which is why I mentioned GNG above in the context of the Alli killing. Unless GNG is to be tacitly disregarded for events, or events outside the Core Anglosphere. Park3r (talk) 23:59, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Notability requires sustained secondary coverage. News reports covering the event as it is unfolding do not count toward notability. I agree that any nomination would likely fail, but it's because several !voters would come in and disregard that requirement, and no closer would be brave enough to handle the backlash of discarding those erroneous !votes. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 03:44, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"News reports covering the event as it is unfolding do not count toward notability." I haven't seen that as a requirement for WP:GNG. Where does it come from? Park3r (talk) 04:19, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Look at the criteria listed at WP:Notability. It requires sustained secondary coverage. Developing news reports are not that. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 04:34, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm curious about your of a secondary coverage, and why news reports aren't that. It sounds like you want coverage from tertiary sources? In any case, some of those sources do actually analyse the Alli case. Park3r (talk) 06:08, 7 June 2023 (::::::I'm talking about secondary sources as defined at WP:SECONDARY. News sources are not secondary, they are primary sources that document a sequence of events as it is unfolding. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 14:08, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
interesting, thanks. I would consider (and have during my time editing Wikipedia and prior to that, (probably going back to when I learned this at library period in primary school) that a primary source would be something like a court transcript, a press release, an interview, or an eyewitness account. Your claim that “news sources are not secondary” doesn’t seem to align with WP:SECONDARY, and WP:PRIMARYNEWS is an essay that seems to have a rather elitist idea of what constitutes a secondary source. I’d be curious to know which of the 15 or so sources I added above would qualify as secondary sources in your mind. In the instance of this murder, I’d see a transcript of the murder trial or appeal, an eyewitness account from someone who saw his body, a legal judgement, a report made into the alleged corruption that led to his death, by the victim, a primary source, since those would require WP:SYNTH to come to meaningful conclusions. Not the various reports discussing the murder published in RS by journalists. I’d also be curious about what other editors think about this issue in general, and how the concept of “news sources are not secondary” aligns with exisiting site policy. Park3r (talk) 15:44, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 00:06, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I think we need some additional assessments of the sources added to this article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:48, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:SIGCOV, WP:ROUTINE and WP:GNG. My opinion of the sources:
  • Source 1 is a various mix of quotes related to the incident and the subject. There are twelve lines in total, with six being quotes by an individual related to the subject/event. Out of the six non-quote lines, only three only tell news, whereas the other three introduce a quote by an individual related to the subject/event.
  • Source 2 is routine commentary about the court hearing.
  • Source 3 is once again routine commentary and timeline about the court hearing.
  • Source 4 is once again routine commentary about the court hearing.
  • I can't access source 5, and archives aren't loading for me for some reason.
  • Source 6 also seems to be routine coverage about this event.
Karnataka (talk) 20:57, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I put up 15 sources above though, including 2 academic articles that mention the murder in the context of police corruption. But given the media coverage over an extended period in WP:RS, I’d like to know how it doesn’t meet GNG.Park3r (talk) 06:18, 24 June 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. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:11, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mona Sax[edit]

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

After the clean up, there seems to be nothing for Mona Sax. This is an Old GA, the standards before were isn't big (GA has no bearing with notability). There are sources that amount to WP:REFBOMB going on with small quotes from reviews and/or passing mentions. Cannot find a single WP:SIGCOV, since the GameZone source is dead. GlatorNator (ᴛ) 22:55, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge the new rule for VG characters is “merging is cheap” since most of them are not notable and it’s easier to merge sourced info rather than try and salvage an entire article. Dronebogus (talk) 04:05, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Admittedly that's coming across like "purge because lol VG character" which *shouldn't* be the mindset we go into over these. We should be genuinely trying to figure out which subjects can and can't work as an article, regardless of if its a character or not.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 08:03, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, everything needs evaluation on a case by case basis. Just because a lot of video game characters are being re-evaluated as non-notable doesn't mean all of them are. WP:BATHWATER applies. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 15:20, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I respect your opinions and input on these discussions, but I'd really rather this not be the default mindset people enter these discussions with. It already feels a bit like we're merging some that could have been salvaged, but aren't because people are burned out on the constant stream of these discussions. There's a lot of junk articles out there, but there's a lot of decent ones too. Sergecross73 msg me 16:02, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per analyses found at [30] pp. 24, 27, [31] p. 116, [32] p. 117, [33] p. 91, and according to the preview possibly [34] as well, that one's a bit harder to sift through. But if what's there is better fleshed out it should be able to make a decent reception section.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 08:19, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I agree with Kung Fu Man's analysis of the available sourcing. While Dronebogus is entitled to their opinion, there certainly is no "new rule for VG characters" as such. Haleth (talk) 13:25, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very weak keep The mention in the first source Kung Fu Man cited is really impressive. That, combined with the GameZone article asking for a Mona Sax-centric game, and "Noir Affect" saying she "subverts male predatory behavior", seems to satisfy GNG even if the other sources are less so. The problems in this article seem WP:SURMOUNTABLE. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 14:31, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Kung Fu Man's sources. Sergecross73 msg me 15:57, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per KFM's sources. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 17:01, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per sources found by KFM. QuicoleJR (talk) 18:06, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per KFM. WP:POTENTIAL has been shown and this just needs some work. Shooterwalker (talk) 14:53, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (weak) per new sources. Karnataka (talk) 20:58, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Kung Fu Man's rationale. --Mann Mann (talk) 03:12, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 23:39, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bellis habanera[edit]

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

Not a published name for any plant species. Habanera® is a trademark for a series of Bellis perennis cultivars; Habanera® Red, Habanera® Rose, Habanera® White and Habanera® White Red Tips (I believe this is the website of the trademark holder). The individual cultivars are not notable, and there's really nothing that can be said about the collective trademark they fall under. Plantdrew (talk) 21:31, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 23:39, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Solanum verrogeneum[edit]

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

Not a published name for any plant species. We discussed this article a few months back at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Plants/Archive75#Solanum_verrogeneum. The name appears on the website that was used as a source in the article, and we confirmed that the plant described on the website is "certainly Solanum quitoense", but there is no reason for Wikipedia to maintain a bogus name that appeared in a not-very reliable source. Plantdrew (talk) 21:25, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 23:41, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Gymnocalycium nova[edit]

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

Not a published name for any plant species. Perhaps somebody thought there was a new species and had some intent of describing it; "species nova" (usually abbreviated "sp. nov.") is a phrase associated with describing new species, but it is impossible to determine what species name was proposed, if any from just "nova". 'Sierra Medina' is apparently a cultivar of Gymnocalycium bayrianum ([35]), but the cultivar isn't notable, and there is no reason for Wikipedia to perpetuate the apparent confusion surrounding "nova". Plantdrew (talk) 21:14, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Could be true, i dont recall the details on the culivar. ZyMOS (talk) 21:33, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: If found no reliable references to establish notability. The one reference cited by the article links to a zipcodezoo.com page that no longer exists.
Zipcodezoo's "About us" section says: "Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscin elit. Morbi pellentesque vehicula magna, nec lobortis lorem sagittis ut."
--A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 00:27, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 23:40, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Zea italica[edit]

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

Not a published name for any plant species. This is the name of a homeopathic preparation that is maybe prepared from Zea mays (maize/corn), according to this homeopathic vendor, but a homeopathic wiki lists it as being prepared from Setaria italica. The homeopathic preparation doesn't seem to be notable and it's not clear which plant is used to prepare the homeopathic remedy (if a plant is used at all; this vendor claims to be making homeopathic remedies from a archetype/mathematical model, which is a new one to me, although I suppose that doesn't make much difference in terms of the number of plant derived molecules present in the preparation). Plantdrew (talk) 21:04, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails GNG, NSPECIES, and completely lacks references. SilverTiger12 (talk) 17:05, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Except for mention in some homeopathy books, there are no references. Homeopathy books are not reliable sources. See Talk:Homeopathy - Q.4. at the top of the page makes it clear that Wikipedia views homeopathy to be a fringe science per the Wikipedia:Fringe theories guideline. There have been ArbCom cases on pseudoscience in general and homeopathy in particular that also confirm this.--A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 00:42, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 23:40, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lorenzo Netteb[edit]

Lorenzo Netteb (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)

Made nine appearances in the Eerste Divisie across two seasons. A web search finds short articles but nothing amounts to WP:SIGCOV. The article fails WP:GNG. Robby.is.on (talk) 20:20, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I concur there is a lack of significant non-database sources. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 20:57, 16 June 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! 03:24, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Didi Gaga[edit]

Didi Gaga (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, no charted singles, no awards won. Gsearch goes straight to Youtube videos and streaming sites, with very low subscriber numbers, also an indication of non-notability. Oaktree b (talk) 14:59, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete cannot find any sources that meet WP:GNG, current sources listed are their streaming pages and an unreliable source stating information about the person. Karnataka (talk) 16:54, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Unless the subject is a big star and only known in Ethiopia and we're all missing it because all the sourcing about him is in Amharic and other major Ethiopian languages, I can't find much of anything. When I find good hits, it's about Lady Gaga. I'm requesting here that people who can search for sources in Ethiopian languages to assist. Saucysalsa30 (talk) 21:26, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Add Didi Gaga is notable Ethiopian musician. Unfortunately, most of the sources related to him are written in Amharic language. Rather than hastily deleting, it would be better to focus on improving. For my part, I will try to improve the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ella Lachow (talk • contribs) 13:38, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment- Please list this on Ethiopia-related discussion. It has been listed in Bangladesh-related discussions but has no connection to Bangladesh.Vinegarymass911 (talk) 15:40, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ethiopia-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 22:35, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Headed toward delete so far, but giving more time to see if anything comes from non-English sources.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 19:29, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as no evidence of any notability, Fails SIGCOV & GNG. –Davey2010Talk 20:20, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Amharic language sources have not been forthcoming. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 21:19, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, the only references are music providers. FatalFit | ✉ | ✓  22:34, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I don't think it's worth waiting for Amharic sources. From what I can tell (though I could be wrong), many Ethiopian media sources have English editions with translations to Amharic and other regional languages, or vice-versa. If this musician is in any purely Amharic sources that have never been translated into English, that would mean that he has not broken into his country's mainstream (and reliable) media. Regardless, he seems to have no trouble uploading his own songs into all the usual self-promotional and streaming sites that do not operate in Amharic. And that is all he has so far. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 01:19, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per above.DarkHorseMayhem (talk) 14:44, 2 June 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 Chang Khlan. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:16, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Chang Khlan Road[edit]

Chang Khlan Road (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 found this page in the random article search, and it does not cite any sources at all. Iljhgtn (talk) 19:02, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Hi @Iljhgtn:, did you carry out a source search before nominating as suggested by WP:Before, most especially part D? Just because an article doesn't currently have references, doesn't make automatically make it a candidate for deletion. Meanderingbartender (talk) 19:17, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as can't seem to find any evidence of notability - Few results here[36] but nothing substantial, Fails SIGCOV & GNG. –Davey2010Talk 20:28, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
*Redirect per below. –Davey2010Talk 21:55, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as per Barnards.tar.gz and Paul below -certainly now makes more sense to merge than to delete. –Davey2010Talk 20:56, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Chiang Mai Night Bazaar Chang Khlan where it is mentioned, and which seems to have a better shot at notability. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 21:31, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Changed proposed redirection target following discussion further down. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 19:28, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per above. --Rschen7754 21:48, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect Agree with Barnards.tar.gz. There are a few sources that mention the road but only in the context of the market. Meanderingbartender (talk) 22:00, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (see below). Notability is based on the existence of suitable sources, not on the state of sourcing in an article. The road itself is notable for its history and ethnic communities, not just the night bazaar, and such aspects have been covered in-depth in plenty of Thai sources such as these web articles and research papers. [37][38][39] Cc: Davey2010, Barnards.tar.gz, Rschen7754 and Meanderingbartender. --Paul_012 (talk) 04:40, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • If [40] is an undergraduate thesis I don't think that is considered a reliable source. And what makes [41] a reliable source? --Rschen7754 04:49, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      • Fair enough. A better source, cited by that thesis, would be this 1977 UC Berkeley doctoral dissertation by Suthep Soonthornpasuch, which was republished in 2013 by Chiang Mai University as Islamic Identity in Chiang Mai City: A Historical and Structural Composition of Two Communities, ISBN 9789746727662. It doesn't seem to be available online anywhere, but the citations indicate that it contains in-depth coverage of the history of the Muslim community in Chang Khlan. As for the topchiangmai.com link, sorry, I should have been more careful and linked to the original source. The photos and text are from Chiang Mai University Library's Northern Thai Information Center website. Here's the write-up in English[42].
        There are further sources focusing on Chang Khlan's historic religious communities, especially Muslim, including the book Imagining Communities in Thailand[43], and Thai-language sources including this paper[44], this Thai PBS documentary[45], and magazine articles from the Community Organizations Development Institute[46], Halal Life Magazine (produced in partnership with the Institute of Asian Studies at Chulalongkorn University)[47], and the Thailand Creative & Design Center[48].
        Given that the bulk of available sources are mostly about the communities and neighbourhoods along the road, there's scope for renaming and rewriting the article (which is needed anyway) to focus more on those than just the physical road, but in any case the entities all form part of the same interrelated topic, which is notable. --Paul_012 (talk) 03:18, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
        • At the end of the day, we are WP:NOT a travel guide. The information from the above sources could be used in relevant community articles, but if we can't find anything about the actual road and it's not a state/provincial/national highway, then it's not notable. --Rschen7754 03:26, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
          • It's an urban street, so an article over it should in any case cover its neighbourhoods. This would reflect the sourcing, e.g. [3] and [7] above. But see below. --Paul_012 (talk) 04:51, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge/redirect to Chang Khlan. I just noticed that there's also already an article on the subdistrict/neighbourhood, inside which most of the road lies. As mentioned above, the road and its neighbourhoods, considered as a single unit, are notable, and the optimal course of action would be to cover them together in the Chang Khlan article. Do not redirect to Chiang Mai Night Bazaar. --Paul_012 (talk) 04:51, 19 June 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 Procedural close‎. WP:AFD should not be used for draft articles. Instead, use miscellany for deletion for speedy deletion. (non-admin closure) BangJan1999 19:12, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Glitch[edit]

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

most likely vandalism Notrealname1234 (talk) 17:51, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 23:41, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Aniyan Midhun[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Aniyan Midhun (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)

Claims to have won two non-notable professional competitions organized by unknown entities, which fails WP:SPORTSPERSON. Participation in Bigg Boss fails WP:1E.

Contrary to his claims, he has not "represented" India, as he is not an amateur player eligible to compete in IWUF-approved events. After appearing on Bigg Boss, netizens and regional media scrutinized his claim of winning the obscure South Asian Wushu Championship and World Pro Wushu Sanda Fight as a potential hoax. There is no coverage whatsoever, except for self-reported victories to select press and circular references. He misled the press, he was mistakenly portrayed as an amateur representing India at international events without fact-checking. His PR team swiftly created an article; the draft was approved the next day by a sock. Require WP:SALTing? Potential sockpuppetry can be expected here. The Doom Patrol (talk) 17:21, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Sports, Boxing, and Martial arts. The Doom Patrol (talk) 17:21, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete + Salt COI, refs are also probably paid promotion. Being on a reality show isnt enough for notability. Nswix (talk) 18:02, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: India and Kerala. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:04, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Delete If it's a hoax, delete and salt it. Prior vote was delete in 2017, all that's changed since then is appearing on a TV show, with little to no sourcing about it. Oaktree b (talk) 18:34, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Wikilife is too short for these promotional shenanigans. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 21:34, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and Salt There are no achievements that show he meets any SNG and the lack of quality independent sourcing for any claims is a red flag. This past January's Times of India article on his gold medal for Pro Wushu fighting is of dubious reliability. In it he says he wants to compete for India in wushu at the 2024 Paris Olympics, but that will be difficult since that event isn't, and never has been, scheduled for Paris. It will be in the 2026 Junior Olympics in Dakar, but that's irrelevant for this discussion. Appearing on a reality TV show doesn't grant WP notability. My salt vote is to prevent the continued recreation of this article by likely COI editors. Papaursa (talk) 23:53, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete + salt as per Papaursa. COI/Vanity page doesn't meet WP:SPORTSPERSON.Lethweimaster (talk) 11:27, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

16 June 2023 (UTC)

  • Delete and salt fails WP:SPORTSPERSON. Maliner (talk) 07:18, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete possible promotional article and fails SPORTSPERSON. I oppose salting at this time as it is not a persistently re-created article (last AFD was in 2017). Frank Anchor 18:01, 21 June 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. Despite a numeric majority, keep !votes fail to establish a case for the article meeting WP:NCORP, and are based on either anecdotal claims of importance, a misapplication of WP:USEBYOTHERS reasoning to suggest notability rather than reliability, or else rely on sources that, upon scrutiny, do not meet WP:ORGCRITE. Various comments on either side of the discussion attesting to its prominence in internet coverage suggest that the this may be a case of WP:TOOSOON, with a possibility that notability-establishing coverage will be written in the future if it continues to operate at its current level. Some side discussion in the AfD also suggested that its parent company, Nazara Technologies, may already be notable. If such an article is created, it would likely be appropriate and WP:DUE to include coverage of Sportskeeda there and turn this title into a redirect. signed, Rosguill talk 10:22, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sportskeeda[edit]

Sportskeeda (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
  • Fails GNG and NCORP as none of the sources meets the requirements of "subject needs to have significant coverage by independent, reliable sources where by the source talks about the the subject in depth and in length and not only passing mentioned.
1. livemint info from interview which makes the source not independent
2. exchange4media interview peice from the CEO of the company which makes the source unreliable.
3.gadgets360 - Just a sentence mentioned of the company.
4. the print - a press release article
5.timesofindia - advertising content of the company
6. the indus bussinessline - could not able to read the whole article, but the source covers only 5 areas - company, market, options, portfolio and economy and have member subscription - does not look reliable source to me.
Cassiopeia talk 00:49, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 03:36, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as per the nominator Cassiopeia and HighKing. Also, the IP: 27.4.76.33, IP: 180.151.104.66, and User:Ppcexpertise95(contribs)have made few or no other edits outside this topic. They voted to keep the article but failed to establish any notable significant coverages. So the article should be deleted because none of the references meet the criteria for establishing notability.Kashem overflow (talk) 07:04, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep renowned sports media.--Tommy Lee J. (talk) 22:48, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Since the next vote seems to leverage on my brief Keep "argument", I'll add that Sportskeeda has been cited by dozens of national and international newspapers and websites. For example, as put forward by @Lethweimaster above, it has been covered by Hindustan Times, LiveMint, The Economic Times and the Business Standard, the latter claiming it is the "largest Indian all-sports website". So it meets WP:GNG anyway. When I look for sports-related stuff online (and I'm not Indian nor living in India), especially in the Google news section, Sportskeeda often pops up, which I believe reflects its prominence among sports news websites. Tommy Lee J. (talk) 09:47, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, our guidelines require a lot more than being "cited" or "coverage", this isn't an exercise in volume. As per NCORP we require specific types of references - ones that provide in-depth "Independend Content" about the company as per SIRS/ORGIND/CORPDEPTH. Which references in particular do you believe meets the criteria? Please point to specific paragraphs in specific sources. HighKing++ 15:39, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Many keep arguments lack merit; how popular a website is is irrelevant to notability. It also is not renowned, it has long been considered an unreliable source by WP:PW/RS, but that is also irrelevant. Although some reliable sources have mentioned it in passing, I don't think we've achieved WP:SIGCOV. However, I think its parent company, Nazara Technologies, has a better chance at meeting notability guidelines, should someone want to create that article.LM2000 (talk) 03:32, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Y'know I never considered that idea. It might work. SWinxy (talk) 04:22, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The subject passes WP:GNG and WP:NCORP, the subject is covered organically by the Reliable news website. As i checked it was on the correct guidelines before but it was then edited by some users and made it. It acquired an American company which gave the subject a good coverage.--Monhiroe (talk) 08:35, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Need more discussion on the article in its current state having had some cleanup, ideally from established editors.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:21, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: References are almost purely non-independent. Lacks SIGCOV. UtherSRG (talk) 16:52, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I'm surprised to be coming down on the side of delete, as I've seen this website rank highly on many google searches in the past and assumed it must be significant. However, having examined the sources, I concur with HighKing's analysis. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 21:54, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep highly notable, highly trafficked site. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 02:44, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sportskeeda is important for the gaming community and is renowned in other aspects as well. Sportskeeda is ranked no 1 when it comes to information about Genshin Impact. Not only does their website receive millions of view for Genshin Impact content, their SEO enables them to be at the top of the list on google when you search up Genshin Impact team guides. 2603:8000:3040:B:817C:2D85:A60:8B8 (talk) 05:12, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I do not fully agree with HighKing's analysis, but deletion is still correct. The subject has a twofold nature: it does not have to pass strict criteria of WP:CORPDEPTH, since it is eligible for WP:NWEB as a website. If a website is a run by a company (very normal) and the company as a company doesn't pass the NCORP standard (very normal), it doesn't mean that we can't have an article about the website... and also talk about the business operations behind the website. As long as this can be understood to be an article about the website, and it can, NCORP can be entirely evaded as a redundant set of restrictions (relative to the baseline GNG). The question then is whether GNG or NWEB are met.
    GNG or NWEB are not met. The sources are mostly routine coverage, and the rest are not sufficiently in-depth and don't seem particularly independent either. Wikipedia articles should not exist only to describe the nature, appearance or services a website offers, but should also describe the site in an encyclopedic manner, offering detail on a website's achievements, impact or historical significance ... Looking at the current article and the available sources when determining if the article does, or if it could, describe the site in the aforementioned "encyclopedic manner"—it's apparent that it does not, and due to a lack of detailed information in the sources about the website's achievements, impact, or historical significance, it probably could not. When pondering WP:WEBCRIT, i.e. whether the content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself, it's important to remember that only the sources about the website as the website count, and one should see that most of the coverage is routine news about the company, and not about the "content itself"; coverage of the content itself is fairly shallow.—Alalch E. 12:15, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is a very big sports webpage. The article is crappy but that doesn't mean the subject is non-notable. Desertarun (talk) 15:01, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It would've mattered that Sportskeeda is a very big sports webpage if Wikipedia was an internet guide, but as things stands, Wikipedia is not an internet guide, so this fact does not matter. The only thing that matters is notability, not size or importance. Notability.—Alalch E. 16:32, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I wrote two short sentences. Read the second one again. Desertarun (talk) 17:21, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't need to, I read it just fine the first time.—Alalch E. 17:36, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'll help you pin this one down. What part of my words "The article is crappy but that doesn't mean the subject is non-notable" - doesn't refer to notability? Desertarun (talk) 20:21, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks but that doesn't help. You only asserted that the article is crappy, and that, broadly speaking, an article that is crappy may or may not be about a notable subject. You didn't say that this is a notable subject and why. (See red herring.)—Alalch E. 20:49, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry you can't understand. No doubt the closing admin will read your Delete vote as I did - an editor engaging in TLDR so they can try to understand policy. Desertarun (talk) 20:59, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not stopping you from making a substantive assertion that the subject is notable (as opposed to saying that the webpage is "very big", and calling the article crappy).—Alalch E. 21:06, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The article has 20 refs. How many more do you want? Another 20, 50 or 100? We're already way over GNG. Desertarun (talk) 21:11, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
WP:THREE.—Alalch E. 21:14, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's an essay. At the time this AFD started there were 8 refs, now there are 20. Desertarun (talk) 21:21, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I can live with two (multiple sources are generally expected). That is: two reliable sources independent of the subject that contain significant coverage (not just any sources).—Alalch E. 21:26, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Somebody has already put new SIGCOV sources into the article... Desertarun (talk) 21:37, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Somebody added a handful of new sources. For example this one (WP:ROUTINE) and this one (WP:WEBCRIT: trivial coverage, brief summary of the nature of the content). While I gather that you would say that these are an example of SIGCOV, they really are not. Can you help me identify another source among the newly added ones that is better than the ones I have just linked?—Alalch E. 22:01, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Delete I changed my mind. People who voted for deletion brought few good points.DarkHorseMayhem (talk) 18:50, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was draftify‎. JBW (talk) 16:21, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Stoic virtues[edit]

Stoic virtues (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)

Fork of Stoicism that was originally a huge Copyright Violation and is now an essay. Original author has reverted Draftify so here we are. Exemplo347 (talk) 15:16, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]


1. It was never a fork of stoicism. 2. It is not an essay but paraphrased parts of articles written by several PHD holders in philosophy, you are more then welcome to check the sources in the references tab. I and more people need to infact add direct citations for the articles from the sources given, but that takes time and you are welcome to help here. User:Exemplo347Aboutzero (talk) 15:28, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore, the User:Exemplo347 decision to contest this page for deletion is I believe done out of spite, which I believe is frowned upon on the wikipeida community. The reason I am saying this is because Exemplo contested this page for deletion only after I reverted his move of the page to draft. Why not open a discussion for deletion from the get-go, why did you he only do it after I reverted his (rather unjust) move to draft of the stoic virtues article? Aboutzero (talk) 15:52, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Stoicism#Ethics until the draft is more substantial - It's a notable topic in stoicism, and likely merits a whole article, much like Stoic logic. Perhaps Stoic ethics as a whole should be recreated first, though. - car chasm (talk) 16:02, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In under ten minutes I found six scholarly sources covering this topic and added them to the article. @Aboutzero: I'd recommend copying the article as you originally had it to your user space and expanding it by quite a bit, with inline citations attributing the claims you make to the sources you're consulting. The style here could use some work but nothing here seems particularly outlandish or wrong at a glance, it's just not written in an encyclopedic tone. You might want to use the WP:AFC process as well once you have a longer article. - car chasm (talk) 16:21, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much. I appreciate your help and I agree with your comment. As I am quite new to wikipedia I hope you don't mind me asking a quick questions:
- What do you mean by Redirect to Stoicism#Ethics and how would one go about doing it?
Thank you once again and I will proceed with your recommendation! Aboutzero (talk) 16:37, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Redirect#How_to_make_a_redirect should tell you everything you need to know about making one. Doing this will send anyone who clicks a link to "Stoic virtues" to the section on the Stoicism page for ethics. This is a way of preserving the links to the article and allowing them to function correctly when your article is actually published, rather than deleting the page and re-creating it. - car chasm (talk) 02:18, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'd support redirecting this and I'd withdraw this AfD. Can I first be reassured that redirecting won't just end with the author recreating the article over the redirect. Multiple editors have attempted to give the creator space to work on the article as a draft, resulting in the existence of the article and a draft article on the same subject. An Admin (maybe @Bearcat: who was dealing with this issue) will need to combine the edit histories of both. Exemplo347 (talk) 00:55, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You can always watchlist the page if you're worried that it will be un-redirected before it's actually written. - car chasm (talk) 02:12, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
[User:car chasm]] [User:Exemplo347]]
I have added the redirect.
The reason I was against this page getting turned into a draft is because I need more people to help me write it, if its a draft, no one sees it unless they are specifically looking for it. Or so I believe. Since so many people were unhappy with me paraphrasing information from extremely reputable sources such as stanford encyclopedia of philosophy and internet encyclopedia of philosophy, and those people decided to deem this page as "written like an opinion essay", I have decided to scratch it all and rewrite it again using direct citations. But I will need help on that probably, so that's why I would like other people to see this page. Right not I think this page does not warrant any tags or Afd. Aboutzero (talk) 20:02, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The editors (neither of whom were me, despite what you said earlier) who turned your article into a Draft were trying to give you time & space to work on the article before it gets published. The Articles for Creation process means that experienced authors look over a draft article and provide helpful input. By ignoring that, you've brought us here. If your article is turned back into a draft, you would get help from people experienced in writing Wikipedia articles and it would be a positive collaborative process. Exemplo347 (talk) 21:17, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Okay.
Is it still possible to proceed with that?
Aboutzero (talk) 13:18, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, we'll need to wait for an Administrator to do it because they will need to merge the edit history of the draft with the article you created. It'll probably take a few days so be patient. Exemplo347 (talk) 13:33, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Temperance, prudence, courage and justice... huh? Aren't these the same as the four Aristotelian virtues? jp×g 17:56, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I think you might be referring to the cardinal virtues which originate from Plato, but yeah, the stoics took these four basic concepts from Plato and adapted them to their own purposes, creating subdivisions of each of them and corresponding vices. A lot of our records of the Stoics' beliefs are from later Platonists like Plutarch who were criticizing them for it. This sourcebook has some further discussion of how they adapted them, probably helpful for writing the article as well. - car chasm (talk) 20:02, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I see. jp×g 08:17, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify or redirect for the time being, until it is possible for a better article to be written. It seems to me that the topic is notable and can be written about, but what we have is not really suitanle as a mainspace article. jp×g 08:17, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    If someone can convince the article creator to accept a Redirect or Draftify, I'd withdraw this nomination. It'll need an Administrator to carry out the Redirect or Draftify though, to merge the edit history with Draft:Stoic virtues. Exemplo347 (talk) 09:19, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Star Mississippi 18:59, 23 June 2023 (UTC) Note: extended-protected to prevent recreation. Can be salted in case of further spam; see talk page of closing admin. Actualcpscm (talk) 18:36, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Raimondo Inconis[edit]

Raimondo Inconis (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)

As was the case with the previous version of the article, the problem is that it imparts personal opinions and does not appropriately source any of its claims. Wikipedia is written from a neutral point of view, and all article content must be verifiable, which usually means attribution to reliable sources. The way the article currently exists plainly contradicts all these policies and guidelines. More strictly relevant to this AfD is notability. For a standalone article to exist, its subject must be notable, which means there must be significant coverage about it in multiple high-quality secondary sources. The article currently provides no sources that meet those requirements. See also WP:BIO for the notability guideline for biographies. At least one of the sources currently provided was made by the creator of the article for the express purpose of being used in a Wikipedia article, which completely undermines any reliability it might have had (see Talk:Raimondo_Inconis). Note that a (as far as I can remember) substantially identical version of the article was previously deleted under CSD G11. Actualcpscm (talk) 15:05, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Actualcpscm (talk) 15:05, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:48, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, Well when your sourcing is the orchestra, the VIAF and LOC (which are databases), you have an issue. For being the world famous person he is, there is zero coverage found, like anywhere, nothing in Jstor, Gscholar, Gnewspapers... The New York Times devotes a whole zero pages to him. Something is fishy. Puffy claims and lack of sourcing, it's a delete for me. Oaktree b (talk) 15:58, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I can’t find anything to support notability. In addition the article creator seems to have engaged in cross wiki spamming to promote this subject. Mccapra (talk) 17:04, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - At the talk page, the article's creator claims that he is trying spread knowledge of the contrabassoon. But since that instrument has been used in orchestras for centuries and already has its own very nice article here, it is far from unknown and does not need to be propped up with a shamelessly self-promotional article for one guy who plays it, no matter how virtuosic he may be. The self-promotional efforts here and elsewhere are pretty obvious, and perhaps are intended to drum up sales for his book: [49]. What matters here is significant coverage of his greatness by reliable music journalists and classical music experts, which has not happened. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:29, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete doesn't meet WP:Sigcov. Maliner (talk) 07:21, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 14:58, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This Is Not A Theatre Company[edit]

This Is Not A Theatre Company (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

There are no sources to demonstrate notability (many sources are primary, only non-primary sources only mention the company's works) Spinixster (chat!) 14:50, 16 June 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. By the eyes, it's a no consensus, but the keep votes are not based in policy and source analysis shows it lacking in depth. Star Mississippi 18:47, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bangladesh-China Renewable Energy Company (Pvt.) Limited[edit]

Bangladesh-China Renewable Energy Company (Pvt.) Limited (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NCORP. No indication of being notable. References are routine descriptions of company works. Fails WP:SIRS. scope_creepTalk 08:28, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:22, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep I think a state-owned joint venture building solar panels would be notable, especially for an encyclopedia. I have expanded the article with new sources. If this does not meet the notability threshold, I vote for Merge to the Power Division as I think it deserves mention in the parent article with a redirect as an alternate to deletion. P.S. I created this article.Vinegarymass911 (talk) 18:12, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment We will take a look at the references shortly. scope_creepTalk 19:56, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Seems like that's backwards. How can you know whether to vote keep or delete before you've looked at the sources? —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 20:30, 9 June 2023 (UTC) Comment modified after I replied. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 22:16, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Its been a long day. scope_creepTalk 21:50, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This page should not be deleted from Wikipedia as it is a notable joint venture contributing to renewable energy development, with significant projects and government ownership, making it worthy of inclusion in the encyclopedia.I recommend keeping it:M.parvage (talk) 12:17, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This editor has done 2 Afd's including this one. I doubt they have even read the WP:NCORP policy. scope_creepTalk 15:57, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, probably wrong on this, I see. scope_creepTalk 15:58, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Clearing your doubt that, this editor read the mentioned policy. But this editor is very confused about your determination regarding Press Release. M.parvage (talk) 14:29, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What press-release? scope_creepTalk 16:16, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Lets take a look at the references:
  • Ref 1 [52] "New company joins forces with China to produce 500 MW of renewable electricity" Press-release. Fails WP:SIRS
  • Ref 2 [53] Company site. Fails WP:SIRS
  • Ref 3 [54] Press-release. Not independent. Fails WP:SIRS
  • Ref 4 [55]] fails WP:ORGIND. Interviews. Not independent. Fails WP:SIRS.
  • Ref 5 [56] Talks about Belt and Road. No mention of the company specifically.
  • Ref 6 [57] No mention again as far as I can see.
  • Ref 7 [58] WP:PRIMARY. Fails WP:SIRS.
  • Ref 8 [59] Fails WP:SIRS. Not independent.
  • Ref 9 [60] Press-release. Fails WP:SIRS. It is not independent. It is the same press-release as ref 1.
  • Ref 10 [61] Company site. Not independent. Fails WP:SIRS.

I'm not going to do any more. This is a relatively new project and its reflected in the quality of the references. Ref 11 is a market analysis profile which is potentially decent, if it was allied with other WP:SECONDARY source that satisfy WP:SIRS and are not just company or a press-release. scope_creepTalk 15:54, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 14:23, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy keep‎. / IAR Potentially disruptive, but definitely invalid nomination. We're not spending seven days on this. Star Mississippi 15:32, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sargent (film)[edit]

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

Found no reliable sourcing to support the article. Twinkle1990 (talk) 13:28, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 13:51, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dara Coleman[edit]

Dara Coleman (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)

NN actor - fails WP:NENT. UtherSRG (talk) 13:09, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 13:51, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Classic Soul Ballads[edit]

Classic Soul Ballads (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)

NN compilation album. Fails WP:NALBUM. UtherSRG (talk) 13:08, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom: I found this writeup (which has no byline and looks very much like an advertisement rather than editorial) and nothing else. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 16:53, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete What kind of coverage do these releases get beyond their own infomercials? StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 21:33, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. ✗plicit 13:52, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Chaos Marauders[edit]

Chaos Marauders (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)

NN board game. Fails WP:GNG. UtherSRG (talk) 13:00, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 13:52, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Channel Nordica[edit]

Channel Nordica (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)

NN album - fails WP:NALBUM. UtherSRG (talk) 12:58, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom: Found no coverage. Neither band appears to be notable at a glance either so neither seems a favorable redirect target. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 16:56, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Only thing I could find is a short but extremely scathing review by the Finnish music magazine Soundi [65]. I'd also be happy with a redirect to Waltari as an alternative, even if that too ends up at AfD eventually. -Ljleppan (talk) 07:28, 17 June 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. Following the source assessment, the "keep" !votes flounder. ✗plicit 13:57, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Paolo Cecconi[edit]

Paolo Cecconi (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)

NN footballer, fails WP:NSPORTS UtherSRG (talk) 12:57, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Italy. UtherSRG (talk) 12:57, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:07, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. GiantSnowman 16:47, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - @GiantSnowman:, he made 193 appearances in Italian fully pro Serie C from 1970s to 1980s do deifnityl has offline sources. Clearly was significant figure in Italian lower league football. Also I found [66], [67], [68], [69], among more Italian sources. Article needs improvement, not deletion. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 15:53, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    1 and 2 are the same source, and all the sources are very brief routine death announcements. Playing in the Italian 3rd division is not a claim to fame now, let alone 40/50 years ago. GiantSnowman 17:11, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, passes GNG with references above.--Ortizesp (talk) 04:38, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - All of the available coverage are obituaries, with the Il Tirreno and Notizie Prato ones derived from an A.C. Prato press release making them questionably independent of the subject. The La Nazione obit is independent coverage, but similar to the Prato TV source it is extremely brief. Keeping in mind that this footballer played one season in Serie C1 (the third tier of Italian football) and nine seasons below that level, I don't see a justification for an IAR argument when SIGCOV isn't available (I'd prefer to see something covering him prior to his death). Jogurney (talk) 15:00, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per Jogurney. Derivatives of press releases are not independent, and significant coverage in general is totally lacking. JoelleJay (talk) 19:04, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. ✗plicit 13:58, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mel Rey Uy[edit]

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

Run of the WP:MILL and fails WP:GNG. Nagol0929 (talk) 12:54, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Although there appear to be some database entries referring to this individual, none of them meet the requirements of WP:GNG and WP:BIO, particularly with regards to significant coverage. The only reference currently provided in the article (aside from the in-text external link) is also not SIGCOV, as it by no means covers the individual in any depth. Actualcpscm (talk) 15:12, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:BISHOPS. Nominator makes no suggestion that a BEFORE has utterly failed to substantiate this, although I bet he was born in 1968, not 1868. A paucity of information is likely to represent systemic bias reflecting existing coverage disparities of Filipino topics and people in general, and not a good reason to delete this article when North American/European equivalents will have plenty of obvious, easy-to-find-on-the-Internet coverage. Jclemens (talk) 15:13, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:BISHOPS is an essay, not an accepted notability guideline or policy. I personally couldn't find any high quality sources on this individual, but if you do find any, please point us to them so we can evaluate the notability of this individual.
    Your claim that the lack of reliable sources is due to systemic biases of coverage may be true, but that's not really relevant. It is not our place to attempt to calculate the relative reporting biases of all reliable sources in the world, and this consideration is not a particularly good argument, because again, it's not part of how notability is evaluated on Wikipedia. We cannot and do not Keep articles based on the idea that they would meet notability criteria in some hypothetical scenario designed by individual editors. If there are no good sources on this individual (and none have been provided so far), then they are not considered notable and the article should be deleted. Any speculation on what equitable reporting practices might look like is, well, speculative and based on individual editor opinion instead of the relevant policies and guidelines. Actualcpscm (talk) 15:28, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Bishop notability is a longstanding precedent, if Wikipedia had them, even in other languages. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robert-Joseph Coffy for example. Jclemens (talk) 20:05, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Meets WP:GNG and WP:BISHOPS per Jclemens's argument. SBKSPP (talk) 05:43, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    How does this pass GNG? I could find no sigcov. Nagol0929 (talk) 13:44, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It was explained by Jclemens and Sojourner in the earth that it really meets GNG. So, I believe it meets GNG. You can never change my mind. SBKSPP (talk) 02:05, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep The only significant coverage I can find is in articles that simply regurgitate the contents of this Vatican announcement; but on the other hand, I tend to agree, per WP:BISHOPS, that Mel Rey Uy is very likely to be notable by virtue of his status, even if the sources that would demonstrate this are offline or non-English. Sojourner in the earth (talk) 09:32, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Notability requires at least some verifiable evidence per WP:NRV. If no such evidence can be provided beyond his occupation, I think it would be a stretch to call him notable. I'm aware of the issue of offline or non-English sources, but if there is nothing verifiable that establishes notability, that's a problem. Actualcpscm (talk) 20:26, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm honestly not sure what that part of the guideline means; what would constitute verifiable evidence that sources exist, other than the sources themselves? As far as online sources go, there is significant coverage in several articles such as [70], [71], [72], but since these are all functionally identical I only count them as one source for notability purposes; and then there are numerous passing mentions such as [73], [74], [75]. If we had little or no information on this person then I would argue for deletion; but since there's enough information available to write a decent-sized article, and since it's almost certain that there will have been plenty more written about him in local papers etc., I'm leaning keep. Note that the section you cited, WP:NRV, also says: If it is likely that significant coverage in independent sources can be found for a topic, deletion due to lack of notability is inappropriate. Sojourner in the earth (talk) 23:17, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. --- Tito Pao (talk) 05:14, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There is clear consensus to keep diocesan bishops of major denominations. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:26, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - the point of guidelines like WP:BISHOPS is that we can presume there are sources off-line and/or in other languages that would enable a WP:GNG pass. StAnselm (talk) 21:26, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - these essays are non-binding but strongly indicate we should keep this article:
There are sufficient reliable sources to make a reliable article. Some examples: [76][77][78][79]
--A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 02:39, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 13:52, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Geadly Salome[edit]

Geadly Salome (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)

Made 26 appearances in the Eerste Divisie across four seasons. A web search finds articles about BV Veendam mentioning him but no WP:SIGCOV. The article fails WP:GNG. Robby.is.on (talk) 12:08, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 13:53, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bryon Kiefer[edit]

Bryon Kiefer (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)

Made 22 appearances in the Eerste Divisie across three seasons. A web search throws up two short articles ([80], [81]) but no WP:SIGCOV. The article fails WP:GNG. Robby.is.on (talk) 12:03, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 13:53, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Edwin Soenarto[edit]

Edwin Soenarto (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)

Made one appearance in the Eerste Divisie. A web search finds no WP:SIGCOV. The article fails WP:GNG. Robby.is.on (talk) 12:00, 16 June 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 Butler dynasty. ✗plicit 13:59, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Butler of Cahir[edit]

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

Being listed in a genealogy doesn't confer notability. UtherSRG (talk) 11:47, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 13:53, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sandip Kumar Mukhopadhyay[edit]

Sandip Kumar Mukhopadhyay (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:NPROF, WP:NACADEMIC, WP:BIO, WP:SIGCOV. Early stage career physician. No indication of being notable. scope_creepTalk 11:37, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete zero coverage for this individual, appears to be working for the government. Likely PROMO. Oaktree b (talk) 13:57, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Google search didn't pull up anything when I tried to search before BLPPRODding it. Since then, all references added have been primary. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 19:59, 16 June 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. Obituaries written by independent RS are perfectly valid sources. signed, Rosguill talk 10:12, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bilqees Khanum[edit]

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

All references are about the article person's death only. WP:NOTMEMORIAL clearly says " Subjects of encyclopedia articles must satisfy Wikipedia's notability requirements." Twinkle1990 (talk) 10:41, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • I don't the issue is a lack of notability, but the article should be speedy deleted as a copyright violation, with very close paraphrasing from here, e.g.
  • Article:"However, she continued to perform at private concerts as she begin to support her family financially and funding the education of her younger sisters and brothers. According to Bilqees that she was deprived of education due to her family's financial situation so she wanted her younger siblings to achieved higher education. When television started in Lahore at that time Bilqees was already an established radio singer and didn't have to audition to get an opportunity on television. She started her singing career on Pakistan Television with a Punjabi song, and then went on to sing many national songs during the 1965 war."
  • Source:"However, she continued to perform at private concerts as she was supporting her family financially and funding the education of her brothers. She had been deprived of education because of her family’s financial hardship. By the time television started in Lahore, Bilqees, was an established radio singer and didn’t have to audition to get an opportunity on television. She started her singing career on Pakistan Television with a Punjabi song, and then went on to sing many national songs during the 1965 war."

I've tagged the article for speedy deletion as a copyvio. Fram (talk) 10:50, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Sure, why not? Either it gets speedy deleted, and the AfD closed as no longer applicable: or the speedy gets rejected, and the AfD can continue. The arguments for both are different, the AfD can't overrule the speedy, but a declined speedy wouldn't make the AfD invalid or useless. Fram (talk) 11:14, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fine then. After all found a spam here. I am surprised that the article was patrolled by a NPP. How that NPP can be so irresponsible in patrolling the page. Twinkle1990 (talk) 11:27, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The copyvio has been removed from the article, leaving a much shorter but copyvio-free stub. I have struck my speedy delete recommendation accordingly, and the AfD can now continue on the WP:N merits of the subject. Fram (talk) 12:17, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]


  • Note: (edit conflict) Fram is right about the copyright infringement, but that infringement does not go right back to the earliest versions of the article, and the speedy deletion policy requires that in this situation "earlier versions without infringement should be retained". I have therefore reverted to the last version before an editor started the process of editing the copyright-infringing material into the article. That leaves the article as little more than a stub, with three references two of which are, as Twinkle1990 says, announcements of her death, and the other is a 3-sentence expression of a point of view, and certainly not substantial coverage of her. I have not checked for other coverage of her, so I have no idea whether she satisfies the notability guidelines. JBW (talk) 12:22, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Even so, considering recent changes in the article this doesn't confer to notability. That reference just passing mention only. Twinkle1990 (talk) 12:30, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Am I personally responsible for the copyright infringement mentioned in the notice on my talk if I had no involvement or knowledge of the copyrighted content that was added? Ainty Painty (talk) 12:45, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Ainty Painty: No, the copyright infringement was nothing to do with you, and you have no responsibility for that. You were informed of the deletion discussion because you created the article, so that you can take part in this discussion if you wish to, but that doesn't mean that every issue anyone may raise here is necessarily anything to do with you. JBW (talk) 12:51, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Insight 3 all your links given are just memorial only. And Wikipeidia is WP:NOTMEMORIAL. Twinkle1990 (talk) 13:18, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    "... Wikipedia is not the place to memorialize deceased friends, relatives, acquaintances, or others who do not meet such requirements and you seriously think bio of this singer falls into it? The articles mentioned above have not been written by her friends or relatives, but by independent persons. You are just overlooking the facts about her notability. Insight 3 (talk) 13:32, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at this AfD, the comments about the readded source and so on, and the rejection of Draft:Wojciech Sumliński and Draft:Gharib (film) today, I think what needs to happen is not the deletion of this article here, but a good look at Twinkle1990s rights. Other recent draft rejections seem very strict as well (e.g. Draft:Giovanni and the Hired Guns, Draft:Sheila Hill (writer)). They have today requested Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/New page reviewer, I hope it gets rejected as way premature. Fram (talk) 13:39, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Reply - Fram I have AfDed the article, you went ahead for CSD(failed CSD) and now you are brining offtopic discussion. Strange. Twinkle1990 (talk) 13:54, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I have figured a notablity issue per the table bellow
Source assessment table:
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
Dawn ~ Mention only Yes Reliable No Passing mention only ✘ No
Youlin Magazine ? Unknown No Unknown ~ Death new coverage ✘ No
The News International Yes Yes Yes Yes ~ Death new coverage ~ Partial
The Express Tribune Yes Yes Yes Yes No Death new coverage ✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

Twinkle1990 (talk) 13:48, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong keep, easily passes our notability guidelines, very good sources available. Nom doesn't seem to understand NOTMEMORIAL and the difference between family-submitted obituaries (or obits about non-notable victims of notable events), and journalistic obituaries showing exactly the notability of the subject. Fram (talk) 14:06, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • The IP is not me, but someone else. Fram (talk) 14:41, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You didn't include the sources I mentioned above and which you dismissed as "memorial only". Also take a look at WP:PKRS to improve your knowledge about Pakistani sources. Insight 3 (talk) 15:44, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I do not speak or read Urdu and know that sourcing might not be online for a 1968 song, but if her death was covered it stands to reason she was a notable musician and sourcing exists. Star Mississippi 16:41, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong KEEP After looking at all the news coverage and obituaries of this Pakistani classical music singer, I am convinced she was a notable person, especially when the news coverage is by 3 different independent newspapers and a magazine. Ngrewal1 (talk) 01:07, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. She had a nice voice...and all the above. Desertarun (talk) 15:16, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep notable musician. Bruxton (talk) 23:58, 24 June 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. Like the two previous AFDs, I see a consensus here to delete this article. Liz Read! Talk! 06:18, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

American Party of Labor[edit]

AfDs for this article:
American Party of Labor (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. Every single citation does not qualify for notability purposes.

1: EMEP is affiliated with the ICMLPO, meaning it is not "independent" for notability

2: Its a single paragraph and a quote from the APL's newspaper in a 437 page book. Not significant coverage.

3: This book contains a note, in which the APL is mentioned in passing. Not significant coverage.

4: The APL is a member of the ICMLPO. Not only that, its actually involved in the declaration. Not independant

5: Its about their flag, not significant

6: From the APL itself

7: From the APL itself

8: Interview with their party head. Considered primary [1] by wikipedia's policy

9: Arbeit Zukunft is a member of the ICMLPO, and is not independent as a result

10: A Verdade is the newspaper of the Brazilian ICMLPO party, and is not independent

11: From the APL itself

12:From the APL itself

13: Not only from the APL, but from twitter too

14: Same as 10

15: Not significant, the APL is one of dozens if not hundreds of member orgs mentioned

16: Same as the above, the APL is just mentioned as a signer, alongside their national head as an individual signer

17: Just mentioned as an 'endorsing organisation', one of many

18: Its just a source dump that quotes articles, including the APLs. Twice. In 184 pages.

19: The URL is [2]. You can see its just a reprint of an article by the APL, by a source that is not reliable at that.

20: https://huskiecommons.lib.niu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1800&context=allfaculty-peerpub P15. Just a passing mention of the APL using a cartoon.

21: https://www.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:1564497/FULLTEXT01.pdf The APL is being cited a few times. Not significant coverage [or coverage at all, they aren't mentioned besides being cited]

22: Published by the APL

23: Published by the APL

24: From the APL itself Oxlong (talk) 18:06, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retain. The source assessment above is flawed. The charge that sources from ICMLPO parties are "not idependent" is a stretch. They are friendly sources that share a political orientation with APL, to be sure. But, these are independent publications from independent, individual organizations. Otherwise, it would seem that the only acceptable sources would be "neutral" or hostile ones. Visigoth500 (talk) 02:02, 9 June 2023 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Visigoth500 (talk • contribs) 01:57, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    According to policy, even an article by their competitor isn't proof for notability. Independent means third-party, meaning it has "no vested interest" in the topic (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Independent_sources)
    Because these organizations not only share a political orientation like you state, but also coordinate activities through a joint international body, they have a vested interest in the success of the APL, and thus cannot be regarded as fulfilling this criteria. To sum up, the required sources should be neutral. Oxlong (talk) 10:04, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    APL is not a full member of ICMLPO, merely an observer. You are making an unproven assumption that ICMLPO controls its observer parties and that there is no distinction between the two. The policy guideline on independent sources that you cite does not prove your assertion. Visigoth500 (talk) 13:53, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Could you please provide proof as to how specific sources do not meet these criteria:
    "* Reliable: A third-party source is reliable if it has standards of peer review and fact-checking. In general, the more people engaged in checking facts, the more reliable the publication.
    • Third-party: A third-party source is independent and unaffiliated with the subject, thus excluding first-party sources such as self-published material by the subject, autobiographies, and promotional materials.
    • Sources: At least two third-party sources should cover the subject, to avoid idiosyncratic articles based upon a single perspective.
    • Based upon: These reliable third-party sources should verify enough facts to write a non-stub article about the subject, including a statement explaining its significance."
    Visigoth500 (talk) 13:57, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I know that it is not a full member, it states as such on their Wikipedia page (and I went through its sources, so obviously I read it in full). My point would stand even if they would have made no declarations of any kind together. But when, by your own admission, they are "friendly sources" and "share a political orientation", they are definitely not unaffiliated, hence cannot be third-party.
    Being in the same international organization, making political statements together, and having a shared direction politically is by itself irrefutable evidence of not being truly independent of each other. Furthermore, these parties share the journal Unity & Struggle together, which they publish jointly through the ICMLPO. They each send articles to it to be published.
    Hence, not only are they connected internationally in the aforementioned ways, they even directly collaborate on projects.
    Even if my friend is a scholar, his article would not be 'notable' in regards to me, because professional or not, he is my friend. In other words, affiliated with me, and not neutral.
    From the same URL, we have:
    "A third-party source is one that is entirely independent of the subject being covered, e.g., a newspaper reporter covering a story that they are not involved in except in their capacity as a reporter."
    Meaning that its comparable to a group of five scholars, who are all close friends, reporting on each other. Oxlong (talk) 15:40, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    No, that is not "irrefutable evidence of not being truly independent of each other." "Furthermore, these parties share the journal Unity & Struggle together, which they publish jointly through the ICMLPO. They each send articles to it to be published." That point is irrelevant. By that logic, academic departments who are members of the same professional association and submit scholarly articles to its journal are not "independent" and should be rejected. You are making overarching generalizations based on unproven and highly speculative assumptions. Visigoth500 (talk) 17:13, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    This is a false equivalence. If a university department would have written about the university itself, or another department within the very same university, it would indeed not be independent and should not be used as a source on Wikipedia for notability purposes.
    Likewise, you claim I am making "overarching generalizations based on unproved and highly speculative assumptions", yet I provided conclusive evidence for all the points of contention I raised. However, you provided no evidence in your comments, and yet behaved in an unprofessional and rude manner, alleging I have acted in exactly such a fashion.
    Even if we were to apply your example of university departments endorsing and writing on each other in exactly the same manner these political parties do, it would fail notability guidelines and therefore would not fulfil the burden of proof regarding the right of this topic to be included on Wikipedia.
    Furthermore, you have neglected to answer the argument I raised on the matter. How does the present situation differ in any regard from 5 scholars, all of whom are members of a group of colleagues and friends endorsing each other to warrant Wikipedia articles for themselves? I ask that you adress these points, but this time, please refrain from the usage of non-productive language. Oxlong (talk) 19:15, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I have provided no evidence, nor is there any need to respond to your challenges, because I am not defending a position or asserting an affirmative. I am questioning your evidence and your rationale, as is my right. Neither have I behaved in an "unprofessional and rude manner," unless you consider simple disagreement with you and pointing out what I believe are the fallacies in your argument as evidence of "unprofessionalism" and "rudeness." Indeed, you oddly assert that I accuse you of behaving in an "unprofessional and rude manner," when I have said nothing to that effect. My "crime" consists in merely disagreeing with you. You claim that you have provided "conclusive evidence," I disagree for the reasons stated above, that is all. Visigoth500 (talk) 23:43, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    You proved my point. You claimed to question "my evidence and rationale", but this entire comment does nothing of the sort. Instead, you give primacy to attacks against my *character*. By alleging, instead, that my only reason for bringing your choice of language to your attention, is due to disagreeing with you. You violated the behavioral guideline of "assuming good faith", and accused me of acting in bad faith.
    In order to facilitate more productive discussion later on from your end, I empathically recommend you read this article and apply its conclusions to your future conduct. [82]
    More importantly, however, your comment contains no mention, let alone rebuttal, of the counter-arguments I raised. I took special care to accommodate every one of your concerns, while you did not respond to my criticisms.
    Neither the university example, nor the scholars example, received any attention in your latest response. The only point of contention that has received any attention from you was the character of your fellow editor. Oxlong (talk) 14:20, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm sorry, Sir. My comments were NOT about your "character," but about your method and reasoning. I am not here to debate you, answer your questions, or "rebut" you. I question your methodology, that is all. But, if you insist on making this personal, I have to ask why is it that you create a Wikipedia account on June 8th, make a user page using an AI chatbot, then immediately proceed to call for the deletion of this page? This page seems to be your only Wikipedia activity. Indeed, it appears to be the reason why you created your Wikipedia account in the first place. Could it be that you have an agenda/vendetta against this organization? Could it be that you created this page yourself, have had a falling out with this organization, and wish to enact a personal revenge be having the page you created deleted? Just asking. I shan't communicate with you any further. Let things fall where they may. You have a nice day. Visigoth500 (talk) 16:41, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    You are accusing me of having "ulterior motives", but the way you handled this situation tells me you have emotional investment in keeping this article up, although it goes against Wikipedia's guidelines and makes the platform less informative overall, due to the inclusion of an article regarding a minor and unnotable party.
    Accusing me on personal grounds does not qualify as 'questioning my methodology'. I requested a plethora of times to keep discussion civil and academic, but you insisted on keeping it grounded in emotion rather than reason.
    As a result, I understand you are not able to provide a reasonable argument against my criticisms. Oxlong (talk) 20:23, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Perhaps if you had not adopted an obscene, vulgar, and misogynistic joke name as your moniker ("Mike Oxlong" -- My c*ck's long) you would be taken more seriously. Visigoth500 (talk) 17:30, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I do not need to apologize for not writing my real, full name on the internet for the simple reason I do not wish to be doxxed. However, you may be surprised to know "Oxlong" is my real surname, and "Mike" is how people nickname me in my day-to-day life for over 14 years. Yes, I have been the butt of many jokes because of it. But the fact that you reopened your account after stating "I shan't communicate with you any further", and attempted to label this name as "mysogynistic", somehow, shows you lack any argument regarding the topic itself, and proves my argument, that you try to derail the discussion towards personal attacks. Oxlong (talk) 13:11, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    OK. Visigoth500 (talk) 17:15, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, if the party is covered by press outlets (regardless of their political colour) it can be used to affirm notability. --Soman (talk) 12:18, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    You are right, but neither I, Oaktree, and (presumably) Visigoth could find any mentions which pass GNG. The absence of such sources affirms the proposition that they lack notability. Oxlong (talk) 14:28, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
https://dailytargum.com/article/2016/11/union-protests-standing-rock-with-brower-rally
This is an attempt of deleting a page because of its political affiliation.
Here is an example for coverage that satisfies the notability guidelines in full. The article has directly spoken about the APL and their student wing, and the source itself is more then sufficient. Its obviously sufficient to keep the article as it is, and decisive proof we neednt remove it. The head of their New Jersey Division was even mentioned by name. I am certain Oxlong could not but notice this article in their "investigation". Andrei Zhdanov (talk) 15:50, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Regrettably, it already came up in the previous nomination [83], and the sizeable groups of participants there arrived to the consensus that it does not qualify as notable. The reference to the APL in the article amounts to a mere mention of it's participation in a demonstration and a short Quote of a member.
The standing consensus also determines that, due to the lack of proof regarding the "All Marxist-Leninist Union" truly being their student wing, as opposed to an unaffiliated friendly organization, due to not warranting an article by itself, and due to no inherited notability, this article cannot qualify as a defence for the existence of this page.
Furthermore, the article has long standing issues since its inception (as you can see on the page itself, below the deletion template). Owing to the inadequate levels of attention the organization has received, it is impossible to fix them. A deletion is the only professional course.
You should refrain from baseless accusations, such as my motivation allegedly being grounded in politics. It is a violation of Assume Good Faith[84] My motivation is found within my arguments, and not a single one of them has been refuted yet. Oxlong (talk) 16:54, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Right. You join Wikipedia, immediately create a chatbot generated 'user page,' and the very first, one and only thing, you do is go try and delete this article. Your "good faith" is apparent. Visigoth500 (talk) 17:17, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It seems unfit for a Wikipedian to prolong an argument on the basis of assumptions about the character of a fellow Wikipedian and the circumstances of his contributions to the encyclopedia.
I therefore scrolled through Wikipedia's policies and behavioral guidelines, among others, I came across two guidelines called "No personal attacks" and "Please do not bite the newcomers".
"No personal attacks" [85]
Your recent comments have been exclusively related to my character and alleged motives, and not my editorial contributions, which is in violation of the specificities ("Using someone's affiliations as an ad hominem means of dismissing or discrediting their views") as well as the conclusion of the guideline ("Insulting or disparaging an editor is a personal attack regardless of the manner in which it is done. When in doubt, comment on the article's content without referring to its contributor at all.")
"Please do not bite the newcomers"[86]
Seeing as you understand that I am a newcomer to this platform, your actions are in strict violation of at least following guidelines: 5. You repeatedly used sarcasm (e.g. "Your good faith is apparent") 6. You called my response to your argument a criminal accusation ("My "crime" consists in merely disagreeing with you").
I highly suggest that you make room in your schedule to read these articles, so that our ongoing cooperation will become more fruitful and bilaterally pleasant. Oxlong (talk) 21:25, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have no idea what this debate is meant to be about. Although I do have some doubts about the motive of this AfD, my view is to delete the rational for deletion seems to be alright, noting how this page has been deleted two times previously through AfD, and I agree with the source analysis written by nom. Karnataka (talk) 21:00, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: It would be good to get views from other users (in preference to further lengthy additions from those who have already contributed).
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Stifle (talk) 10:26, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Extensive search reveals a minor organisation, the notability of which is difficult to prove. Agree with nominator and open kudoz to Oxlong for handling the discussion in a cool-headed and civil manner. --Ouro (blah blah) 12:33, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Oxlong has more than adequately demonstrated the lack of appropriate sources. - UtherSRG (talk) 16:48, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The ICMLPO and its members are distinct organisations from the APL. Its unfair to ignore their coverage of the subject for notability purposes. Also, just being relevant enough to become a part of this international organisation implies relevance. Andrei Zhdanov (talk) 20:53, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

These sources cannot assert notability precisely because the APL are associates of the ICMLPO and coordinate activities and statements with it. According to the guidelines, even their competitors cannot be used to establish notability[87]. The source must be completely unaffiliated and neutral.
Furthermore, your latter argument conflicts with "No Inherited Notability"[88], according to which any such association does not assert notability. It must be proven that the subject merits inclusion as its stands. Oxlong (talk) 18:31, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This group is so obscure that a writer in very progressive American publication, The Nation, wrote an article in 2020 titled "Should the Left Launch an American Labor Party?", not knowing a tiny party with this name already existed. [89]
I've looked including using the The Wikipedia Library but come up empty.
This is the organization's 3rd AfD.
--A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 02:57, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 13:55, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bob Long Intimidator[edit]

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

Notability not established for this particular piece of sporting/gaming technology ... sources provided aren't sufficient enough. The company or person who it is named after are not notable either. Ajf773 (talk) 10:09, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bob Long has been one of the most influential people and manufacturers in paintball. The Intimidator set the bar for stacked tube markers like the Planet Eclipse Ego. 24.217.169.5 (talk) 12:24, 19 June 2023 (UTC)— 24.217.169.5 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. — Note: An editor has expressed a concern that 24.217.169.5 (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. [reply]
It's extremely odd to me that @Ajf773 seems to think that a milestone in the development of our sport is somehow not notable. I suppose the problem with a user-moderated service like Wikipedia is that they don't have to know what they're talking about to pass judgement. 74.51.213.7 (talk) 13:08, 19 June 2023 (UTC)— 74.51.213.7 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Bob Long has been one of the biggest name in tournament paintball since it’s inception. He played for the Ironmen in the woodsball days of tournament paintball, modifying and shooting Autocockers at the time. He can be credited for giving the most successful tournament paintball franchise of all time, San Diego Dynasty, their professional start by forming the Iron Kids tournament team. The Gen 1 Intimidator changed the game by shooting 14+bps in a time when mechanical automags and autocockers still ruled the game. Gen 2/3 Intimidators are some of the most populat and collectable markers from the golden age of paintball, 2002-2008. Those particular markers had some of the most beautiful and detailed millings seen in paintball and even attracted Jim Eaton of Eaton Superchargers to create his own “Ripper” Intimidators(1, 2, 2.5 and 3). The Intimidator production spanned 6 generations over roughly 20 years and is widely accepted as one of the best shooting stacked tube poppet markers ever made. People still beg Field One(Dynasty bought out Bob Long) to create a seventh generation Intimidator. 2600:1003:B11A:22C5:A4D5:E7BF:C41:C6C (talk) 20:09, 19 June 2023 (UTC) — 2600:1003:B11A:22C5:A4D5:E7BF:C41:C6C (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. — Note: An editor has expressed a concern that 2600:1003:B11A:22C5:A4D5:E7BF:C41:C6C (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. [reply]
  • In response to the three IP comments above, Bob Long (disambiguation) suggests both the manufacturer and his company also do not pass WP:GNG. Even if they were, notability is also WP:NOTINHERITED. Ajf773 (talk) 20:27, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Could you please give us an example of how we could establish notability for the Bob Long Intimidator?
    Much of paintball's history is preserved only through oral record, out-of-print magazines, forum posts, and within the last 10 years, closed-group Facebook posts, but I insist that there is wide acceptance within the paintball community about the significance of this marker.
    The Bob Long brand, which became significant in part because of the success of the Intimidator, was still valuable enough in 2020 that the IP was acquired by professional paintball players and used to found a new company, Field One. For reference, these are 3 of the 4 most famous paintball players, of which Ryan Greenspan is notable enough to be linked in the Paintball template footer on every single paintball-series page on Wikipedia.
    If we fail to agree that this article is notable under the general notability guidelines, I propose two alternatives:
    GameGod (talk) 22:05, 19 June 2023 (UTC) — GameGod (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. — Note: An editor has expressed a concern that GameGod (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. [reply]
    Replying to my own reply here - To give some concrete quantified data about the long-term historical significant of the Intimidator, the Intimidator subforum on pbnation.com currently has 64,987 threads with 746,267 posts in it. That's just for the Intimidator. For comparison, the Tippmann subforum, who are like the Adidas of paintball brands and have created many popular markers over the last 30 years, have only 252,427 posts. GameGod (talk) 22:11, 19 June 2023 (UTC) — GameGod (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. — Note: An editor has expressed a concern that GameGod (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. [reply]
    Number of users on a paintball forum does not make something notable in the Wikipedia clearly-defined sense. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:36, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, it's circular reasoning to use the lack of a Bob Long article on Wikipedia as evidence that it's not notable. Paintball on Wikipedia clearly needs a lot of work, and you can't say that something isn't notable because it doesn't exist on Wikipedia, in the context of deletion. You're using Wikipedia as a primary source to support your own argument, which is primary founded in a lack of good references, which makes your entire nomination seem like it's in bad faith. GameGod (talk) 00:29, 20 June 2023 (UTC)— GameGod (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
    Topics needs to be notable. A couple of references to paintball fansites doesn't give me confidence that this one is. Ajf773 (talk) 10:14, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    You've just repeated the same thing over again which is not advancing the discussion and you have also misunderstood my data. I didn't talk about "users", I talked about "posts". If you're intentionally misunderstanding this, then it leads me to believe you're not engaging in good faith here, but if it was not intentional, then it doesn't lead me to think you understand what we're talking about. GameGod (talk) 13:29, 20 June 2023 (UTC) — GameGod (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. — Note: An editor has expressed a concern that GameGod (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. [reply]
  • Comment looks like there's been some WP:CANVASSING on Reddit: [90]. Probably explains why we have so many new accounts/IP editors with no other edits on Wikipedia except on this and the other article mentioned on that thread. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:16, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete just because it might be a reasonable sized paintball manufacturer, that doesn't mean that it necessarily passes Wikipedia's notability guidelines. None of the editors on this AFD had provided any reliable sources to significant coverage, which is what Wikipedia requires. Internet subforums aren't reliable sources for this. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:36, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Although a reasonably sized paintball manufacturer, it doesn't pass WP:GNG. Fansites and social media does not count to notability. The canvassing over at Reddit is sad to say the least. JML1148 (talk | contribs) 07:04, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I see no evidence this passes WP:NPRODUCT or WP:GNG. No evidence the company as a whole passes WP:NCORP. I understand the frustration but Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate repository for every piece of information known about a sport. IceBergYYC (talk) 08:52, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Honestly, I don't give a shit about those Reddit canvassers, they'll just get labelled as such and blocked immediately. Besides, this isn't notable either. 🌶️Jalapeño🌶️ Don't click this link! 07:57, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. I see a consensus here to Keep this article as no one has supported the deletion nomination. Liz Read! Talk! 06:46, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Open-source firmware[edit]

Open-source firmware (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 thought about trying to improve/expand it, and did try a little bit, but there don't seem to be sources available to justify having the article. WP:GNG fail. -- Yae4 (talk) 08:43, 16 June 2023 (UTC) Article Sources: Only one of the four current cites looks remotely reliable (and I have not verified that one). Hackaday sources: PhotographyEdits thanked me for removing them from another article: "Thanks for fixing the Hackaday issue!" In context, fixing == deleting the cites. PC Gamer looks questionable, and the cited article is brief, not significant coverage. -- Yae4 (talk) 20:34, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody has mentioned Libreboot here, so I am not sure what you're referring to. jp×g 18:06, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: if an entire technical book has been written on the topic, it seems pretty obviously notable. Moreover, the fact that we've got articles on individual pieces of open-source firmware would seem to logically imply that the concept itself was notable. Finally, the nominator has not commented on the four sources that currently exist on the article -- are those no good? jp×g 18:06, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, I did comment on them, immediately above, but I'll make it more obvious, in the nomination. -- Yae4 (talk) 20:31, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, but are they good? You say that they "don't do it", but I don't know what this means. Previous WP:RSN discussions about PC Gamer mention that it is "as reliable as anything can be in that space. I'd have no issues with using them for references." and one of "multiple sources we consider reliable", and consensus about Hackaday there is unclear but it definitely is not on the shitlist. If there is an actual, concrete issue with these sources, then I would be interested in hearing it, since they are used as references in a good number of articles. jp×g 05:15, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@JPxG: See WP:WHATABOUT or similar. Anyway, you already weighed in at AfD for Libreboot. Please use your preferred word search method at Talk:Libreboot for "hackaday". There you will find multiple editors saying it is not a good source, and find PhotographyEdits thanking me for removing them from that article. And see the Diff added to Article sources in the nomination. -- Yae4 (talk) 10:53, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure what you are talking about. Is your interpretation of WP:WHATABOUT that it is forbidden to cite any consensus anywhere for a decision on anything? jp×g 00:47, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Sources exist to meet WP:GNG -- StarryNightSky11 ☎ 21:54, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep likely with the sources that existed in the article and searching Open Library finds a significant coverage of various open-source firmwares, many of them which a brief description of what that means ([91], [92], [93], [94], [95], [96], [97]). I also added a link and source to Rockbox since it seems to meet the requirements. I haven't looked elsewhere for sources at this time. Skynxnex (talk) 14:32, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. As pointed out the topic is notable. In the case of technology lists, we also face the question, "but should we have it?" (in other words, what about WP:NOT?) The fact is, this is also a useful, focused list and it meets WP:NLIST.
--A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 03:05, 23 June 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 Authors Guild, Inc. v. Google, Inc.#Google Book Search Settlement Agreement. Liz Read! Talk! 06:43, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Book Rights Registry[edit]

Book Rights Registry (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)

Well-sourced article; however this never came to pass. Doesn't feel appropriate to have an article about something that doesn't exist, even if the text were to be updated. Perhaps best replaced with a redirect to an existing article covering Google's history, to where a condensed version of the article facts could be relocated? CapnZapp (talk) 08:23, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

--A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 03:13, 23 June 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 Nintendo Switch. Liz Read! Talk! 06:41, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nintendo Switch OLED Model[edit]

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

Fails WP:PRODUCT and we should not be creating articles for every model of something especially when there’s already precedent with the lite model being merged. Also there is a section already dedicated to the OLED model. I would avoid a merge due to there being no new information, Nagol0929 (talk) 07:15, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games and Technology. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:08, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect - to Nintendo Switch. It's just a minor variant of that. (Bigger screen, better battery). Nothing that needs its own article split off. Sergecross73 msg me 12:41, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Nintendo Switch. It is simply an alternate version of an existing console with the same functionality and a different screen. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 12:52, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Nintendo Switch: I don't believe this has enough notability to have its own article. Nobody (talk) 13:06, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per all. This can be summarized with a few sentences there, at most. Shooterwalker (talk) 20:39, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. There is already a redirect from Nintendo Switch (OLED model), this article is literally a copy and paste from the main Switch article, and it adds absolutely no value. I may have been fine with it existing if it was a quality article, but it really has no reason to exist as is. Darkage7[Talk] 00:03, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect, inadequately distinct, can be easily covered in the parent article. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 17:04, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge or Redirect to Nintendo Switch. It's unambiguously notable, but I'm not sure if there's enough content of it out there to warrant a standalone article. No harm in merging/redirecting. Merko (talk) 21:30, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There's nothing to merge, as the entire article is literally copied directly from the OLED section of Nintendo Switch. Darkage7[Talk] 22:12, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Fair. Merko (talk) 15:57, 22 June 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 don't see community support for deleting this article. There is talk of a possible Merge but that possibility can be discussed on the article talk page. If you are dissatisfied with this closure, please wait more than two weeks before launching AFD #3. Wait a few months and focus on improving this article. Liz Read! Talk! 06:39, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Libreboot[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Libreboot (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)

Apologies for withdrawing the previous AfD, and being back here so soon. I'm not sure which criteria to apply, because the core article topic is not really clear or agreed upon - is it a software, a hardware, a company, a movement, within a movement? There are a few more or less reliable sources, but it is difficult to pull together a coherent article without, in essence, a lot of WP:OR. This becomes apparent, to me at least, in the most recent Talk:Libreboot discussions. If you eliminate the less reliable sources (as identified by another editor), it is even more difficult. The few better sources consistently talk about Respects Your Freedom certifications as supported by the Free Software Foundation, in context of reviews of computer hardware sold by "several international companies". Some editors want to twist this into a billboard for one particular vendor of hardware and continue making the article a WP:SPAMPAGE, i.e. "Advertisements masquerading as articles", as it was for years. I conclude it is best to delete and redirect. Reasonable targets include, in alphabetical order: Free_Software_Foundation, GNU, GNU_Project, and List_of_GNU_packages. Why there? As I understand it, not really based on great sources, an incarnation of "Libreboot" was once supported and within the FSF/GNU umbrella, as a GNU project. Then it wasn't. Maybe since 2016 or 2017, but it's not clear when it was in and when it was out, or how many times. There may have been a number of years, perhaps 5'ish, without software releases. One company the article "advertised as an article" for years may have been near bankruptcy and not doing business for some time. Now, as of around March 2023 there is a new "Libreboot" project within the FSF/GNU support umbrella. -- Yae4 (talk) 05:54, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep and revert the article to its state from this version. I do not consider that to be an WP:SPAMPAGE, it's a just a stub stating a few facts in WP:NPOV language. I have changed quite a few articles that needed translation from promotional to Wikipedia language, this article is not one of those. I'd be fine with adding some sentence about the Libreboot.at project. PhotographyEdits (talk) 08:16, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    3 Hackaday cites and a WP:TECHCRUNCH, 3 Linux Journal detailed flashing HowTo's and 4 mailing list posts or similar. You can't be serious. -- Yae4 (talk) 09:00, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    TechCrunch does not seem wrong per se, using a tutorial as a source is not a problem either if the content on Wikipedia itself is not written as a tutorial. Primary mailinglist sources are fine for verification of trivial things like the latest released version or the full name of the project. I agree about Hackaday, I missed that. PhotographyEdits (talk) 09:07, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It's laughable using Vaughan-Nichols ZDNet source, which is all about The Free Software Foundation, "Libiquity's Tarinux X200", Respects Your Freedom, "FSF-endorsed Trisquel GNU/Linux", quotes from Joshua Gay (FSF) and Patrick McDermott (Libiquity), with only passing mention of Libreboot, to cherry pick the statement: "On some devices, Libreboot developers have reverse engineered the firmware from Intel and created a utility to create a free firmware that meets the specifications from Intel." Why do you want a billboard for Libreboot.ORG so badly you would so obviously mis-use this source? This is not applying WP:DUE or WP:NPOV, or basic honesty, frankly. -- Yae4 (talk) 09:29, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Huh? Yes, that reference has a broader scope indeed. But the subject of this article is "Libreboot", so it is fine to use references that also include information about different things. If there would be an article about Libiquity, then we could use more information from the ZDNet article I suppose. PhotographyEdits (talk) 09:48, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It seems you agree the Libreboot content is only passing mention, which means the source does not contribute to WP:NOTABILITY. -- Yae4 (talk) 09:56, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I agree for that ZDNet article, but not for other articles. I still think it meets the WP:GNG, albeit not by a large margin. That's also why I think a stub is the most appropriate lenght for this article. PhotographyEdits (talk) 10:57, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    James Gray LinuxJournal.com looks like a copy of a brief product announcement, not significant coverage of Libreboot, and no link to or mention of "Libreboot.org". Bärwaldt linux-magazine.com has coverage of a lot of things, including Rowe the person, Purism_(company), "Several small international companies ... around free BIOS implementations," the "Respects Your Freedom" program, the Free Software Foundation. Whose link is listed first among 7 at the conclusion? FSF. Libreboot.ORG is 3rd of 7. You used it to say "Libreboot is established as a distribution of coreboot, but with some proprietary binary blobs removed from coreboot." Cherry picking again. -- Yae4 (talk) 11:46, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - and make libreboot.org the main link, with libreboot.at as a footnode. For reasoning, see discussions on the talk page. Basically, other editors here have asserted that since all the cited sources reference libreboot.org, not libreboot.at, then the article is primary about Libreboot as hosted on libreboot.org.
I should note that there is currently a report against Yae4 about the nature of his editing on the article:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard#Username_Yae4_engaging_in_persistent_disruptive_editing_of_the_Libreboot_article
As of this time, the Wikipedia admins have not yet responded, but the assertion there is that Yae4 is acting out of bias, in bad faith and that he has attempted to hijack the Libreboot article. The timing of this AfD is curious since the talk page seems to now weigh in favour of libreboot.org, especially since the article now seems to be much better sourced than it was before (and many of those sources were added by Yae4 himself!) Libreleah (talk) 09:30, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Libreleah has declared COI for Libreboot.ORG, and after making efforts to appear otherwise in the last day or so, after 5 years inactive, still has few or no edits outside this topic. -- Yae4 (talk) 09:41, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, and I've engaged trying to be as neutral as possible, on the project talk page. Regardless of my connection, my arguments against your disruptive and seemingly equally biased edits are valid. It's no coincidence that as soon as the talk page starts weighing in favour of libreboot.org again, as per the wishes of the other editors, you create a new AfD. The timing is too perfect, so it can't be a coincidence; you are losing the argument, and acting out of desperation.
Contrary to your assertion, I have every intention of continuing my activity on wikipedia editing other articles, once this Libreboot business is finished. For example I improved Peter Assmann yesterday by translating some text from the German page which is better sourced. Libreleah (talk) 09:46, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
She's sugessting changes on the talk page, instead of trying to edit the article directly. So she's following the COI policies. Rlink2 (talk) 11:53, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I describe the out of place lengthy accusations as disruption at Talk:Libreboot, and not following WP:EDITREQ in the slightest. A declared WP:COI editor voting at AfD is amazing. -- Yae4 (talk) 12:20, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Yae4
I describe the out of place lengthy accusations as disruptin Maddy also thought your SPI filing was disruptive and incoherent. Point being its all an opinion, you may think theres no merit to what shes saying when she thinks she has a fair point. We have to be respectful of all viewpoints.
Regarding no WP:EDITREQ. She doesn't have all the ropes yet as a new editor, so i think we can give her some leeway. Besides, she didn't need to do an EDITREQ because she didn't want to edit the article. Why didn't you suggest this to her in your first reply? Note that the article as it was before was agreed upon by everyone before you changed it.
WP:COI and Wikipedia:Plain and simple conflict of interest guide say nothing about COI people voting in AfDs. But even if you don't count her vote, the consensus here and on the talk page is to still use libreboot.org. Rlink2 (talk) 12:33, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It was "frivolous accusations" not "disruptive and incoherent". We'll see. Maybe we'll get some objective opinions from uninvolved editors. -- Yae4 (talk) 12:48, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Yae4 I would say the only editors that are truly involved is you and PhotographyEdits, since you two were editing the article for some time. Libreleah is also involved due to her connection. Me, Maddy, and DFhib only came after the inital accusations so we were all technically uninvolved. Rlink2 (talk) 12:53, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
PhotographyEdits has edited Libreboot for at least a couple years+/-? Me, a couple weeks+? Yes, the near coincident arrivals of new accounts all supporting re-activated Libreleah, after IPs were blocked, plus behavioral similarities. led me to suspect puppetry, meat or sock. Involved: See WP:INVOLVED for admins, and WP:NACINV for editors. Aren't those talking about involvement in discussions? No mention of whether an article has been edited. -- Yae4 (talk) 14:03, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
For accuracy, other than the passing mention in a book, "Embedded Firmware Solutions", and Carikli's presentation on abandoning Libreboot.ORG and starting Libreboot.AT, I don't think I found any other sources that hadn't already been in the article before, then were deleted during stubification to a billboard. -- Yae4 (talk) 09:52, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As discussed by other editors in the talk page, the current sources (many of which you added yourself) are more than sufficient to support notability of libreboot at libreboot.org; indeed those some editors assert that libreboot.at has weak sourcing, because of most of the current sources refer to libreboot.org, not libreboot.at.
Thus, this 2nd AfD is ludicrous. Libreleah (talk) 10:11, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think I found any other sources that hadn't already been in the article before. -- Yae4 (talk) 11:13, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and revert to previous version per PhotographyEdits. Rlink2 (talk) 11:46, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I would really appreciate seeing even a half-good explanation of why stubifying an article with poor sourcing is beneficial for Wikipedia or readers. -- Yae4 (talk) 14:05, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: this AfD seems to be a rather convoluted outcome of an ongoing content dispute on the article, rather than a genuine attempt to question the notability of the topic. jp×g 18:02, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the previous AfD close for this topic 9 days ago. Reopening a new AfD for the topic just 9 days after the previous keep close is disruptive. Looking at the sources just within the article, there are multiple reliable sources cited like Linux Journal and LWN. I haven't assessed whether these are enough for GNG, but they certainly provide enough verifability that at the least a short summary of the topic could be merged to another article, such as coreboot or another appropriate merge target. Thus I think the closer of the first AfD was correct--outright deletion is unwarranted, but a merge to another article is a reasonable outcome. I'll also note that it is perfectly fine for a COI editor to provide recommendations at AfD. If they can provide evidence for a recommendation that that non-involved editors accept, that's good evidence toward an outcome. --{{u|Mark viking}} {Talk} 18:42, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

> Reopening a new AfD for the topic just 9 days after the previous keep close is disruptive.

Really? _Fake_Surprise_Emoji. Lourdes an admin IIUC recently advised me in a similar context: "Lastly, why did you withdraw your AfD nomination of Elive which was on its way to be deleted? May I suggest take the article to AfD once more quoting this message of mine? And this time, I would request you to please not withdraw the nomination which was bound to be deleted."

I agree with merging some of the material elsewhere. That seems implicit in my suggestion to redirect. It also seems implicit in other suggestions to stubify the article (with poor sources).

No mention in a 2019 Open-source firmware review article:[98] The source was used by PhotographyEdits to support notability of a list of open-source firmware, including Libreboot. Other open-source firmware is covered. Libreboot is conspicuously absent. -- Yae4 (talk) 20:11, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yae, unless you're going to bring up something from WP:DELREASON, this is going to be a speedy keep from me, per WP:SK1. I'm going to leave it to someone else to close this, but there is a material difference between a discussion for which people other than the nominator expressed an opinion in favour of deletion and one where nobody does. Alpha3031 (t • c) 08:48, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep & revert to previous version, per PhotographyEdits. The later additions were almost entirely WP:COATRACK, and any good parts can be discussed individually before re-adding. If I was writing an article on apples, and used book sources that were about fruits in general, it should be obvious that it would be WP:COATRACK and a misuse of sources to spend half the article talking about these other fruits. Every source is clear that Libreboot is a software project; the rest is fluff.
The premise behind this AfD is that (1) when the article reflected what secondary sources said, it was a WP:SPAMPAGE; (2) now that it's a coatrack to off-topic commercial products, and promotes a fork that wasn't covered by any secondary sources, it is no longer a SPAMPAGE; (3) since preliminary consensus is turning against these dubious additions, the article should be deleted. These premises are absurd enough that they don't merit a counterargument, and bringing something to AfD due to (seemingly) losing a content dispute is disruptive. DFlhb (talk) 17:58, 17 June 2023 (UTC) edited, no need to revert since Maddy fixed it 19:24, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've edited the page to cut down on the WP:COATRACK and related issues. I'll make a source assesment table with the sources now in the article shortly. -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 18:22, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Source assessment table:
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4842-0070-4_4 Yes Yes No ✘ No
https://fossforce.com/2017/01/gnu-officially-boots-libreboot/ Yes No Looks like a blog, no information on editorial practices. Yes ✘ No
https://fossforce.com/2016/09/libreboot-leaves-gnu-claiming-gender-identity-discrimination-fsf/ Yes No Yes ✘ No
https://www.pcworld.com/article/431637/the-free-software-foundation-loves-this-laptop-but-you-wont.html Yes Yes No ✘ No
https://www.pcworld.com/article/422917/why-linux-enthusiasts-are-arguing-over-purisms-sleek-idealistic-librem-laptops.html Yes Yes No ✘ No
https://www.zdnet.com/article/a-new-free-software-laptop-arrives/ Yes Yes No ✘ No
https://www.linux-magazine.com/Issues/2017/203/Open-Hardware-Technoethical Yes Yes No ✘ No
http://www.linux-magazine.com/Issues/2018/210/Free-Firmware-with-Libreboot Yes Yes Yes ✔ Yes
https://www.linuxjournal.com/content/libreboot-x60-part-i-setup Yes ? There's some uncertainty what kind of editorial staff Linux Journal had when the article was published [99]. The author may also qualify as a WP:SPE. Yes ? Unknown
https://www.linuxjournal.com/content/libreboot-x60-part-ii-installation Yes ? Yes ? Unknown
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.


-- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 18:35, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for this.
The author of the last two was a columnist at the time of publication (archive link). I think for tech, "columnist" has a much lower connotation of opinionated bloviation, and a better mix of fact-to-opinion compared to politics or other subjects. To compare, I'd put other tech columnists like Walt Mossberg or David Pogue in a different league from all the typical silly op-ed writers. So, opinions may differ, but I'd count it towards GNG. edited 22:33, 17 June 2023 (UTC): wasn't sure how columnists usually get treated at AfD, so I looked around and found this smart 2013 DGG comment: his criteria are the degree of editorial control over the column, and the credibility of the columnist. I'll let others judge the first, but I think we can lean on WP:SPE to satisfy the second. DFlhb (talk) 19:23, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This AfD appears to be the culmination of a large content dispute between the nominator and multiple other people. Dawnbails (talk) 20:25, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I see no policy-based rationale for deleting this article, and agree that the AfD seems to be a tactical move as part of a content dispute. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:07, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep 10:04, 21 June 2023 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mattmill30 (talk • contribs)
  • Comment @Maddy from Celeste Thanks for making the source assessment table! Note that there are also two articles by Hackaday that are currently not cited:
- https://hackaday.com/2018/08/20/installing-libreboot-the-very-lazy-way/
- https://hackaday.com/2016/12/16/installing-libreboot/
Although per WP:RSN discussion some years ago, there is currently no consensus on the reliability of Hackaday. In case it is established that it is reliable, they would count towards the WP:GNG imho. Personally, I'd say Linux Journal is a reliable source for technical content like this. PhotographyEdits (talk) 11:54, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm yeah, I'm unsure on Hackaday. The writers and editors seem to be amateurs, but there is some kind of editorial staff at least. It's also not the most controversial area or prone to disinformation. In terms of sigcov, both sources mostly document the process of installing libreboot. I'd say the second one is the stronger one for sigcov, since it addresses a "normal" installation rather than an intentionally hacky one, and it includes more general description of the firmware. -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 19:18, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Can anyone actually name 3 or 4 independent, reliable sources with significant coverage of libreboot.org, which an RfC proposes as the subject of the article, to support WP:GNG? Thanks for the source assessment, but one FossForce source called "significant" coverage is not.[100] The source literally says: "this entire story is summed up by the above headline. Until we know more, that’s all we know." Regardless, the assessment only claims one source supports WP:GNG. -- Yae4 (talk) 18:12, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The Kyle Rankin Linux Journal two-part story is reliable significant, and explicitly mentions libreboot.org, if that matters. There's multiple stories about Libreboot (seemingly the .org version?) in this Linux Voice issue: [101]. Here's a PC World issue talking about libreboot (again .org, I think) significantly in the context of the X200: [102]. With passing references (maybe more! I haven't read them all) in multiple other issues and magazines from that mid/late 2010s era. I don't see any reason to delete this article and my vague feeling is it should focus on on the version that's how referred to as the libreboot.org version with a section mentioning forks/etc, at this time. Skynxnex (talk) 22:02, 22 June 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! 06:28, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of the highest roads in Scotland[edit]

List of the highest roads in Scotland (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:INDISCRIMINATE. Also, 1276 feet / 389m is not that high. Rschen7754 04:19, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and Scotland. Rschen7754 04:19, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not even 670m is impressively high. Note that none of these roads get mentioned at List of highest paved roads in Europe, an indication of how high a road needs to be to be worth mentioning. Once we start, where do we stop -- List of highest roads in The Netherlands? Athel cb (talk) 11:41, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The roads being "not that high" or not "impressive" is basically WP:IDONTLIKEIT. I do not see very strong sourcing in the article, which is a valid criticism, but it being dumb is not. jp×g 18:04, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:12, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the UK is a low-altitude nation overall. The list starts at a very low 380 meters and doesn’t even make it onto the list if highest roads in Europe. Every road in Denver is higher than this list. We should focus on global or regional superlative lists, not lists for superlatives of small countries (especially non-independent ones), because logically we would have to start making list pages for every country and territory like the aforementioned “Netherlands” list as well as stuff like “deepest lakes in Mali” and “largest settlements in the Pitcairn Islands.” Dronebogus (talk) 08:04, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"O ye'll tak' the [not so] high road, and I'll tak' the low road, And I'll be in Scotland afore ye". Clarityfiend (talk) 21:22, 17 June 2023 (UTC) [reply]
  • Keep — this user is attempting to delete multiple UK-related pages at the moment, seemingly largely unsuccessfully from the discussions. WP:BEFORE is recommended. —Jonathan Bowen (talk) 23:34, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Ignoring the obvious ad hominem, I simply believe that we should be consistent in our coverage of roads worldwide. In some cases, that means keeping articles about important roads that others want to delete. In others, that does sadly mean cutting back in regions where they have gone too far. Rschen7754 00:08, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - while there seems to be sources about the highest roads in the UK, there's none that specifically talk about Scotland. The only one I can find is https://www.dangerousroads.org/europe/scotland/10563-highest-roads-of-scotland.html but that source doesn't look to be reliable or significant enough to keep the article. What matters is if this article meets WP:NLIST which it does not. Onegreatjoke (talk) 17:11, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. Interestingly, the article itself got a passing mention in a now-defunct publication.[103] Not a reason to keep, but interesting. "List of the highest roads in Scotland" is one of those carefully collected and curated pages of odd information that make our British articles sort of endearing.
Nevertheless, my heart may say "keep", but when I see that the only other country in Europe that has such an article is Switzerland, I have to admit this one should probably go. (List of the highest roads in Wales never got off the ground.) Even though it's mostly harmless, I just don't see any utility for our readers in keeping "List of the highest roads in Scotland".
--A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 03:48, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 03:41, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Obiageli Olorunsola[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NOLYMPICS. Also lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 03:18, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nominator. DarkHorseMayhem (talk) 22:33, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 03:42, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Liam Brathwaite[edit]

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

Unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage from third-party sources, failing WP:GNG. JTtheOG (talk) 02:55, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 03:43, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Prateek Dhankhar[edit]

Prateek Dhankhar (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 nd fail in WP:GNG Worldiswide (talk) 02:30, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 03:44, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Plutus.com[edit]

Plutus.com (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 crypto company. Sources are all PR or un-RS, with little to no coverage of the company, beyond routine things. Oaktree b (talk) 02:44, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 03:44, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ana Iris Ortiz Livieres[edit]

Ana Iris Ortiz Livieres (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 as a fashion model, nor as a business person. Coverage is somewhat limited to her time as a model, and is trivial. Oaktree b (talk) 02:40, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep‎. I see a consensus to Keep this article. Liz Read! Talk! 06:30, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Colin Leonard[edit]

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

Appears to have been nominated many times for a technical Grammy, which I don't think see as notable for wiki. Gsearch is simply a confirmation of where he works. Oaktree b (talk) 02:31, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Oaktree b

Thank you for your feedback. I understand your concern and did some research on other mastering engineer's Wikipedia articles before creating Colin Leonard's. I created this article for Tre Nagella, he is a mixing engineer, which is technical, as well. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tre_Nagella

As an example here are other mastering engineer's Wikipedia articles. I would not have attempted creating an article for a mastering engineer unless I had reviewed the following articles. Hoping this clears up your concern and thank you for your feedback.

Here are other Wikipedia articles for mastering engineers 

Please respond. Thank you so much Landplane123 (talk) 03:25, 16 June 2023 (UTC)landplane321[reply]

Just added: Leonard won a Pensado Award for, Master of Mastering, in 2017 and placed at #2 on Jaxsta's Top Mastering Engineers of 2022 - The world's 50 Most Successful Mastering Engineers of 2022, citing his work with Beyoncé, Cardi B, Wizkid, Charlie Puth, Lil Uzi Vert.[1][2][3]

Hope this helps to establish his notability. Thanks, Landplane123 (talk) 16:23, 16 June 2023 (UTC)landplane321[reply]

References

  1. ^ "FOURTH ANNUAL PENSADO AWARDS WINNERS ANNOUNCED AT SOLD-OUT EVENT". Music Connection Magazine. December 8, 2017. Retrieved June 15, 2023.
  2. ^ "Jaxsta Honors List: Top Mastering Engineers of 2022 - The world's 50 most successful mastering engineers of 2022". Jaxsta. February 22, 2019. Retrieved May 23, 2023.
  3. ^ "The Top 10 Mixing and Mastering Engineers According To Jaxsta". Bobby Owsinki. 9 February 2023. Retrieved June 15, 2023.
  • Keep: nominated for 20 Grammy Awards, I don't care what the category is. J04n(talk page) 00:28, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:MUSICBIO#8 requires 1 Grammy nomination - Leonard has 11. ResonantDistortion 17:35, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Do the Grammy nominations still count for WP:MUSICBIO#8 when the subject is the mastering engineer rather than the artist? -Kj cheetham (talk) 19:10, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. As other users have mentioned, this master engineer has been nominated for several Grammy Awards, which appears to count for WP:ANYBIO #1 even if this person does not necessarily fall under WP:MUSICBIO #8. (Courtesy ping for @Kj). The Night Watch (talk) 19:56, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Landplane123's list of precedents and all those Grammy nominations. We have 58 other mastering engineer articles and most are similar.
--A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 04:53, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 03:45, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Grace Junot[edit]

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

Appears to have only been in bit parts or one-offs. Not seeing notability required under ACTOR, no sourcing found. Oaktree b (talk) 02:16, 16 June 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. Despite only having a slight numerical advantage in this discussion, delete is also on stronger footing in terms of guideline-based arguments. Delete !votes point to the absence of significant coverage in independent sources. In rebuttal, keep !votes pointed to a handful of independent sources of which all but one fail to include coverage beyond mere mentions (or else were non-independent). Suggestions to redirect the page to either 1995 American League West tie-breaker game or to other articles [sic] on rivalries did not win additional support following their proposal. signed, Rosguill talk 10:00, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Angels–Mariners rivalry[edit]

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

Article describes a non-existent rivalry between two teams that just happen to compete in the same division. This topic does not pass WP:GNG based on the below source analysis table. Article reads as WP:FANCRUFT and the only sources available on a WP:BEFORE search are routine mentions or fan blogs. Frank Anchor 16:26, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source analysis by User:Frank Anchor
Source assessment by User:Frank Anchor
Source Comments
LAA vs. SEA WP:ROUTINE list of head-to-head records Red XN
Seattle Mariners Tailgating Brief 60-word blog that suggests a rivalry between the two teams in name only, but fails to describe any animosity between the teams and their fan-bases. The page however also goes on to describe a possible "rivalry" between the Mariners and most of the other teams in their division. Red XN
Rivalry renewal WP:LOCAL coverage (though not directly affiliated with either team). Article suggests an "on-and-off" rivalry between the two teams but also recognizes the teams lack geographical proximity and "bad blood" generally found in a rivalry. Red XN
The Mariners have a new rivalry Blog posted in "Lookout Landing," which describes itself as "A Seattle Mariners community," therefore lacks independence. Also, the article calls this series a "new rivalry" and fails to describe any animosity between the teams and fan bases, a basic attribute of any sports rivalry. Red XN
Here's each team's fiercest rival -- right now Non-independent posting on MLB.com. Article has one sentence of coverage that reads "There may be no team in baseball with a less obvious rival than the Mariners," suggesting the Mariners don't have a "rival" at all.Red XN
Looking at MLB's 19 combined no-hitters Non-independent posting on MLB.com. Coverage of a game in which Angels pitched a no-hitter against the Mariners. Does not even attempt to establish the two teams as rivals. Red XN
Seattle sets sail for AL playoffs Routine postgame coverage of a tiebreaker game between the two teams. Red XN
Trout puts on historic power display in Seattle Non-independent article on MLB.com which summarizes an impressive series Mike Trout had against Seattle. This article does nothing to establish a rivalry between the two teams. Red XN
Trout cements place as all-time tormenter of M's Non-independent article on MLB.com which describes success Mike Trout has had against Seattle throughout his career. Article uses the term "rivals" once in a way that any two teams in the same division can be described as rivals. Red XN
Mariners, Angels personnel differ on what sparked brawl Coverage of a brawl between the two teams with differing opinions of what caused the brawl. One opinion is due to the fact that the teams are divisional rivals who have played eight games in an 11-day stretch, and that is the only mention of teams possibly being "rivals."Red XN
Ranking the Seattle Mariners' 8 Biggest Rivals Blog that suggests the Angels as one of many rivals for Seattle. Probably the closes source to establishing the two teams as "rivals" but this alone would not pass WP:GNG and there are reliability concerns surrounding BleacherReport. Question?
Eight ejected after wild brawl between Seattle Mariners, Los Angeles Angels Routine coverage of an in-game brawl between the two teams. Coverage does not describe teams as "rivals" Red XN
MLB announces 12 suspensions for mass brawl between Seattle Mariners and Los Angeles Angels Routine coverage related to discipline from aforementioned brawl. Coverage does not describe teams as "rivals" Red XN
Angels pitcher goes to IL after falling out of dugout during Mariners brawl Routine coverage of a pitcher suffering an injury. Refers to a "rivalry" in the first sentence but the article does not describe any "rivalry" between the two teams. Red XN
  • Comment In your source analysis you say:
Angels personnel differ on what sparked brawl
Coverage of a brawl between the two teams with differing opinions of what caused the brawl. One opinion is due to the fact that the teams are divisional rivals who have played eight games in an 11-day stretch, and that is the only mention of teams possibly being "rivals." Red XN
The actual quote from the article is:
Angels interim manager Phil Nevin chalked the brawl up to the teams’ rivalry and the number of games that were played in such a short span. The Angels and Mariners playing eight games against each other in 11 days.
So the manager of the Angels calls it a "rivalry" (not a "divisional rivalry"). Looks like a "Green tickY" to me.
PK-WIKI (talk) 18:48, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If the manager of an involved team calls a series a rivalry, then it is not independent and therefore not GNG-appropriate.Red XN Frank Anchor 19:39, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A reliable independent source wrote a story on a notable brawl between two baseball teams. In their independent reporting they got a quote from the manager of one of the clubs who blamed the brawl on the rivalry (not "divisional rivalry") between the teams. WP:GNG "excludes works produced by the article's subject". That is very different form this situation, which is an independent reliable source reporting that the manager of one of the clubs believes a rivalry exists between the teams and that said rivalry was one of the direct causes of a bench-clearing brawl. Green tickY PK-WIKI (talk) 21:06, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
And the fact that the manager of one of the clubs is the one calling it a rivalry makes that part of the source not independent, not the source in its entirety (as Fox is an independent publication and a leading authority on MLB coverage). However the only mention of teams being "rivals" is taken from the opinion of an employee of the Angels, making the source not independent (and therefore not GNG-appropriate) for the purposes of establishing a rivalry. Frank Anchor 12:39, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Two teams play each other often, moreso when they're in the same division. This does not make them an actual "rivalry", in spite of some fancruft put out by Bleacher Report and others. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:59, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The Seattle Times reports that "three things can create rivalries in sports — proximity, head-to-head competition, and/or bad blood." The Mariners/Angels rivalry is "fueled on the field, just as it was in '95". They say that the rivalry "pretty much died after '95" but that future events (post 2007) could "nudge the rivalry out of hibernation".
The rivalry has been low-key due to both teams' lack of success in the last two decades. But the rivalry is consistently mentioned every time there is an incident between the teams. The 2014 Fernando Rodney arrow incident drew "rivalry" reporting by both the Seattle Times and the Los Angeles Times. The 2022 bench-clearing brawl was described by the manager of the Angles as stemming from the "rivalry" between the teams. The reporting in reliable, independent sources over nearly 3 decades of play shows that there is a rivalry between the teams, albeit with long periods of dormancy.
PK-WIKI (talk) 19:19, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The Seattle Times article is a good find. That alone isn’t enough for GNG but a good start. As already explained, the pieces describing the brawl only reference a rivalry as quoted by an employee of one of the involved clubs, so that does not pass GNG for the purposes of establishing a rivalry between Seattle and LAA. Frank Anchor 22:18, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I found this source talking about the rivalry. I also will note in NFL articles, division opponents usually means article (that might not be the same here.) I’d learn towards Keep, but if not kept, Redirect to an articles on rivalries.75.99.8.58 (talk) 22:34, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Also this source. 75.99.8.58 (talk) 22:38, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The first does NOTHING to describe the teams as rivals outside of using the term in the title as teams possibly becoming a rivalry. The second was already discounted in my source analysis because it is a blog from an organization that literally calls itself “a Seattle Mariners community” (therefore not independent) and title calls this series a "new rivalry" and fails to describe any animosity between the teams and fan bases, a basic attribute of any sports rivalry. Frank Anchor 18:51, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Even if SBNation doesn’t count (which, by the way, that source analysis is very harsh), it still meets WP:THREEREFS. Also, a brawl in a way does indicate a rivalry - just look at Avalanche–Red Wings rivalry. A article on the brawl can be created, or left as a section of this article. The yahoo sports article does mention a growing rivalry which can be used to meet GNG. It’s hard to get the same level of coverage from this as say the Mets-Braves rivalry because the two teams are not as good, with the mariners 2022 playoff north their first since 2001, and the angels not making the playoffs since 2014.--96.57.52.66 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 20:12, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    A brawl most certainly does not indicate a rivalry. Brawls happen several times a season and if a small number of brawls between two teams constitutes a rivalry then there would be articles about pretty much every pair of teams in MLB. The Yahoo page does not mention a "growing rivalry." It mentions that they might play some meaningful games against each other, which hasn't been the case in over a decade due to poor performance by at least one team during that time. This can not meet GNG for the purposes of establishing a rivalry. Frank Anchor 16:17, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, the Avalanche-Red Wings rivalry has, and I cannot stress this enough, reliable sources! If this article has the historic importance of those that have articles already, then it deserves to stay, but Frank Anchor makes the good point that you need to fulfill WP:GNG to have any article exist. Conyo14 (talk) 05:07, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:38, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. The 1995 race to the playoffs is too little to hang a significant rivalry on. The sourcing is pretty weak. Also, contrary to what 75.99 claims, being in the same division (NFL or MLB) doesn't guarantee a rivalry article. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:28, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The league in its rivalry listings has thrown mention at the Angels being the most heated rival of the Mariners. [1]PontiacAurora (talk) 21:20, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's not really saying much. WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST, but ... that list includes the Blue Jays-Orioles (no article), Orioles-Yankees (no article), Indians/Guardians-Twins (no article), etc. "Most heated" doesn't automatically mean particularly heated or notable. Clarityfiend (talk) 10:30, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • MLB's own listing is not independent, therefore it can not count toward WP:GNG. And even if that was not the case, this article has just one sentence of coverage: There may be no team in baseball with a less obvious rival than the Mariners, suggesting the Mariners don't have a "rival" at all. Frank Anchor 12:24, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "Here's each team's fiercest rival -- right now".

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, - 🔥𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆 (𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 02:10, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom and source analysis provided, there is not enough SIGCOV to pass GNG. Only the Seattle Times source above is SIGCOV of these teams as rivals and GNG requires multiple sources. Carson Wentz (talk) 01:40, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A redirect to the 1995 playoff game is a reasonable ATD (per PK-WIKI below) on the condition that the redirect link be removed from the navboxes for the two teams and the MLB rivalries one. Carson Wentz (talk) 02:55, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I can access the full version. It does nothing to describe a rivalry between the Angels and Mariners. It only describes a history between Angels player Shohei Ohtani and Mariners player Yusei Kikuchi, who both played in Japan. Hard no for me. Frank Anchor 15:52, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Player rivalries exist. It does not speak to the validity of two teams having a rivalry. Conyo14 (talk) 16:59, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am still a keep due to the significant coverage of the rivalry in the Seattle Times article plus brief rivalry mentions in the other articles.
However, rather than delete, I'd suggest a Redirect to 1995 American League West tie-breaker game.
This game and the 1995 division race is well supported in the Seattle Times article as the major factor of the rivalry.
PK-WIKI (talk) 17:02, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I oppose this suggested redirect. It could set an unnecessary precedent of redirecting any "Team A-Team B rivalry" title to a tiebreaker game or playoff series between those teams. Plus the article on the 1995 tiebreaker game is about the game itself, not the (relatively insignificant) history between the two teams. Frank Anchor 12:11, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see a problem with such a precedent. If a rivalry is primarily represented by a single game or series and is a possible search term then it makes sense to redirect readers to the game that represents the primary extent of the rivalry. Rlendog (talk) 19:17, 19 June 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. Editors remain divided on whether this subject meets WP:EVENT. Editors advocating for keep pointed to the presence of coverage in a geographically wide range of sources, while editors advocating for deletion argued that the coverage is of an insufficiently WP:LASTING character. signed, Rosguill talk 09:49, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ambush near Kosovska Mitrovica[edit]

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

This article has been declined at AfC twice, then moved by the AfC submitter to mainspace, then draftified by another editor, and now again moved back to mainspace. Evidently, some controversy here. I'm the second AfC reviewer; I don't think this meets WP:EVENTCRITERIA, and declined on those grounds. asilvering (talk) 00:48, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, Kosovo, and Yugoslavia. asilvering (talk) 00:48, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tagging in previous reviewer @Mattdaviesfsic:, draftifier @Robert McClenon:, and the editor who moved the draft to mainspace, @Edison18273:.
  • Keep. Three different American newspapers chose to run a story about the ambush. The article suggests that the Račak massacre was in response to this ambush. The book reference suggests that coverage extended beyond the timeframe of the ambush. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 01:16, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – This is a case where the originator acted as if they were trying to push a non-encyclopedic article into article space. On examination of the sources (but without reading the book), I conclude that the author was trying to push an encyclopedic article into article space. Perhaps the author could have spared themselves this AFD by communicating with reviewers, but the only question for this AFD is whether the event meets event notability criteria.
Ambush near Kosovska Mitrovica
Reference Number Reference Comments Independent Significant Reliable Secondary
1 Southeast Missourian Associated Press account Yes Not really, local coverage of a national account Yes Yes
2 Chicago Tribune Yes Yes, because Chicago Tribune is a nationally important newspaper Yes Yes
3 Deseret News Same Associated Press account as 1 Yes Sort of. Coverage by multiple local or regional papers has a national quality Yes Yes
4 A book As Eastmain said Yes Probably Yes Yes
The notability guideline says that national coverage is preferred over local or regional coverage. The Chicago Tribune is a nationally important newspaper. The publication of the Associated Press account (national) by at least two newspapers in different parts of the United States should count as weak national coverage. The mention in a book indicates that historians at least occasionally take note of the battle. When in doubt as to whether a battle should be covered, covering the battle seems like the right answer.
Robert McClenon (talk) 02:46, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Both of these arguments hang on the book being a solid reference. Can anyone get a copy of the book and see what it says there? I'm unconvinced that it's actually about the subject of the article in any significant way - it looks like it might just be about the subsequent massacre, which is undoubtedly notable (Račak massacre). This event is already mentioned there, in "background", and I don't see that this article adds much more than what is already there. -- asilvering (talk) 04:06, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Asilvering: I was able to retrieve the book and find the relevant passage. To answer your question, no, it doesn't actually deal with the subject of the article in any significant way. In case the page is inaccessible, it's a sub section titled "In Focus:The Racak Incident" and summarizes the lead up to NATO intervention in Kosovo, dealing with violence in the Stimlje region in particular, leading up to the Račak massacre. This is the only part where the incident is mentioned:

On 8 January 1999, the KLA carried out a well-prepared ambush near Dulje (west of Stimlje) in which three Serbian policemen were killed and one was wounded.

That's the extent of it. And like you mentioned, it's already mentioned in the massacre article. --Griboski (talk) 18:55, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Griboski Thank you so much for checking in on this! -- asilvering (talk) 19:35, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - No. My argument to keep the article is not dependent on whether the book is a solid reference, but only whether the newspapers are independent secondary sources. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:24, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't follow - you have only 4 sources in the table, 1-3 are the same, and 4 is not significant coverage. -- asilvering (talk) 19:34, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
All the newspaper references are identical texts word for word, relaying and copying the Associated Press report, so it's really one source. It is common for local and national newspapers to publish stories from the AP. The key part from WP:EVENTCRITERIA is the event's lasting impact and depth of coverage. It had some impact, sure, in that it was one event in a long series that led to the Račak massacre. The depth of coverage is minuscule, and little to write about the event itself if we were to extrapolate the meat of the information available. Hardly enough for a stand-alone articule when it is already covered in the massacre article's background section. --Griboski (talk) 18:55, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 23:47, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong Keep: But they still have multiple reliable sources. CastJared (talk) 10:57, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Just the one - the AP news story. The other, the book, is not significant coverage - just one sentence. -- asilvering (talk) 18:09, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, - 🔥𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆 (𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 02:09, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I tend to agree, it was a brief incident, reported on at the time. No lasting coverage in the news cycle. Oaktree b (talk) 14:06, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As per WP:N. The incident has no notability and isn't apart of a wider offensive. The "Aftermath" section takes up a significant part of the article and isn't even related to this incident at all. ElderZamzam (talk) 01:55, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all the sources as demonstrated by Robert McClenon are WP:RS, the article needs some work with the aftermath section. Durraz0 (talk) 15:47, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I read WP:N and the article meets it. I found a source regarding the aftermath.[1] This is indeed a significant event in the Kosovo war, and I can recall having read about it in books about the war, i can try to find these sources later. KleovoulosT (talk) 19:59, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. You can find all of the significant coverage in the world, but if it's all from directly after the event, then it's not WP:SUSTAINED coverage and therefore the subject is not notable. There's also nothing here worth merging into Račak massacre, and it's already mentioned at Timeline of the Kosovo War, which is probably the most appropriate place for a non-notable event like this. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 01:51, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Melissa Eddy (January 24, 1999). "Freed Albanians Ready to Fight". Associated Press.
  • Comment -- The sources (which all seem to be American ones) establish that the event happened. The question is whether it is a notable event. Since it happened in Europe, I would have expected there to be European sources cited. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:49, 25 June 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! 03:41, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

New Life Radio-Moscow[edit]

New Life Radio-Moscow (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)

NN satellite radio organization - fails WP:NORG. UtherSRG (talk) 16:14, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This station has plenty of in-depth coverage in Christian news outlets, including one article which was republished in Kentucky Today. Could any of these sources be considered independent, or does their religious character discount them? I can't find anything specific in the guidelines. Akakievich (talk) 20:07, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If the sources are not directly connected to the radio station then they may be useful, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 20:09, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If they are evangelical, they wouldn't have a neutral point of view on NLRM's evangelical purpose. - UtherSRG (talk) 11:35, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Post the sources here for evaluation and to help determine notability for this topic. Then if the article is kept, the sources can be copied there. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 06:08, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Also, evangelical or otherwise, just post them here. I think saying just because they are evangelical, they would not have a neutral point of view is overgeneralizing. If you want to save the article, then post whatever sources you have for evaluation. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 06:15, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:07, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source assessment table:
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
https://thebaptistpaper.org/despite-war-new-life-radio-brings-hope-faith-to-christians-in-ukraine/ ? Baptist-affiliated ? Yes ? Unknown
https://missionsbox.org/news/new-life-radio-broadcasts-message-peace-ukraine/ No Affiliated with mission organisation Yes Yes ✘ No
https://chvnradio.com/articles/christian-radio-in-ukraine-pivoting-to-continue-reaching-russiansukrainians-with-gospel ? Christian-affiliated radio station Yes Content produced by FM radio station in Canada Yes ? Unknown
https://evangelicalfocus.com/europe/17741/ban-on-russian-music-in-ukraine-makes-christian-radio-ministry-harder ~ Evangelical newspaper ? Yes ? Unknown
https://wng.org/roundups/christian-radio-station-broadcasts-in-exile-1649429917 ~ Evangelical-affiliated news site ? Yes ? Unknown
https://www.baptistpress.com/resource-library/news/russian-christian-radio-station-continues-to-broadcast-despite-war-tightening-restrictions/ No Published by Southern Baptist Convention ? Yes ✘ No
https://mbcpathway.com/2022/02/22/russias-first-fm-christian-station-faces-another-crisis/ No Published by Missouri Baptist Convention ? Yes ✘ No
https://evangelicalfocus.com/europe/15586/european-evangelicals-condemn-russian-invasion-of-ukraine-no-justification-for-actions-that-will-bring-death-chaos-and-misery ~ Evangelical news site Yes No passing mention ✘ No
https://www.christianpost.com/news/evangelical-decries-orthodox-rift-underlying-russia-ukraine-saga.html ~ Christian news site Yes No Mostly reporting views of founder ✘ No
https://archive.is/rEcIE ~ Baptist-affiliated local newspaper Yes Yes ~ Partial
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.
Based on this, I am leaning towards delete. If anyone would like to weigh in with their views on the usefulness of these sources, I'd be glad to hear comments. Akakievich (talk) 17:42, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 03:41, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Embassy of Indonesia, Abuja[edit]

Embassy of Indonesia, Abuja (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)

Embassies are not inherently notable. The sources in this merely confirm the ambassador and location. 3 of the 4 sources are primary. LibStar (talk) 01:42, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nominator. DarkHorseMayhem (talk) 22:33, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete not notable, and I can't see anyway this could be expanded, improved or made to meet nobility. Nswix (talk) 01:02, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Star Mississippi 20:49, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of The Incredible Hulk home video releases[edit]

List of The Incredible Hulk home video releases (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:NOTCATALOGUE, completely unsourced list of fancruft Ajf773 (talk) 01:13, 16 June 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_June_16&oldid=1162004234"