Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 March 11

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< March 10 March 12 >

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. Salvio giuliano 23:50, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Finish Line Motorsports Marketing[edit]

Finish Line Motorsports Marketing (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 and WP:GNG. Only one proper reference on the page. Courtesy ping @Onel5969 as original draftifier. ~ Eejit43 (talk) 23:42, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Despite being open since 1997, this company still has yet to make a mark on the racing scene. Once that happens, the page could be recreated. Until then, the company is, sadly, not notable enough. TH1980 (talk) 00:54, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Advertising, Companies, Motorsport, and Indiana. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 09:20, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Complete lack of SIGCOV in sources, can only find two sources covering this entity, TobyChristie.com [1], and Beyond the Flag [2], which are strictly WP:ROUTINE and don't provide any claims to significance. Making announcements that you "intend to compete" in NASCAR does not make a team notable. The TobyChristie.com source also has interesting lines such as On its website, Finish Line Motorsports Marketing states that it has been in operation since 1997. The company claims to have had a presence in marketing within the worlds of NASCAR and IndyCar., not even verifying the information included. - "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (work / talk) 12:43, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - The subject is both a racing team and a company that fails WP:NCORP, WP:ATHLETE, and teams and clubs are expected to demonstrate notability by the general notability guideline WP:GNG. AmshitBalcon (talk) 14:05, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - As the person who made the original article, I realized that it lacks a lot of notability, and shouldn't have been made into an article in the first place. If there is a slight chance of them making a start this year (which they probably won't), I would say this could be restored. So for now, I request for it to be deleted. Tyman9348 (talk) 18:58, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    To be fair, if you didn't start it, surely some IP user would have. - "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (work / talk) 01:36, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Switch back to a draft - I think that the article should be moved back to a draft. I agree with everyone above in that it's not ready for mainspace, especially with the limited details we know about the team and how they have yet to attempt a Cup Series race. I just edited the article, adding that the team's debut is now scheduled to be at Talladega in April according to a tweet from Frontstretch reporter Jared Haas: https://twitter.com/RealJaredHaas/status/1634320053410623493 He also states in this tweet that he spoke to the owner of the team who also stated that the team has 2 Next Gen cars and 6 employees, so that's some details. Given that these details are now known and the team has a new planned race to debut and and they have a partnership with an existing team (RBR), I don't think the article should be completely deleted (and if it was, I agree with what User:GhostOfDanGurney said above). What if the team actually does attempt to qualify for that race?

    Additionally, on a different but related note, is it possible that the user who moved the article back to mainspace is the same person as User:Zrcook610/User:Zacharycook597 (these accounts were blocked)? Both User:Zackyboyman and one of the blocked accounts share the same first name and if you look at each of their user contribution pages, the person behind each account has attempted to change page titles without explanation and moved draft articles (such as Chuck Buchanan Jr's) to mainspace when they are not yet ready to go in mainspace or articles that had previously been in mainspace and moved to become drafts. (I know this isn't the right place to start that discussion but IDK where the right place is for that conversation/investigation.) Cavanaughs (talk) 09:58, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    What if the team actually does attempt to qualify for that race? They would still need to meet WP:NCORP regardless of whether they attempt to qualify for one race or whether they race out the season. Tweets can never be used to establish notability, and are generally unreliable as a source period. I agree with your assessment of the user who reverted the draftification, but I disagree that this subject is even ready for a draft. I'm not convinced that this isn't some weird hoax/meme. - "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (work / talk) 10:42, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, Per above fails notability.Alex-h (talk) 13:30, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, fails notability as of right now. If they somehow even make a start (which is looking more and more unlikely as time progresses), it still needs to pass WP:NCORP. Nascar9919 (talk) 21:11, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above fails WP:NCORP and WP:GNG. Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 06:13, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Worldbruce (talk) 04:53, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Shah Abd al-Wahhab[edit]

Shah Abd al-Wahhab (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)

Large unsourced paragraphs, no claim to notability, and the sources used do not demonstrate notability guidelines being met. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NBIO. Vinegarymass911 (talk) 22:43, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I would not describe it as a "major academic institution".Vinegarymass911 (talk) 13:54, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
May I know what makes you say so? Being someone who is aware of the context around such institutions, this is a major "alternate" academic institution. See this and this. Moreover, "Al Jamiatul Ahlia Darul Uloom Moinul Islam, known as the Hathazari Baro Madrasa, is one of the oldest and largest madrasas in Bangladesh" from the The Financial Express ([3] and "Established in 1896, the madrasa is the second largest University of its kind in the Indian subcontinent" from The Daily Star [4], and several others I do not have any doubts about this seminary being a major academic institution. Best, ─ The Aafī (talk) 15:11, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Additionally, according to the National Encyclopedia of Bangladesh, it is considered the origin of all madrasas in Bangladesh, and there are currently 19,199 Qawmi madrasas operating in the country.–MinisterOfReligion (Talk) 15:40, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, I dont know why he is not notable. He has achieved notability through various means, including his academic contributions and his role as a religious leader in the formation of a religious hegemony at the national level. All of these achievements are well sourced and can easily pass the General Notability Guidelines.–MinisterOfReligion (Talk) 06:42, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nomination withdrawn- Considering the points raised, I believe this article requires some improvement in sourcing but is very likely notable. Any uninvolved editor is welcome to close this.Vinegarymass911 (talk) 20:26, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Eddie891 Talk Work 22:07, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

VKG Royal Controller[edit]

VKG Royal Controller (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 about a mobile app for farmers that appears to be written by the app's creator. Can't find any significant, independent coverage that would satisfy WP:GNG. John B123 (talk) 22:11, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete COI and lack of reliable sources.
Lewcm (talk) 02:00, 18 March 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. Randykitty (talk) 16:31, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

KVV Subrahmanyam[edit]

KVV Subrahmanyam (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 a non admin I can’t see deleted material but I am pretty this is a recreation of an article previously deleted by consensus and repeatedly recreated by a persistent editor or group of editors determined to force him into the encyclopedia. This surname is common and there are many variants and it seems there is a game going on to recreate this under variant spellings to sneak under the NPP radar but I think a previous incarnation may be Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/V Aravind Subramanyam. Anyway, aside from the mechanics of what version appeared when and who created it, the subject is not notable. Mccapra (talk) 13:06, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Mccapra, the article you just linked is not describing the same person: it was describing an author who is apparently still living and was never involved with the police force.

Joyous! | Talk 16:36, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Well if it’s not that one then there is another deleted article about the same subject under a variant spelling, though I must admit I’m not exactly what it was. Mccapra (talk) 20:31, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ping me if you need the info in another deleted article. I'm happy to check for you. Joyous! Noise! 14:35, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Poetry, Politics, and India. Mccapra (talk) 13:06, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Hello Mccapra,
    Kindly let me know why this article is going to be deleted. He was a distinguished IPS officer. He is not anyway connected to v Aravind Subramanyam.
    I have edited many articles in wikipedia from 2007 and do not just enter any article with out any substance.
    Thanks
    K Bala
    13:13, 4 March 2023 (UTC) Kbala1055 (talk) 13:13, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello , There are many names of Subrahmanyam around. This is a new page created. . Pls let me know how I can remove the delete tag. I have been a wikipedian from 2007. He has been a distinguished IPS officer, Prolific writer and poet. His name had been added in the Cambridge bibliography of poets. He participated in the international poetry of congress in Bangkok. Thanks K Bala — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kbala1055 (talk • contribs) 13:34, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Police-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 15:04, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Delete Non-notable as an author, doesn't seem to pass GNG. Simply being a police officer isn't enough for notability here. Oaktree b (talk) 15:43, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Hello Oaktree,
    Thanks for your inputs. He was simply not a police officer. He rose to the rank of Principal Home secretary to the then Chief Minister of AP. He was also a Vice-chairman of AP Housing Board. He held many distinguished high ranking positions outside Police service. He was also a Chairman of Tirumala tirupati Devastanam.
    Besides being a police officer, he was a prolific writer of poems and Newspaper articles in leading Indian newspaers.
    He participated in the World congress of Poets in Bangkok in 1988. His name had been included in the Cambridge Bibliography of English Poets. He was a member of the Hyderabad Poetry Society. His articles on many topics including Indian Bureaucracy have appeared in leading Indian daily newspapers like Indian Express, The Hindu, Deccan Chronicle, Andhra Bhoomi, Triveni, and the New Swatantra times'
    Reason for including this page:
    1. He hails from a remote village being born in not-so-urban area with very little access to education.
    2. He educated himself under trying circumstances and passed a tough Indian Civil Services exam androse to higher ranks in AP Government.
    3. He has written on many topics in leading Indian Newspapers under his name and some as Pseudonyms.
    4. If the page exists and is seen by the current generation of Youngsters of this area where he was born and where he lived, he will be a seen as a role model for the current generation youngsters to study IPS civil services exam and serve the Country and rise to higher ranks.
    5. Ramachandra Murthy Says in Hans India - He was seen as a man with a rare combination of discipline, honesty and scholarship, KVVS was an exemplary top gun who minced no words and spared none when it came to discharge of duties.
    This page will serve as a role model for aspiring government servants when such values are in a decline these days.
    6. In the Bulleting for Centre for Policy studies, Mr. I.V. Chalapathi Rao writes: “Sri K.V.V. Subrahmanyam is
    a retired IPS officer who held prestigious positions, in Govt.
    of Andhra Pradesh and distinguished himself in
    administration as Home Secretary. By propensity he is a
    poet. He is not only a noted poet but also a wise
    philosopher, independent thinker and humanist
    championing the cause of probity in public life and peace
    in the world. The present anthology of poems is a
    vindication of his reputation as a constructive critic,
    conscientious change agent and a visionary.
    Such values are on a decline nowadays. We are going to see the 10th death anniversary of this distinguished soul and should be recorded for posterity and constant remembrance and recapitulation for the current and coming generations.
    These are some of he reasons why the page should exist and not be deleted
    09:19, 5 March 2023 (UTC) Kbala1055 (talk) 09:19, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    He also held posts like Transport commissioner which is not related to his original domain of expertise.
    09:28, 5 March 2023 (UTC) Kbala1055 (talk) 09:28, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Hello,
    Pls let me know if the delete tag can be removed based on the points mentioned above. Especially, this can be a role-model for the people of the area in which he was born near Madurai. This is a remote village with a rural pastoral background. Kbala1055 (talk) 07:43, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Terrible article, but clearly notable as holder of the most senior rank in the Indian Police Service and senior civil service positions. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:17, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Hello Necrothesp,
    Thanks for your reply. Pls help in providing suggestions for improving this article.
    Can we remove the delete tag please?
    04:55, 8 March 2023 (UTC) Kbala1055 (talk) 04:55, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The deletion tag will be removed when this AfD discussion is closed. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:10, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

* Keep: barely, his rank I think makes him a notable figure. Needs cleanup.  // Timothy :: talk  14:29, 11 March 2023 (UTC) [reply]

(Switched to Delete, see below)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This needs more input. The "keep" arguments are poor (hagiographic wall of text and "senior policeman = notable").
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 21:53, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Sandstein,
Re-emphasizing the notable points:
1. He held very senior high-ranking civil services positions in the AP State Govt. reporting to the highest elected person in the state, namely, the chief minister of the AP State.
2. He was notable - " Subrahmanyam was a prolific writer in English "- Notes "The Hindu" in the Obituary on July 15 2023 - in the article published. His articles on many topics including Indian bureaucracy appeared in leading Indian daily newspapers such as Indian Express, The Hindu, Deccan Chronicle, Andhra Bhoomi, Triveni, and the New Swatantra Times.
3. He was a poet in English who published two books on - 1, the anthology of poems and another Sunny Reveries. This has been quoted by many authors in their books. He He participated in the World Congress of Poets in Bangkok in 1988. His name has been included in the Cambridge Bibliography of English Poets. He was a member of the Hyderabad Poetry Society. His poem has been referred by an author who has published a book "Naha, S. (n.d.). Page 51 Cricket, Public Culture and the Making of Postcolonial Calcutta. United States: Cambridge University Press.". This book is published by Cambridge University Press. This is quite a notable publication.
4.He hails from a remote village being born in not-so-urban area with very little access to education.
5. He educated himself under trying circumstances and passed a tough Indian Civil Services exam and rose to higher ranks in AP Government.
6. He has written on many topics in leading Indian Newspapers under his name and some as Pseudonyms.
7. If the page exists and is seen by the current generation of Youngsters of this area where he was born and where he lived, he will be a seen as a role model for the current generation youngsters to study IPS civil services exam and serve the Country and rise to higher ranks.
8. Ramachandra Murthy Says in Hans India - He was seen as a man with a rare combination of discipline, honesty and scholarship, KVVS was an exemplary top gun who minced no words and spared none when it came to discharge of duties.
This page will serve as a role model for aspiring government servants when such values are in a decline these days.
9. In the Bulletin for Centre for Policy studies, Mr. I.V. Chalapathi Rao writes: “Sri K.V.V. Subrahmanyam is
a retired IPS officer who held prestigious positions, in Govt. of Andhra Pradesh and distinguished himself in
administration as Home Secretary. By propensity he is a poet. He is not only a noted poet but also a wise
philosopher, independent thinker and humanist championing the cause of probity in public life and peace
in the world. The present anthology of poems is a vindication of his reputation as a constructive critic,
conscientious change agent and a visionary. Such values are on a decline nowadays. We are going to see the 10th death anniversary of this distinguished soul and should be recorded for posterity and constant remembrance and recapitulation for the current and coming generations.
10. There are many reliable references from AP State Govt included in the External reference. Need to think through and try to include this inline.
These are some of the reasons why the page should exist and not be deleted. Kbala1055 (talk) 15:04, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: I looked into this and changed my !vote above, I couldn't find anything that meets SIGCOV showing notability. I assumed because of their position they would have sources, but none showed up. Presumption does not equal automatic notability.

Source assessment table: prepared by User:TimothyBlue
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
Hyderabad (15 July 2013.). "Retired IPS Officer Passes away" 'The HINDU', ENGLISH Daily newspaper. No OBITS have uncertain sources related to independence Yes No Obit, uncertain editorialship, normal problems with OBITS. ✘ No
Ramachandra Murthy (26 December 2013). "A no nonsense saintly top gun". The HANS INDIA (Hyderabad). Retrieved 26 December 2013. No news portal - https://www.thehansindia.com/pages/aboutus No authorship, sources, and editorial independence is impossible to V. No promotional ✘ No
Official directory.(1975). India: Ministry of Home Affairs. No Government / Employer website No Government / Employer websites do not contribute to notability. No Directory listing, not SIGCOV. ✘ No
The Civil List of Indian Police Service. (1986). India: Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India. No Government Employer website No Government Employer websites do not contribute to notability. No Directory listing, not SIGCOV. ✘ No
https://www.newindianexpress.com/states/andhra-pradesh/2022/apr/02/splendid-performance-by-visakhapatnam-steel-plant-in-2021-22-2437056.html Yes Yes No Does not mention the subject of the article. ✘ No
State Administration Report. Page 271. (1976). India: (n.p.). No Government report No Government / Employer websites do not contribute to notability. No Name listed, not SIGCOV ✘ No
A.P. Year Book. Page 408. (1979). India: Hyderabad Publications & Newspapers. No Year book No Year book No Failed V. Even if it didn't this is not a source for notability. ✘ No
(Hyderabad. 2 October 2011. pp. 14 of 16). "Book review - Sunny Reveries by KVV Subrahmanyam", 'Bulletin of the centre for policy studies, vol 16, No. 1', English Periodical. No Work written by the author unknown No Not about the author, No SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and in depth. ✘ 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}}.

There was also a section for External links, none of which meet WP:EL, most failed V and Ind. Since they were not links and most failed V, I removed them.[5]  // Timothy :: talk  19:48, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Tim,
These are some of points I would like to mention on your assessment: I feel your assessment is to be changed to Green on many points mentioned below.
The HINDU is a very popular daily newspaper in India. This is a news item that was published by a special correspondent. This is an independent news as the correspondent is no way related to the person KVV Subrahmanyam. The sources are reliable and independent. So that should be green. HINDU has significant coverage in South India.
I do not know how you say Govt published documents are not independent. The authority who publish in the Govt. of India are no way related to the person KVV Subrahmanyam. They are totally independent of the persons they are documenting. Suppose they publish directory of IPS officers from 1960 to 1975, they get the list of IPS officers data from reliable sources in the Government and there is no way they all can be related to person publishing it. So Govt sources are independent.
Similarly, the review is done by "Bulletin of the centre for Policy Studies" is not by KVV Subrahmanyam but on the work done by KVV Subrahmanyam. The Centre for policy studies is based in Vishakhapatnam which is 150 kms away from the place Hyderabad where KVV Subrahmanyam lived and died. They are not connected and the it is an independent review. Kbala1055 (talk) 12:14, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I noted some of my points that I observed. If this page is to be retained, kindly request you to let me know what steps need to be taken. Request to provide some help. I have added helpme in my talkpage.

  • Delete - fails GNG: does not have significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. (I’m seeing at most one only - Hans India). Springnuts (talk) 07:21, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. I have ignored the SPAs wihich appear to have an interest outside of Wikipedia policy in this article remaining. Courcelles (talk) 12:57, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Massinissa of the Rif[edit]

Massinissa of the Rif (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)

Possible autobiography. The page is constructed as a series of credits and has already been pruned of a lot of dead wood. The page seems to be supported by a series of ip editors and the pagecreator. The infobox image was uploaded by the pagecreator and incorrectly (or improperly) credited to "Unknown." There are a number of statements about this BLP subject which the applied sources do not seem to support, that is, the page is detailed separately from applied sources. I'd be happy to be shown I'm wrong. BusterD (talk) 21:46, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Royalty and nobility, and Morocco. BusterD (talk) 21:46, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Delete, vaguely promo for a "social engineer". No coverage found, even in French, the name is common enough that you get plenty of hits for his father/someone with a similar name who was a freedom fighter. Oaktree b (talk) 22:42, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Keep. I think what you mean in the first sentence where is said that the subject is a social entrepreneur which I believe (and please do correct me if I am wrong) is different from being an actual social engineer. Also, the fact that he is related to the freedom fighter Mohammed Ameziane makes this subject even more notable. Barcelona12345 (talk) 14:26, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 08:05, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. My web-search hasn't found anything good. Suitskvarts (talk) 14:35, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Keep per significant coverage. Subject is notable not just because of his animal rights, environmental and Amazigh activism and advocacy, but received coverage regarding his philanthropic work as well as notability in social media platforms. The international media coverage is in Catalan, Spanish and English, including widely respected and influential outlets such as GQ Magazine, La Vanguardia, ABC, EL País, The New Arab and others; [6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23][24][25][26][27][28][29]. As to one of the points made in this discussion, his notability, does not have to do with certain members of his family like Mohammed Ameziane and Salima Ziani although it is impossible to deny that having as a great-great-grandfather Mohammed Ameziane who has been widely covered by historians and journalists helps. The real issue I find is that most of the articles appear to use various different names like Massin Riggs, Massin Akandouch, Massinissa Akandouch, Massinissa or Massinissa of the Rif. If we adhere to what the subject calls himself on social media sites, the correct one would be Massinissa of the Rif; [30][31] as also shown in recent media coverage: [32][33].
    Subject has also gained certain notoriety within the fashion world, having being featured in the fashion magazine GQ as well as attending fashion shows at Paris Fashion Week [34][35] which makes it likely that there could be even more notoriety in the future. Although it isn't the most important information that should be reflected in this article.
    I have added a Template:BLP sources and a Wikipedia:Manual of Style to continue improving this article. I suggest adding "[Citation needed]" on unsourced sections or where the source of the information may not be fully clear. Barcelona12345 (talk) 09:24, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Keep per significant coverage. I do not think the Subject lacks notoriety nor media coverage. Especially within the field of activism as well as per his family role in anti-colonialism in Morocco. I suggest that the page is restricted from being allowed to be edited by non-Wikipedia editors. MariadeEuropa (talk) 10:37, 13 March 2023 (UTC) — MariadeEuropa (talk has made few or no other edits outside this topic. BusterD (talk) 16:18, 14 March 2023 (UTC) [reply]
  • Comment I have nominated this page for deletion. I believe it is the result of connected editing (a policy violation) and have placed evidence in my nomination. I will not make undue effort to help others keep it. The burden is on those adding material to anchor it with appropriate reliable sourcing and obey copyright policies in so doing. Nobody is restricting anyone from editing this page. IMHO the page was written and supported by non-Wikipedia editors. But that's not my rationale for deletion. Adding a list of gsearch bare mentions neither improves the article nor contributes meaningfully to a keep outcome in this process. Wikipedians must build a page from sources, not write the page and then go back later for proof. BusterD (talk) 00:57, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment I believe there has been more than enough proof of notoriety for to subject have this Wikipedia article. Having been covered as the main headline or mentioned in the article in outlets such as GQ Magazine, La Vanguardia, ABC, EL País, The New Arab and dozens of other international media outlets. I have edited multiple articles related to titular royalty and nobility and the subject not only has enough notoriety for his own activism, philanthropic and fashion work but also because of him being the great-great-grandson of Mohammed Ameziane, one of the first anti-colonial leaders in African history who was and still is highly covered by historians and journalists who also held noble the tribal royal of Amghar and Prince of the Rif .
    Following this logic, articles from "titular" royalty, such as Prince Achileas-Andreas of Greece and Denmark, Clotilde Courau, Mafalda (British singer) and hundreds more should not have their own Wikipedia articles, yet these are kept as the subjects are relevant in current history due to their ancestors. Why should not this be the case for the subject, who's notoriety does not even come from his noble ancestry.
    One of the biggest issues of this article is that majority of the sources are written in English, although there are English sources from famous outlets like GQ Magazine, The New Arab, Hespress and UNILAD. The best solution in my humble opinion is for to article to include a Template:Expand language and perhaps another template as this discussion would not happen in the subject's Spanish article since notoriety would not need to be discussed yet even in English it is important for the article itself to be kept for non-english readers who are interested in the subject. Barcelona12345 (talk) 19:06, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Another of the issues is that User:Barcelona12345 has !voted keep twice and only two single-purpose accounts have so far supported their assertions. So it appears to be four keeps, when it's actually just one rambling keep, spread out all over the process. BusterD (talk) 19:35, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I think there is enough proof of notoriety that justifies the existence of this article, especially looking at the sources having dozens of media articles from different countries where the subject is mentioned. Although I see there is a large amount of vandalism and there is a lot to be improved, especially typos and unsourced statements. I am going to request for the article to be semi-protected to avoid any further vandalism.PharaohWakanda (talk) 15:06, 15 March 2023 (CET) — PharaohWakanda (talk has made few or no other edits outside this topic. BusterD (talk) 16:18, 14 March 2023 (UTC) [reply]
  • Weak delete. I've long thought that royalty are not automatically notable, absent significant coverage of such items as scandals and charity work. This instance is really marginal. Willing to change my mind. Bearian (talk) 17:40, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment. Hello Bearian, the subject’s notability does not nearly at all come from his royal great-great-grandfather Mohammed Ameziane, one of the first anti-colonial leaders of Morocco.[36] The subject gained mainstream notability around 2019 due to his environmental, animal rights and Berber-rights activism, for which he gained media coverage from international outlets such as GQ Magazine, La Vanguardia, ABC, EL País, The New Arab..., the activism also caused mainstream controversy, mainly in Spain, which made large corporations and government attack him. [37][38][39][40]The subject's notability is currently mostly due to his charity work and collaboration and work with luxury fashion brands and in the fashion world.
    As I previously argued, in my humble opinion, the subject’s notability is not only due to his royal lineage, but due to his own achievements in activism, charity-philanthropy and fashion work which is significantly higher notability than other “titular” royals whose little coverage only stems from being members of non-reigning families. The only “problem” is that most of the subject’s mainstream coverage has been written in Spanish and Catalan, although still holds a lot of coverage from international English outlets such as GQ Magazine, The New Arab, Hespress, UNILAD...
    Following this logic, articles from "titular" royalty, such as Prince Achileas-Andreas of Greece and Denmark, Clotilde Courau, Mafalda (British singer), Princess Alexandra of Hanover (born 1999) and hundreds more should not have their own Wikipedia articles yet they do for similar achievements/level of notoriety. Why should not this be the case for this subject, whose notoriety does not even come from his royal ancestry?
    The best solution in my humble opinion is for the to article to include a Template: Expand language and perhaps other templates as this discussion would not happen in the subject's Spanish article since notoriety would not need to be discussed yet even in English it is important for the article itself to be kept for non-English readers who are interested in the subject.
    For the previously explained reasons, I believe there is more than enough proof of notability for the subject to have its own Wikipedia article due to popular interest, mainly in countries like Spain and Morocco. Thank you for everyone’s time. Barcelona12345 (talk) 17:54, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There are many sock votes. I checked sources above and most of coverages are passing in mention. Clearly non notable and seems like a promotion article with not formal photo. The creator is related with WP:COI. The article photo was personally taken by the article creator...so clearly a COI issue. 2001:44C8:4877:384F:6063:98E9:657C:D317 (talk) 11:24, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note to Admin CU is really needed on keep vote accounts which has made few or no other edits outside this topic, and new acoounts. @BusterD: the nominator do something on keep vote accounts that may related to the creator. I suspect sock.2001:44C8:4877:384F:6063:98E9:657C:D317 (talk) 11:33, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Eddie891 Talk Work 22:06, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kazim Can[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Kazim Can (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
  • I'm nominating the article for the second time as there were no comment on the other one. I think the OP has some UPE articles and this is one of them.

The person is fails to meet general notability criterias — Toghrul R (t) 20:12, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 07:04, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Quest Global[edit]

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

Most of the coverage is routine-based like acquistions and mergers or press releases published by the company. Clearly fails WP:CORPDEPTH. US-Verified (talk) 19:51, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Salvio giuliano 20:08, 11 March 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. Courcelles (talk) 12:55, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sadanand Maiya[edit]

Sadanand Maiya (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 entrepreneur, fails WP:SIGCOV. US-Verified (talk) 19:49, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Salvio giuliano 20:08, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. The first source is a big artcle in Forbes India. And it is "staff". It surely has some quotes of the guy, however, it's not an interview. RS or no RS? Suitskvarts (talk) 15:02, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm also wondering about the Forbes India article. Indian sources can be very tricky, there are a lot that are basically paid advertising, but this article doesn't feel like that. For me this looks like one instance of SIGCOV. That isn't really enough; I'd like to see two more. (The other two sources merely prove the books listed actually do exist.) An article that long in Forbes makes me think there ought to be others out there. Unfortunately we've got transliteration issues to deal with. Valereee (talk) 15:40, 12 March 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 The Family Man (Indian TV series). Randykitty (talk) 08:59, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Srikant Tiwari (The Family Man)[edit]

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

Not enough in-depth coverage to show notability, some mentions, but nothing truly in-depth. Fails WP:GNG. Onel5969 TT me 13:25, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect It’s a well written article with some good sources, but I’m not sure about the notability. Per WP:PRESERVE I’d recommend redirecting. It’s also a plausible redirect since the character seems fairly popular and iconic. Dronebogus (talk) 10:43, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

User:Onel5969, please specify what more should be added to the page of Srikant Tiwari (The Family Man) in order to save the page from deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shish Kar (talk • contribs) 04:38, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 13:43, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Salvio giuliano 20:03, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect per WP:PRESERVE. There doesn't appear to be quality sources that pass WP:SIGCOV. But a redirect will allow someone to expand it with international coverage. Shooterwalker (talk) 02:18, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect sounds like a reasonable ATD.  // Timothy :: talk  01:26, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 07:05, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Aequs[edit]

Aequs (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)

Routine coverage; fails WP:NCORP. US-Verified (talk) 19:55, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Salvio giuliano 19:57, 11 March 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 Sigma Alpha Epsilon. Any material worth merging is available from the article history. Randykitty (talk) 16:21, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Abner Edwin Patton[edit]

Abner Edwin Patton (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)

Fraternity founder who was a low-ranking casualty in the Civil War, not seeing WP:GNG-bearing coverage here. The University of Alabama holds a collection of his letters, but that's a primary source. Most of the coverage that exists of him is brief mentions in lists of Sigma Alpha Epsilon founders.

The only substantial coverage I can find is in "our history"-type publications from the fraternity he founded. As that coverage is not independent of the subject, it cannot contribute to meeting WP:GNG. Hog Farm Talk 18:56, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Military, Fraternities and sororities, and Alabama. Hog Farm Talk 18:56, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Thank you for alerting us that this rather stubby article wasn't up to snuff. I was surprised it wasn't tracked on our Watchlist, where it should have been listed. --Not all founders are noteworthy, but I think this one is, and we aim to monitor all blue linked founders names. I have added it to that watchlist, so the increased attention should prompt editors to improve it. My quick search of the category's standard reference book, Baird's Manual, found Abner Patton noted as a Founder in all editions of that book, first published 144 years ago, thus meeting the significant bar re: external coverage. Other non-trivial coverage in the national magazine or Banta's Exchange should provide other acceptable sources. I have updated the article, fixed several formatting errors, added two additional external references, and vote to !keep. Jax MN (talk) 19:51, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    To what depth does Baird cover the article subject, are we talking a mention as one in a list of founders, a few sentences, multiple paragraphs, many pages? And what are you referring to with [o]ther non-trivial coverage in the national magazine or Banta's Exchange? Ljleppan (talk) 19:58, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep - Although two out of the sources (Anson (1991) & Baird (1905)) of this article are primarily covering social college fraternities (such as Sigma Alpha Epsilon which Patton had co-founded), still his ties to the 11th Alabama Infantry Regiment along with the fact that the University of Alabama Libraries Special Collections preserves his letters to his family more than a century later signals some historical merit to this encyclopedic piece. AmshitBalcon (talk) 20:10, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Answering Ljleppan, Baird's commonly lists name, date, class and role of founding members of national societies. Our practice in these Fraternity and Sorority articles, to provide clarity, is to note the founders of national groups (but certainly NOT each chapter). Some of these are blue linked to articles, many are not. As Mr. Patton is a non-publicity seeking person, being long deceased, a war casualty and founder of an important and notable national group, I favor keeping and improving the article. It just needs citations, and probably a photo and some additional history on his role. I conclude the reason it is still a stub is that it was mistakenly not picked up for improvements by our Project. That error has now been corrected. I've begun to search for helpful coverage, as Wikipedia is a work in progress. The rush to delete is unwarranted, and example of "Deletionism" versus the more helpful and comprehensive approach of "Inclusionism".
I also thank you for bringing it to our attention. Even though your own search didn't find citations, mine did, and Project participants will look for more. The rules regarding Deletion require competence, and elaborate on this, saying that This means articles, categories or templates should not be nominated in a routine fashion, nor because one feels too lazy to check for sources, or if the content is still being built or improved. --Thus I hope that the nominator sees this as an opportunity to fix the article, thus helping Wikipedia to be more inclusive. Jax MN (talk) 20:20, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That is a very long text that doesn't answer my rather simple questions in the least. Ljleppan (talk) 20:32, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but a respectful answer sometimes requires a few lines. I answered you in the first sentence. Further, Project volunteers have expanded the page significantly since the original nomination with more context, adding a number of references, including inline citations. Jax MN (talk) 00:20, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I agree the case for notability could be stronger but he is one of seven founders of the world's largest fraternity and served as that organization's first president. He is included in an Alabama State Historic Marker. His Civil War record may or may not be significant, but I found his Civil War letters reproduced in a book and the originals are part of a university archive. I added content and numerous sources to the article and suspect there is more to be found. The biographical summary by the university archives is a secondary source and can count toward significant coverage. There are at least two other references that provide significant coverage. Furthermore, Patton is mentioned in publications that are located outside of Alabama, such as Boston, Virginia, and Oklahoma and the nationally published Baird's. Although some of these references are just mentions, they nevertheless prove his notability is national, rather than local. Rublamb (talk) 00:59, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Sigma Alpha Epsilon as he fails WP:GNG and his only claim to notability and all the RS relate to that fraternity rather than him. Mztourist (talk) 04:06, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Sigma Alpha Epsilon as an alternative to deletion. Relevant notability guideline is WP:NBIO, which (because the subject does not fall under any of the additional criteria) reduces to WP:NBASIC/WP:GNG. The identified sources are insufficient to establish the subject passes NBASIC/GNG, because they are either non-independent, hyperlocal, unreliable, and/or passing mentions. The keep rationales above do not address these deficiencies with notability-establish sourcing, and the other reasons presented are invalid. For example, the notability of the fraternity is not a factor per WP:NOTINHERITED. Similarly, his letters being in an university archive is inconsequential, as they do not raise to the level of WP:AUTHOR. Also irrelevant are his ties to 11th Alabama Infantry Regiment: there is no WP:SNG for soldiers, and even if there was, he certainly would not meet it. Please do ping me with a detailed WP:THREE analysis (including a clear description of depth of coverage, both in terms of what is discussed and the raw amount of text focusing on the subject in specific) if you believe my interpretation is not correct and I'll happily reconsider my !vote. -Ljleppan (talk) 06:22, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I could provide the three articles, but instead will conceed to @Mztourist's point that his only claim to notability is the fraternity. I have added some of the content and sources I found to that fraternity's article in anticipation that a redirect will be the reasonable outcome of this discussion. Having said that, I don't think this is a case of WP:NOTINHERITED. Founders of institutions, businesses, etc. frequently have articles in Wikipedia as there is a difference between being a member and being a founder. Rublamb (talk) 16:26, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source assessment table: prepared by User:Hog Farm
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
Collection: Abner E. Patton Letters". University Libraries Special Collections, The University of Alabama No Patton's own writings Yes No reason to assume unreliability Yes Presumably ✘ No
Myhre, Erik L. (2007). "The History of Sigma Alpha Epsilon: Part One: 1856 - 1865". Washington State University (published 1997) No This appears to be a publication of a chapter of the SAE Yes No reason to doubt it No Mentions Patton in two sentences ✘ No
Jones, Walter B. (1951-03-05). "Off the Bench: Sigma Alpha Epsilon". The Montgomery Advertiser Yes Yes The source is a major newspaper No Two sentences of coverage ✘ No
Levere, William Collin (1911). The History of Sigma Alpha Epsilon Fraternity. Vol. 1. Chicago: R. R. Donnelley & Sons Company No The books is copyrighted by the organization he founded Yes Yes The article discusses the subject directly and in detail ✘ No
Ball, Marie (April 12, 1981). "Pattons Meet". The Tuscaloosa News. pp. 16A. Retrieved March 11, 2023 – via Google Books. Yes Yes The source is a major newspaper No Source is primarily about his relatives and only mentions him in passing ✘ No
Baird, William Raimond, ed. (1905). "Baird's Manual of American College Fraternities" (6th ed.). New York: The Alcolm Company Yes Yes No Mentions him in a list of founders with no detail ✘ No
Stewart, Austin and G. W. Lambert. March 29, 2018) "Levere Memorial Temple, Sigma Alpha Epsilon." Clio: Your Guide to History ? Unclear if author is affiliated with SAE ? probably not - The Clio is moderated user-generated, but still user-generated No Doesn't have much to say about Patton ✘ No
Owen, Thomas McAdory (1921). History of Alabama and Dictionary of Alabama Biography. S. J. Clarke Publishing Company. p. 1247. Yes Yes No Passing mention in description of SAE ✘ No
"Sigma Alpha Epsilon Group Will Observe Anniversary". The Daily Oklahoman. Oklahoma City, Oklahoma. Yes Yes No Mentions him in a list of founders with no detail ✘ No
Anson, Jack L.; Marchenasi, Robert F., eds. (1991) [1879]. Baird's Manual of American Fraternities (20th ed.) Yes Yes ? Can't access source, but presumable is largely equivalent to the similar source 6 ? 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}}.

Source assessment table: prepared by User:Hog Farm
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
"Brothers' Mark Sigma Alpha Epsilon Centennial". The Boston Globe. Yes Yes No Very brief mention of him getting killed ✘ No
Burial Records : Abner Edwin Patton". Hollywood Cemetery. No Public burial records not independent Yes No Only gives grave location and years of birth/death ✘ No
"Fraternity Honors One of Its Founders". Richmond Times-Dispatch. Richmond, Virginia. 1951-09-13 Yes Yes Yes ✔ Yes
" Lurding, Carroll and Becque, Fran. (February 19, 2023) "Sigma Alpha Epsilon." Almanac of Fraternities and Sororities. Urbana: University of Illinois Yes Giving it the benefit of the doubt here Yes ditto as above No Not significant coverage of Patton ✘ No
Carr, Timothy (April 8, 2010). "Sigma Alpha Epsilon Historical Marker". Historic Marker Database Yes No HMDB is user-generated No Patton is mention as a founder in a list ✘ No
"Tuscaloosa". Alabama Historical Association Yes Yes No Passing mention of Patton ✘ 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}}.

So I just went through and evaluated all of the sources cited in the article. I think the best bet here is going to be to redirect to the fraternity, where there is some coverage of him, as Patton doesn't seem to have done anything noteworthy besides found the organization. Hog Farm Talk 16:58, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I disagree with you that a redirect is the 'best bet' on this one. The article should be kept. This is an arbitrary rush to !delete or otherwise !redirect. In good faith several of us have substantially improved the article. There is a strong precedent to A), list fraternity founders, B) provide articles about some of them. This gets to the nub of the Deletionist versus Inclusionist argument on Wikipedia: The resource (Wikipedia) is far more valuable if we aren't so heavy with the broomstick. We have the disk space; many of this long-deceased person's fraternity brothers would be interested in the article, and there is no doubt that he existed and that he did what is purported. As a work-in-progress, editors are finding more and more secondary sources to quote. Sources on this particular individual are likely to be in physical books, which require time to collect.
Big picture, I myself use the GNG lens to review articles about living persons, and especially their works. Too often, these are publicity-seeking. This is not the case here. Rather, this article offers a fair summary about a person who is notable, and was even more notable in the past. And I remind us all, Wikipedia rules state that notability does not decrease over time.
Let us continue to improve this article, now that the broader Project group is aware of it. Jax MN (talk) 17:23, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Answering Hog Farm, Thanks for your work on this. Very thorough and thoughtful. I believe the first source should be independent because I used the webpage content written by archival librarians at the University of Alabama, not the content of the archival collection which consists of letters Patton wrote during the Civil War. Also, The Clio is frequently used as a source in architectural articles in Wikipedia (I am a member of WP Architecture). Most of its content is written by scholars or their students, and only known scholars from approved organizations can edit and add content. Regardless, your assessment of its coverage is correct. Ludwig is also independent—refer to the Almanac of Fraternities and Sororities at the University of Illinois. This work was published and is hosted by the University of Illinois library. Lurding, the original author, was a member of Delta Upsilon, and Dr. Fran Becque, its current editor, is a member of Pi Beta Phi and a noted greek letter scholar. Again, the independence of the resources doesn't make this a significant coverage, but should probably be reflected in your table above. Rublamb (talk) 20:39, 13 March 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. not precluding a move somewhere Eddie891 Talk Work 22:08, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

King Kong (franchise)[edit]

King Kong (franchise) (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 franchise. Article is pure original research. King Kong as a concept is public domain and as this article clearly itself states several companies own incarnations of the character. ★Trekker (talk) 18:17, 11 March 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 Warhammer 40,000#Chaos. The policy based reasons are making the far stronger argument here. Courcelles (talk) 12:50, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Chaos (Warhammer)[edit]

Chaos (Warhammer) (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)

Aspects of the lore of a fictional setting. Consists almost only of a summary of the fiction (WP:NOTPLOT), has almost no inline references (WP:V) and cites no sources that are independent from the company producing the fiction (WP:GNG). There are many fan wikis for such material, but Wikipedia is not one of them. Sandstein 18:12, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Shooterwalker: As BOZ has indicated, "Chaos" is one of the main factions within Warhammer 40,000. So it's not suprising that the article covers their characters/troops, territories, mythological overlords and metaphysical underpinnings, and to me it makes sense to have that in one place as the broader topic, as long as individual sub-topics don't have so much material that they should have a separate article. Daranios (talk) 11:35, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    That makes sense, even if I still think the article has a confusing and WP:INDISCRIMINATE scope. A redirect or selective merge would be an acceptable solution. Shooterwalker (talk) 03:46, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or Merge to Warhammer 40,000#Factions considering sources found by Daranios. BOZ (talk) 02:45, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    A merger wouldn't remedy the content issues explained in the nomination. The problem is that the present content is fancruft that Wikipedia is not a suitable place for. A deletion and redirect to Warhammer 40,000#Chaos (also unsourced...) would be better, as it would allow editors to develop sourced content there and conceivably spin it off later again if it becomes too large. Sandstein 13:45, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - This has been here for over 20 years. Tons of people were involved with it and few of them are going to be here in this debate, due to how old this article is. The attempt may not to be to WP:GAME but that's what indirectly happens as the people involved have moved on and can't make their case. There's tons of references and it has a lot of information that would not fit in a merge. I'm really not aware of the media ever dedicating large bios to characters in games since everything that we get told about the characters is fact. I also don't see what the gain is from removing it. The site doesn't become better without it and people who want that information are either not going to have access to it or will just go to other sites.Additionally, since there's other alien races listed, my concern would be that the same logic would be used to delete those too.KatoKungLee (talk) 14:09, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Warhammer 40,000#Factions. Entirely fictional cruft, but deleting would be somewhat pointless when it's a valid redirect. Not deleting would allow it to be recreated if someone could prove notability, per WP:ATD. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 16:19, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This needs trimming the plot summary, sourcing and addition of analytical material. But I believe the topic is notable, based on the sources listed above and others. And some of the plot-summary would be kept, so I do not think it is a case of WP:TNT. I've also shown at short examples that some of the material can be sourced with secondary (and of course primary) sources. Obviously I would prefer a selective merge to Warhammer 40,000#Factions to deletion, but to me that's the second-best solution only. Daranios (talk) 15:12, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Major facet of a major fictional world. Plenty has been written about it. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:48, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:50, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or redirect the empty page to Warhammer 40,000#Chaos: This represents the spirit of WP:GAMEGUIDE and WP:FANCRUFT in the extreme. 5000 words dedicated to detailed in-universe plot exposition that makes MOS:FICTION sweat at night. It's bad when the fan Wikia, Lexicanum, has a more tightly edited page on the faction than we do. ([41]) To those who are concerned about a large amount of content being removed -- there are multiple Warhammer wikis that don't have the same standards that we do where the content could be helpful. Nomader (talk) 05:15, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Nomader above. There comments fit perfectly.  // Timothy :: talk  01:50, 19 March 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. Randykitty (talk) 16:09, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

1958 East Pakistan–India border skirmish[edit]

1958 East Pakistan–India border skirmish (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)

Only sources that talk about this insignificant skirmishes are Pakistani sources (most of them unreliable).

Overall, the subject fails WP:GNG. Aman Kumar Goel (Talk) 12:07, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Some of them are about the same person "Major Tufail Mohammad", like Dawn. The battle itself lacks significant coverage in reliable sources. Sources such as [44], [45] and [46] confirms that this skirmish failed to have WP:LASTING impact.
A much bigger skirmish happened in 1956 where 4 Indians and 10 Pakistanis were killed after Pakistan moved its artillery in the disputed territory.
These skirmishes commonly happen. For a name, they happened even this year but we don't have article on it yet per WP:NOTNEWS. Aman Kumar Goel (Talk) 15:30, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't a border skirmish - there's been a ceasefire since 2021. This is just Indian forces claiming a "Pakistani infiltrator" was killed in line with the Indian narrative that the Kashmir insurgency is caused by insurgents entering from Pakistan. H&K G3A3 (talk) 07:10, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - India outright crossed the border and occupied an East Pakistani village, which Pakistani forces subsequently retook. This is much more notable than, and therefore not comparable to the frequent exchanges of small arms and artillery fire before the 2021 ceasefire, or Indian forces claiming they've killed infiltrators from Pakistan (the credibility of these claims is non existent). H&K G3A3 (talk) 07:24, 6 March 2023 (UTC) Sock[reply]
  • Delete Could be a minor skirmish but I haven't seen significant coverage in any WP:HISTRS sources. Georgethedragonslayer (talk) 12:31, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge a factual event in a notable long term conflict, so it should be merged with a another article. There are several history and politics articles where this information would fit.  // Timothy :: talk  14:41, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I'm going to try to work on the article, I think I found some sources, which if they don't show notability could still be merged; hopefully close could be delayed ~12hrs.  // Timothy :: talk  14:53, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 17:46, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete minor border incident, with few mentions in any kind of publications 50-some years later. Oaktree b (talk) 01:27, 12 March 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. Randykitty (talk) 13:05, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Archduchess Agnes Christina of Austria[edit]

Archduchess Agnes Christina of Austria (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 classic genealogical entry. No in-depth coverage detected. There was a routine coverage of her wedding. That is not enough to warrant a standalone article about her. Her being born, married, having children, and attending a wedding before dying is hardly something Wikipedia needs to report. Surtsicna (talk) 05:43, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Women, and Austria. Surtsicna (talk) 05:43, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The main source was terrible, I have improved on that. I would agree that Archduchess Agnes Christina of Austria is probably not an important figure, but notability as defined in the WP:GNG is nothing to do with importance. Whether everyone likes it or not, royal and imperial genealogy was significant at the time and still is, for the period in question: the idea of a non-notable emperor's granddaughter must I think be wrong, as there are sure to be many more reliable sources giving significant coverage. Far more harm than good is done by the aim of deleting ruling family genealogy from the encyclopaedia the world is coming to rely on. Moonraker (talk) 23:14, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia very explicitly is not meant to host genealogical entries; WP:NOTGENEALOGY is no less than policy. Her being someone's granddaughter does not warrant a Wikipedia biography (see WP:INVALIDBIO) because relationships do not confer notability (see WP:NOTINHERITED). If there is enough in-depth coverage to justify having this article, please do cite it. Merely saying that there must be sources is not quite enough, I'm afraid. Surtsicna (talk) 23:57, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Which section of What Wikipedia is not is your redirect aimed at, Surtsicna? Obviously, we are not a repository for genealogical stuff in general, like Ancestry.com. But, inevitably, there is an awful lot of the genealogy of ruling families here, because it gave individuals great power, including women, at a time when they couldn't get it otherwise, triggered civil wars, and was a large part of national power struggles. You seem to want to take bricks out of that wall, contrary to Jimbo's plan of "all human knowledge will be here". I have added a couple of good English-language sources and am sure there are much better German-language ones. Moonraker (talk) 13:54, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOTGENEALOGY: Wikipedia is not a directory of genealogical entries. This article is nothing more than a genealogical entry. It records nothing but whom she married; to whom she gave birth; and who her parents, grandparents, great-grandparents, and great-great-grandparents were. If she was of any national importance, as you seem to suggest, you will probably be able to cite in-depth coverage that proves her encyclopedic notability. But as it stands now, her mere existence is no reason to have an article about her. Surtsicna (talk) 16:12, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
On the contrary, I said above "I would agree...probably not an important figure". Thank you, I now see the section, which says "Genealogical entries. Family histories should be presented only where appropriate to support the reader's understanding of a notable topic." And that is my point, I have yet to come across a non-notable imperial family. Moonraker (talk) 22:43, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
WP:INVALIDBIO: "That person A has a relationship with well-known person B, such as being a spouse or child, is not a reason for a standalone article on A (unless significant coverage can be found on A); relationships do not confer notability." Also, she was born a decade after her family became commoners, so there is no imperial family to even talk about. Surtsicna (talk) 23:19, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Moonraker is right. I have to disagree with the reasoning by Surtsicna here in support of deletion, and feel that the OP has not considered any alternatives to deletion. As I've said in other discussions today, there are ALWAYS alternatives to deletion. Existing sources appear to show notability, regardless of what the OP believes. I think they should have done a deeper dive into sources on this topic BEFORE an AfD. I have seen this faulty approach in other AfDs where users believe that an AfD will "improve" a page but that is not true, as it puts the page in a sort of limbo instead. Anyway, if the page is kept as a result of this discussion, I hope that the OP will help improve it and make it a better page, as I've been in some AfDs when the discussion has ended, and the original OP does nothing to help improve the page.Historyday01 (talk) 03:59, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The existing sources are two genealogy publications and one that is routine news coverage. You have not attempted to provide any evidence of in-depth coverage that would prove the subject's notability. Surtsicna (talk) 06:28, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question: Why is the Archduchess article up for deletion but the article about her spouse Prince Karl Alfred of Liechtenstein is not? The entries are virtually identical. Comment: Five other-language Wikipedias have articles on the Archduchess. jengod (talk) 08:12, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    See WP:OTHERLANGS: "A notable topic will often be covered by Wikipedia articles in many languages other than English; however, the existence of such articles does not indicate, by itself, that a topic is notable. Other Wikipedias may have different inclusion criteria from the English Wikipedia.". It may also be that the other Wikipedias simply haven't gotten around to deleting them, either. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 00:00, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOTGENEALOGY, which is policy and cannot be overridden by local consensus, no matter how hard the "keep" opinions above attempt to do so. Sandstein 08:21, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Wikipedia:Ignore all rules and because deleting Archduchess Agnes Christina of Austria while preserving her partner Prince Karl Alfred of Liechtenstein with an identical useless aristocratic bio is like an absolutely perfect and pure lab-grown example of unexamined misogyny jengod (talk) 10:16, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    That's a prime example of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Deletion nominations cannot be bundled, as far as I know, and the article about her husband can (and probably should) be discussed separately. Surtsicna (talk) 18:09, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Just FYI, nominations can in fact be bundled, and often are for similar enough articles. The question is, should these two be? Ehh, it's kind of a toss-up, but possibly not. Either of the two may or may not be notable on their own, independent of the other. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 23:59, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Fifteen years on Wikipedia and I did not know that. Or I did and forgot. Anyway, I would not have bundled them anyway, because I would not want both articles kept because of her husband being briefly heir presumptive to a micro-monarchy (itself no reason to have an article about him). Surtsicna (talk) 09:46, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    His fr.wiki article is in far better shape. Curbon7 (talk) 16:54, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. This one is interesting. On one hand there are WP:NOTGENEALOGY concerns, while on the other hand this must be balanced against WP:GNG and WP:INDEPTH coverage by WP:RS. Shawn Teller (talk) 16:42, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 17:15, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. There is currently no evidence of notability. A quick search (although not as deep a dive as some people have access to, I'm sure) didn't reveal anything more. As others have already noted, what's here is purely genealogical, plus one wedding announcement. I'm happy to reconsider if someone can dig up some sourcing, but until then, I don't see it. This may be moot at this point too, but I'm especially puzzled at the article title. As far as I can tell from poking around. there was no monarchy in Austria at the time of her birth (or at any point after), meaning the title is fictitious, and the article should have been under her real name. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 23:59, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Royalty and nobility-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 09:26, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Wikipedia is not a webhost for genealogies of claimant nobility. There is nothing that indicates this archduchess being at all notable. No sources providing significant coverage appear to exist. Curbon7 (talk) 16:54, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Great-granddaughter of an emperor and sister-in-law of a ruling prince. People like this are generally considered to be notable by reliable publications and were even more so in the past. She was notable in her lifetime, and notability is not temporary. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:45, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Reliable publications do not decide notability; Wikipedia decides notability based on the existence of reliable sources discussing a topic. And unless you've got some hidden up your sleeve, this !vote is complete fantasy not based on policy. Your argument flies completely in the face of NOTINHERITED. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 16:47, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah, somebody else who does not appear to understand the concepts of WP:IAR and WP:BURO and that AfD is an expression of opinion. We are deciding notability. That's what AfD is for. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:54, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    So you're essentially admitting that your rationale for keeping is WP:ILIKEIT, lack of sources be damned. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 17:05, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Royalty fancruft. WP:NOTGENEALOGY, WP:INVALIDBIO, WP:NOTINHERITED). There are no sources with SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth; nobility may be inherited, but notability is not. All the keep votes are saying is WP:ILIKEIT and WP:THEREMUSTBESOURCES.  // Timothy :: talk  01:58, 19 March 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. Salvio giuliano 19:43, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nimsod State[edit]

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

This page is a hoax; there are no mentions of a "Nimsod State" anywhere on the internet before November 2021, the only source directly linked isn't particularly trustworthy, the state does not appear in any maps of the period nor on wikisource, it does not appear in Imperial Gazetteers and is not mentioned anywhere on Wikipedia before the month the article was created. Evidence of the state's non-existence is outlined here Telebeam 17:00, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Mhaswad Jagir is related and might be a hoax as well as the page's creator is the same and the article itself is associated with Nimsod State. Telebeam 17:11, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Gharge-Desai (Deshmukh) is also related to these articles and, while it is much older than the others (made in 2009), also appears to be a hoax. Telebeam 01:23, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and India. Shellwood (talk) 17:12, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as a hoax. None of the linked refs mention the entity and neither does anything else reliable. Mccapra (talk) 17:13, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - fails WP:V, thank you for flagging Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 10:13, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, Per nom. fails verifiability. Alex-h (talk) 13:46, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: It may also be worthwhile to contact an admin from Italian Wikipedia (User:Pil56?) as this hoax article exists there as well [47]. Curbon7 (talk) 14:08, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    if you delete the entry, "ping" me and I'll also delete it from wiki-it --Pil56 (talk) 17:17, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment-- I am suspicious as the article says the capital was Nimsod city but WP has no such article. I could believe that this was the domain of a petty rajah, but if so, it was probably NN. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:43, 18 March 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. No need to draw this out even more, consensus is clear. Randykitty (talk) 21:56, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Beny Wagner[edit]

Beny Wagner (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)

BLP lacks in-depth coverage in independent sources. MrsSnoozyTurtle 11:12, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Scrimgeour, Alexander (February 2014). "Openings: Beny Wagner". Artforum International. Retrieved February 18, 2023.
But whether there is additional coverage of him in art and film-focused media, I do not know. SilverserenC 21:25, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Shawn Teller (talk) 14:02, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 14:33, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Looks like consensus is developing to keep, but Relisting to get more participation and be certain before closing
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Shawn Teller (talk) 16:59, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. The first two films in the trilogy have attracted enough critical attention to give him a pass at WP:FILMMAKER in my opinion. Some sources do include interviews, but even if we ignore the interview parts of the sources, the remainder gives us enough to meet criterion 3 of the subject matter notability guideline. I added content and sources and organised the article better before making this comment. CT55555(talk) 19:41, 11 March 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. Vanamonde (Talk) 21:30, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Anupam Mittal[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Anupam Mittal (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)

Created anew and absolutely in good faith (see User_talk:Titodutta#Moving_of_Draft_into_mainspace) but the underlying issues of the prior AfDs remain. While not a G4, I don't think continuing as a judge on Shark Tank India is sufficient enough to cross the barrier he hadn't reached at the prior AfDs. If this closes as delete (or even a redirect) I think it should be protected to enforce AfC. Star Mississippi 04:27, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:08, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - I think it is enough. Given that there are many dubious pages which have been largely untouched since before 2007, I really don't see why this one is coming around again so quickly. JMWt (talk) 08:18, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: plenty of significant coverage here. Suspicions about the creator of the article might go somewhere, but they do not go to notability. Moonraker (talk) 20:38, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:18, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: A search brings up plenty of independent coverage. I agree with Moonraker that past issues with this article's creation are not an issue for AfD. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 15:38, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting for a more clear consensus. It looks like consensus may develop to keep, and more participation might help make this clear.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Shawn Teller (talk) 16:45, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Definite Delete: All of his coverage is routine for Shark Tank show and not what he is notable, that’s why his page is getting rejected from the last 5 years. His PR team has been trying to hire news publication & their people to get news published about him. He is a non-notable entrepreneur similar to everyone out there whose company got funded. Block his page creation. I am sure, after seeing this delete vote, he will hire more people to have a Keep vote. 2409:40D4:1004:F9B6:E9FC:9313:DB65:AA3C (talk) 05:20, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep- @2409:40D4:1004:F9B6:E9FC:9313:DB65:AA3C: I think we should channel our attention more on the subjects if it meets notability or not, than assumptions of paid PR without evidence. From sources he has presently there seems to be enough to prove notability.Epcc12345 (talk) 06:50, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
He definitely fails notability as an entrepreneur, no company where he has executive role. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2409:40D4:1004:F9B6:E9FC:9313:DB65:AA3C (talk) 13:14, 13 March 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, withdrawn by nom. (non-admin closure) Kj cheetham (talk) 19:02, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Foucault gyroscope[edit]

Foucault gyroscope (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.

The article has two secondary sources. The "Instruments of Science" source is an extremely brief mention. The Wiley source is a little more detailed, but I'm not seeing sufficient coverage for an whole article.

The article calls it a "Foucault gyroscope", and claims it is was a "prototype" of the "modern" gyroscope. This is false, it was simply a gyroscope, and the term "Foucault gyroscope" is Original Research. (The Wiley source uses the phrase "Foucault gyroscope", but if you read the source, this is not intended to imply it was A Thing.)

My proposal is deletion, and put a brief description of the experiment in the Léon Foucault article instead. cagliost (talk) 16:34, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Withdraw since secondary sources added. cagliost (talk) 18:04, 11 March 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. Courcelles (talk) 12:42, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

2023 PDC Qualifying Calendar[edit]

2023 PDC Qualifying Calendar (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 single in-depth source, fails WP:GNG, nothing but primary sources and simple schedule mentions. See WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Onel5969 TT me 16:32, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep I wouldn't use too many words, the same applies to this page as to the main calendar page.
   With your logic, which is simply incredible, a lot of pages could be deleted, without being exhaustive:
   https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2023_ATP_Tour
   https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2022_ATP_Tour
   https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2021_ATP_Tour
   https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_ATP_Tour
   etc etc etc etc....
   Or I could put hundreds of other sites with the same references here. Your posts are characterized by total confusion, but I'd 
   rather not go into that.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Szpity88 (talk • contribs) 21:14, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Providing a list of tennis articles is of no use. It's quite plausible that the tennis articles are notable but the darts one isn't, since tennis events perhaps get more coverage that darts events. See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS in WP:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. Nigej (talk) 15:45, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Once again the same pseudo-argument. Just because you don't watch darts doesn't mean articles related to this sport aren't notable. Who determines what is sufficient media coverage and what is not? It looks like you should read the guidelines you post here yourself first. Penepi (talk) 10:53, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No indication that this passes WP:GNG. 2023 PDC Calendar has a list of qualifying events. The current article expands on this by listing all the qualifiers. While the full calendar may be notable, I couldn't see anything that indicates the "Qualifying Calendar" is something that is talked about. It's not obvious to me whether the lists of qualifiers is really notable and, if it is, why the information can't be in the main 2023 PDC Calendar. Nigej (talk) 15:40, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Useful, informative and well sourced. Penepi (talk) 10:53, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, unusefull, no sources, no prose, fails GNG. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 22:22, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Sources are listings, mentions, nothing that is SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth. There is absolutely no sourcing for notability. Keep votes have failed to show sources demonstrating notability, just stating WP:ILIKEIT and WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS.  // Timothy :: talk  02:08, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. The one "keep" !vote is not policy based. Randykitty (talk) 14:50, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Uncle Sinner[edit]

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

WP:BLP of a musician, not properly referenced as having a strong claim to passing WP:NMUSIC. The notability claim is essentially that his music exists, which isn't automatically enough in and of itself absent significant achievements (notable music awards, chart success, etc.) and/or the reception of reliable source coverage about him and his work to externally validate his significance -- but the referencing here is entirely to blogs and primary sources, with not a shred of WP:GNG-worthy reliable source coverage about him shown at all. Bearcat (talk) 16:21, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - The artist has been published in reputable magazines (fRoots) as well as published print material (Unprepared To Die: America's Greatest Murder Ballads And The True Crime Stories That Inspired Them), I will update the page references to reflect this as I agree with you and Doomsdayer520 that online blogs are not reliable sources. The artist also maintains a high stream count on Spotify, the track 'Let The Devil In' nearing 300k streams, and 'Oh Death' now at over 100k. NWK47 (talk) 20:26, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Per Wikipedia policy, number of streams is irrelevant for this type of debate in which notability is being assessed. See WP:NMUSICIAN, where there are 12 criteria that can help a musician achieve notability, and you will see nothing about streaming counts. Meanwhile, the appearance in fRoots Magazine may help, but the article is copied at the blog by Paul Slade that is already cited, so it will add no new information. The book "Unprepared To Die" may also help but it is also by Paul Slade, who appears to repeat singular interviews around multiple platforms. Thus, there is still a shortage of reliable info with which to build an encyclopedic article for Uncle Sinner. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 23:47, 15 March 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 15:08, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Rinx Neon[edit]

Rinx Neon (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)

Moved from afc after multiple declines and rejection, can find no evidence whatsoever of passing WP:GNG. Theroadislong (talk) 15:39, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 19:25, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bhargabi High School[edit]

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

Appears to fail WP:GNG and WP:NORG by a long way according to my searches. No indication within the article as to why the school is notable enough for inclusion. If you wish for this to be kept, please respond with examples of WP:SIRS for this school. Redirecting to List of schools in Odisha was considered but I deemed it inappropriate because that list is only for notable schools. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 14:55, 11 March 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 15:05, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

INews (TV program)[edit]

AfDs for this article:
INews (TV program) (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 declined a WP:G4 nomination on this article as there were more sources than in the previously deleted version. However, I think the spirit of the previous AfD - there just aren't enough sources, period - is still there, so a fresh discussion is warranted. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:14, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

i very useless this made article got the warning deletion articles
RuddyKurniawan11 (talk) 14:29, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: No evidence of notability in reliable sources, all the sources are primary and for the original network of this program. Fails WP:GNG. M.Ashraf333 (talk) 15:36, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Can't find enough in-depth coverage to show it meets WP:GNG.Onel5969 TT me 20:40, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sandstein 19:24, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of countries and territories by extreme temperatures[edit]

List of countries and territories by extreme temperatures (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)

Information already present in List of weather records#Temperature. This page also suffers from poor formatting, no consistent ordering, and a large amount of missing values and bad sources. Chaotic Enby (talk) 13:51, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 19:23, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jack Harris (footballer, born 1993)[edit]

Jack Harris (footballer, born 1993) (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)

Brief professional career and can't find any evidence that he meets WP:GNG or WP:SPORTBASIC, the latter clearly states that database sources are not sufficient. Searches in English and Greek ("Τζακ Χάρις") failed to yield any decent sources. Can't see any WP:ATD as he isn't mentioned in Enosis Neon Paralimni FC due to not being a significant player in their history. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 13:50, 11 March 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. Community consensus sets a relatively low bar for accepting nominations at AfD and this one does make a claim for a lack of notability (albeit in the most limited way possible). However, there's overwhelming consensus that the subject passes the WP:AUTHOR and WP:PROF SNGs, so a WP:SNOW closure appears appropriate. Regards, (non-admin closure) Goldsztajn (talk) 21:48, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jessica Chen Weiss[edit]

Jessica Chen Weiss (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 WP:N Samp4ngeles (talk) 13:29, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notable author of Powerful Patriots: Nationalist Protest in China’s Foreign Relations, passes WP:NAUTHOR. Articles about her in many high profile publications, often interviews, which I think also giver her a WP:NPROF pass for C1. Examples include:
  1. https://foreignpolicy.com/2023/03/08/us-china-economic-competition-policy/
  2. https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2023/02/20/us-deter-beijing-taiwan/
  3. https://www.wbur.org/hereandnow/2023/03/03/china-us-house-competition
Also independent coverage of her views here:
  1. https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/us-should-reject-chinas-harris-mccarthy-taiwan-compromise (brief mention)
  2. https://kraneshares.com/a-refined-approach-to-china-jessica-chen-weiss-on-us-china-relations/ I note "Jessica Chen Weiss is trending right now. After a high-profile New Yorker feature, she is being characterized as the embodiment of a refined approach to China in Washington"
  3. https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2023/03/08/xi-jinping-china-us/
And many more, but I won't go on too long, she seems very notable. (I made article improvements and added the book after the nomination and before making this comment) CT55555(talk) 14:56, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep based upon sources already present in the article at the time of nomination. (1) Her first book received at least six reviews in relevant publications (I've found this essay an interesting examination of how that can lend notability to the author) (2) profile in The New Yorker is undoubtedly sigcov contributing to notability, as likely is The Diplomat (3) she is widely cited as an expert in US-China relations in both foreign affairs publications and general interest media (i.e. WaPo, Foreign Policy, The Atlantic interviewed on both NPR and NYTimes as an expert on this subject), meeting WP:NPROF C7. (4) holding a named professorship at an Ivy League institution arguably meets NPROF C5. Any one of these would contribute to at least a borderline notability, together they make notability clear. Eddie891 Talk Work 15:10, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Additionally, selection to advise the US Policy Planning Staff further establishes her reputation as an expert outside of academia, contributing to C7. Eddie891 Talk Work 15:23, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep, she holds a named professorship so that alone is enough for NPROF C5. JoelleJay (talk) 16:55, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep per WP:SK3, "The nomination is completely erroneous. No accurate deletion rationale has been provided." The named professorship was in the second sentence of the article as nominated and there is no evidence from the extremely brief nomination statement that the nominator even considered academic notability, nor performed any WP:BEFORE for GNG-notability. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:24, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep: I have to question if the nominator even read the article they have nominated. Curbon7 (talk) 18:33, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment @User:Samp4ngeles Please consider if you should WP:SNOW withdraw this nomination. Deletion seems unlikely. CT55555(talk) 19:16, 11 March 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 15:05, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lucas Stenhouse[edit]

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

Not enough in-depth coverage to show they pass WP:GNG, was draftified but returned without significant improvement. Onel5969 TT me 12:10, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 19:23, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Himalaya Secondary School[edit]

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

No refs on the page, I can't see much that would count towards the GNG. There appear to be several schools with similar names including Himalaya Higher Secondary School, Damak, Jhapa which may or may not be connected but may confuse when searching for sources JMWt (talk) 11:43, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and Nepal. JMWt (talk) 11:43, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • To add, if that Higher school is a different school, I doubt it is notable either. JMWt (talk) 11:47, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - strange to see that this article was created in 2007, five years before this school was established! The article was hijacked recently, indicating that there are likely at least two schools of this name in Nepal. I can't find any evidence that any of the schools with this name are notable so this should be deleted but with no prejudice against recreating if someone is able to demonstrate that there is significant Nepalese coverage at a later date. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 22:45, 13 March 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 Kōji Seo. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 15:06, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Cross Over (manga)[edit]

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

No evidence of notability. The article only relies on primary sources. Xexerss (talk) 11:11, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Anime and manga and Japan. Xexerss (talk) 11:11, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Kōji Seo; fails WP:NBOOK. It's not licensed in North America or Europe so sources are unlikely to exist outside of Japanese and I couldn't find anything in Japanese that would be count towards WP:NBOOK. Link20XX (talk) 15:09, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Kōji Seo; there is only one statement (Cross over was serialized in...) on this article that is not plot-summary or similar. Further it has been tagged with a notability concern since 2013. Bensci54 (talk) 16:55, 13 March 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. Consensus is that this is a notable topic, but needs a lot of work and possibly stubification. Sandstein 19:23, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lagrangian coherent structure[edit]

Lagrangian coherent structure (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 written mostly by a single-purpose editor (User:Georgehaller) who explain on their talk page that they coined the term, and who authored almost all of the cited sources. The issue seems impossible to fix because the article is overly technical. It has seen no edits to content since 2016, when the main author was notified of their conflict of interest. Ariadacapo (talk) 10:26, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science and Mathematics. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 10:37, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I took a glance at Google Scholars and it seems that it is used in many papers not written by George Haller. WP:DINC should apply here. I am not confident in this vote so I am marking it as a comment.
  • Keep A Google search shows that the concept appears in many independent sources and practical applications. The COI isn't really a problem because the article doesn't read as promotional. It does read as having a pile of bricks fall on your head, but thats a feature of almost all of our maths articles. small jars tc 16:10, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It's very possible to oversell one's own scientific work. Consider language like LCSs are, therefore, ideal tools for model validation and benchmarking. The person who coined the term and cited his own writings about it isn't in a place to say things like that.
    Notability of a scientific concept can't be read off the results of a Google search. XOR'easter (talk) 23:18, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes it can be, when it reveals dozens of reliable sources which either have their primary subject as the topic, or use it as the primary method in a modelling application. I have not linked any sources here only because of their abundance. I'll admit that the article has some tone problems, but they're mostly WP:NOTESSAY, not WP:POV issues. It repeatedly compares LCSs to classical invariant manifolds, but noticeably focusses on their technical differences and avoids stating that one is necessarily more useful than the other. small jars tc 23:44, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    If the mere existence of many sources using the words were sufficient reason to keep the article, then one wouldn't even have to run a Google search. The reference list is right there already. The problem here is that the current article text is so thoroughly COI-laden that there is a real question of whether even seemingly bland, flat statements can be trusted. If it's unencyclopedic in tone, organized in an unilluminating way, cited to sources that might or might not be the right ones because the author is including his own papers whenever possible... then there's a legitimate possibility that we're in a blow it up and start over situation.
    It's also possible that a term occurs in many reliable scientific publications but is better off being treated as an aspect of a larger topic, rather than being given its own article. An example that just sprang to mind is Kraus operator: Google Scholar finds about 2,900 results, versus about 1,100 for Lagrangian coherent structure, but it doesn't really make sense to give the concept of a Kraus operator its own article instead of explaining it within the article on POVMs or quantum operations, which is why Kraus operator is a redirect to a section of the latter.
    It's very possible that when all these factors are considered, the best course of action is to keep the article, but they are factors to consider. XOR'easter (talk) 14:54, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • If kept our article would need a lot of work, but it is about a notable topic. The Google Scholar search linked above does indeed find many peer-reviewed papers written by others about the topic, and there are some books about it.[57][58] Phil Bridger (talk) 10:15, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The latter is a master's thesis, which is probably not a reliable source. The former is a bachelor's thesis, which is even less likely to be so. XOR'easter (talk) 15:00, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for correcting me on the books, but I still believe that the topic is notable based on the papers found by Google Scholar. Would you be able suggest any article as a redirect target? Phil Bridger (talk) 21:15, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Nothing seems quite the right fit, though it's been a while since I've poked around this corner of the encyclopedia. Fluid dynamics might be a little too broad for the purpose, but it could be a place to start looking (if it turns out that we can't save the page and need a redirect target). XOR'easter (talk) 00:08, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep A simple WP:BEFORE-style search on GScholar shows several reviews that could serve as secondary sources for the article. Reviews [59], [60], [61] are written by others, and one Annual Review of Fluid Mechanics article written by Haller[62]. There may be others; that is as far as I looked. Unless I am missing something subtle, the topic looks notable and seems to satisfy WP:GNG. In reading the article, there is a lot of good information that is reasonably neutral in tone. But I could believe that there may be some sections that are of undue weight, the intro has too much hype, and sources are indeed biased toward Haller. The article needs a neutral tone, other secondary sources, and possibly a due weight makeover, but I'm not convinced that the problems rise to the point that the article needs WP:TNT. In that essay, TNT is recommended in cases where the content and editing history are all near useless or are actively harmful. I am happy to reconsider if I am missing something big here. --{{u|Mark viking}} {Talk} 20:57, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It would be a big job, but if the notability case is persuasive, one way forward would be to stub the article down and build it back. Writing a new introduction based on and pointing to sources written by others would put non-COI content first and foremost. Material from the current version could be brought forward as it's checked out. Just a thought. XOR'easter (talk) 00:17, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Maybe I am missing something too - but one paper (which is dedicated to the subject) alone from the article references shows highly cited by secondary sources - and therefore should meet notability: 689 documents have cited: Lagrangian coherent structures and mixing in two-dimensional turbulence And: WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP. ResonantDistortion 23:13, 14 March 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. "Delete and merge" isn't possible. Sandstein 19:21, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

2018–2020 Irish anti-immigration protests[edit]

2018–2020 Irish anti-immigration protests (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)

Previous to the creation of this article, it's creation was discussed on Talk:2022–2023 Irish anti-immigration protests#Scope. The creator of the article asked for feedback about the 2018 to 2020 period, and was informed by two other users (myself and another) that the period between 2018 to 2020 was not an interconnected phenomenon in the same way the protests in 2022 to 2023 were. Another user was more open to the idea, but felt the information should be kept strictly to the already existing 2022–2023 Irish anti-immigration protests article. I think the creator made this new article in good faith but went against consensus to do so, and made a number of other errors in the process.

The new article is a clone of 2022–2023 Irish anti-immigration protests and includes sentences copypasted from the original, but simply tweaked to say 2018. This is highly problematic for a number of reasons. Firstly, this means that the new article is a work of WP:Synthesis and WP:Original Research. While there were a few isolated incidents of anti-immigrant protests in Ireland in that period, none of the sources used in this new article indicates that they were interconnected, as the sources in 2022–2023 Irish anti-immigration protests do. Secondly, the new article is immediately rife with inaccurate information; the 2018 to 2020 protests were against "direct provision centres" for long-term refugees, rather than "temporary refugee shelters" for short-term refugees fleeing the war in Ukraine, so this in an immediate obvious error. The new article, cloning the old article, mentions the presence of far-right elements in these protests, but the source is from 2022 and the source is discussing the 2022 to 2023 period. This is another immediate obvious error/misattribution.

The new article is thus filled with many inaccuracies and muddles events that occurred in the 2018 to 2020 period with events that occurred in 2022 and 2023. This new article should have been much better researched and written if it was going to be written at all, which I don't think it should have been all things considered.

As the creator was already encouraged, I think the creator would be better served working on the background section of 2022–2023 Irish anti-immigration protests rather than creating a separate, new article. CeltBrowne (talk) 09:35, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Proposer's argument is quite muddled, and mischaracterises talk page contributions made by other editors. There was a series of anti-refugee protests in Ireland from 2018-20, and another ongoing series started in 2022. The debate, with four contributors, was over whether to move the 2022-23 article to include the first series of protests, or to start a new article to cover them. The new article was started soon after the proposer voiced opposition to including the subject matter in the 2022-23 article. Now they seem to be in support of inclusion.Stara Marusya (talk) 10:44, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As I've clarified on the 2022-2023 talk page, I always opposed the creation of a new article, but if people were adamant about discussing 2018 to 2020, I said was open to that being included in the background section of 2022-2023. I've reread what I said in my original comment and I still think I was fairly clear about that.
Regardless of what I said, two other editors also voiced their opinions. One said either make a new article or expand the original, and the second replied they preferred the idea of expanding the original.
From two editors saying they opposed a new article, and a third being on the fence, I'm not sure how you still came to the concussion that a new article was where the consensus was going. CeltBrowne (talk) 11:20, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Per proposers last comment, I refer anyone interested to Talk:2022–2023_Irish_anti-immigration_protests#Scope. Proposer makes reasonable points about state of current new article, which was intended to be a collaboration and not a finished product. These problems can be fixed without much effort, but who wants to edit a page that's proposed for deletion? Stara Marusya (talk) 11:50, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. The nominator seems to be right that none of the sources used in this new article indicates that [these protests] were interconnected, which is the core of the issue. The article doesn't cite any sources that treat these events as a single phenomenon or a series of collected events, and I haven't been able to find any (by contrast, there are plenty describing ongoing protests in those terms: [63], [64], [65], for example). As such, there's no basis for an article on this topic. Stara Marusya seems to be right that some of the issues raised by the nominator are fixable, but that's really moot here as there's a deeper-rooted WP:OR/WP:N problem. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 15:09, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Core? Nominator was the only to raise interconnectedness in the discussion. The Journal article discusses connections between the earlier protests, and the connections between some of the later ones don't appear to always be as strong as implied. Also, why delete? Nominator seems to want to merge. Stara Marusya (talk) 20:47, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and merge any relevant content to the pre-existing 22/23 article, per the consensus on its talk page. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 13:25, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Consensus? Stara Marusya (talk) 19:37, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to Abbeyhill railway station. North America1000 10:46, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Abbeyhill Junction[edit]

Abbeyhill Junction (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 discussion with the relevant WProject, I'm nominating this for deletion. It's not a major part of the rail infrastructure, there's only passing mention in RS I can find and there were no refs on the page for many years before I added one yesterday. JMWt (talk) 09:39, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect/merge to Abbeyhill railway station Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 10:14, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. If there are sources, provide them. If not, well, this is what happens. Sandstein 19:19, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Aubrey Morantz[edit]

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

Ambassadors are not inherently notable. Unreferenced and fails WP:BIO. Those arguing for keep should not just say WP:MUSTBESOURCES. LibStar (talk) 09:26, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If you were to look, you would see my point that sources are easy to find. I see there is a sudden explosion in the proposed deletion of diplomats. Your campaign does not improve Wikipedia and ought not to be encouraged. Moonraker (talk) 04:04, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Moonraker, If sources are "easy to find", can you provide these sources? A search through newspapers.com did not return anything providing WP:SIGCOV, just some minor mentions. A general search also returned very few sources (such as [66][67]) with none being WP:SIGCOV. Curbon7 (talk) 05:35, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Curbon7. LibStar (talk) 08:56, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Curbon7, the question comes down to what is significant coverage. The 35 articles you found at newspapers.com are a pretty large number for someone claimed to be non-notable. We would not expect a biography for someone living. WP:BIO calls for "significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject." No doubt you also found some coverage in Google books, as I did. If I had time, I could make a solidly referenced article here, but like other content-creators I am too busy to do it in a hurry, simply because an obsessive editor is determined to cull ambassadors. If this anti-ambassador campaign is allowed to continue, dozens, or more likely hundreds, of diplomatic articles will not develop into useful content, and the people who create them will be intimidated into not starting more. If anyone thinks this is good for WP, I do not. Moonraker (talk) 02:59, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:ADHOM. If you continue with personal attacks, I will report you. LibStar (talk) 03:04, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Moonraker, As you'll know as an experienced editor, passing mentions, such as [68] or [69], do not constitute significant coverage. None of the newspapers.com results even come close to being an edge-case; they are all passing. No doubt you also found some coverage in Google books; no I didn't actually, or at least nothing significant. I could make a solidly referenced article here, but like other content-creators I am too busy to do it in a hurry; sourcing of modern Anglo-sphere political figures is really not that difficult. Curbon7 (talk) 03:21, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Moonraker has been asked repeated times to demonstrate existence of sources. Despite this Moonraker has not produced a thing. LibStar (talk) 03:33, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Curbon7, I agree with that last point, at least so far as the English Wikipedia is concerned, but I doubt if you are saying that we should therefore treat "political figures" as less notable than others. And information on people who deal with international affairs is inherently more useful to this encyclopedia than that on people who deal with local or their own affairs. I agree that an ambassador can prove to be non-notable, but I do not agree with a presumption of it, and I am most unhappy about the level of the campaign against ambassador biographies which is now such a large part of the Afd jungle. Moonraker (talk) 03:41, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Where are the sources you refer to as "easy to find"? LibStar (talk) 03:44, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have answered that above. Moonraker (talk) 03:53, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Ambassadors are not "inherently" notable just because they exist, and have to be shown to pass WP:GNG on reliable source coverage about their work — but there's none being shown here, and all I see above is an argument that GNG-worthy coverage exists being made by somebody who isn't making any effort whatsoever to actually show any of it. But WP:NEXIST only comes into play if notability-building sources are actually shown, not if the existence of such sources is merely asserted — so if you think that GNG-building coverage is out there, then put your money where your mouth is. Bearcat (talk) 17:26, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - not enough in-depth coverage to show they meet WP:GNG.Onel5969 TT me 01:52, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete lacks indepth coverage fails WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 12:26, 18 March 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. Just wanted to add that being a "short" article is not valid grounds or argument for deletion. Liz Read! Talk! 04:18, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Markus Hetzenegger[edit]

Markus Hetzenegger (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 entrepreneur. Sources are either interviews or promo pieces. KH-1 (talk) 08:57, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 08:39, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. “Guy started a company” isn’t a basis for an article. Mccapra (talk) 17:20, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sandstein 19:18, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Iman Qureshi[edit]

Iman Qureshi (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, reads like a resume. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 04:24, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep The sources provided seem to indicate that the subject passes WP:GNG. The resume thing is a problem, but we have a template for that. AfD is not cleanup. QuicoleJR (talk) 20:44, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I have to agree with QuicoleJR in that the page needs clean-up, but AfD is NOT a replacement for cleaning up an article. The OP is clearly ignoring WP:ATD and WP:PRESERVE, which is unfortunate to see.--Historyday01 (talk) 04:12, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The first ref is dead, but [70] is a self-described PR platform so Red XN. [71] is a wordpress blog, Red XN. [72] I can't access, but as it's covering her HS career it needs to be part of prolonged coverage to meet YOUNGATH, and that has not been demonstrated. [73] is not independent, Red XN. [74] is a trivial mention in stats, Red XN. JoelleJay (talk) 21:11, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete prowess as a high schooler doesn't cut it. Yes she made it to Fed Cup qualifying for Pakistan. And then she made it to the main draw of Fed Cop in 2013 but lost and didn't do anything of note. Fed Cup is a pretty good indicator of GNG but in this case it doesn't seem to be. Not notable for anything tennis related other than that 1st round loss. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:14, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:18, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Agree with @JoelleJay, fails to meet WP:NTENNIS and WP:NBASIC. M.Ashraf333 (talk) 07:20, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment did she become a writer? [75] [76] [77] [78]. Pelmeen10 (talk) 15:27, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    No, she seems to be some other person. Insight 3 (talk) 07:45, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just a question - What does this exactly mean: Hold a tennis record recognized by the International Tennis Federation, ATP, or WTA? This subject has a profile at ITF, is that what is required? Insight 3 (talk) 07:48, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Usually that means a record (like fastest serve in history, most wins at a particular event, victim of shortest tennis match, etc...). Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:05, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok, thanks. Insight 3 (talk) 08:39, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete High school talent is not sufficient. She did represent Pakistan in the Fed Cup qualification. She then advanced to the Fed Cop main draw in 2013, lost, and did nothing noteworthy. Fed Cup usually serves as a reliable predictor of GNG, but in this instance it doesn't appear to be. Other than the defeat in the first round, nothing noteworthy in the tennis world.Khorang 17:07, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - meets neither WP:GNG or WP:NSPORTS.Onel5969 TT me 01:51, 18 March 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. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 18:01, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Abid Ali Akbar[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 04:22, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Tennis, and Pakistan. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 04:22, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep- per this source found he seems notable [[79]][[80]][[81]][[82]].For me the article needs improvement not deleting.Epcc12345 (talk) 11:54, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. He's a national title holder in a major sport. BoyTheKingCanDance (talk) 02:52, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete He's won nothing in professional tennis. He has only won school titles which is quite meager. Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:38, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep, per [83] and [84], which actually have SIGCOV. The other two sources presented above are not independent. Whether someone has won in professional tennis is completely irrelevant to GNG, which is all that is required here. JoelleJay (talk) 21:03, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:17, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ñ•ætin👨 (talk) 11:11, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. The sources provided have not been contested. Sandstein 19:17, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Arrowhead Ranch, Arizona[edit]

Arrowhead Ranch, Arizona (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 get nothing but real estate hits for this non-notable subdivision/neighborhood. Mangoe (talk) 04:11, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose The article cites an extended discussion of the place in the Arizona Republic. It also seems to be associated with important strikes in the 1970s [86] [87], [88], and [89]. [90] (the last is a primary source, though). Discussion of the development here: [91]. Furius (talk) 11:48, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Great! Can we add them to the article? It's a stub as is. QuicoleJR (talk) 23:50, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm certainly not adding sources to an article unless and until it is decided that it will not be deleted. Furius (talk) 17:12, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:13, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete the current article about the housing development, which does not appear to be notable, and add any labor action to United Farm Workers. –dlthewave ☎ 15:52, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - this is truly a no-brainer. Was a very well-known ranch from the early 1900s through the 1970s, with literally hundreds of mentions in articles during that time frame. It had a history of being partly owned by mobsters (see here and here) In the mid-70s there were several in-depth articles about a planned development on the farm: see this and this. During the 1970s the farm was involved in several legal matters involving illegal aliens, with plenty of coverage: like this, this, and this. Then there was the purchase for development (see this and this. Then there's the annexation by Glendale, Arizona (see here). Then while it is being developed, there was this, this, and this, not to mention hundreds of mentions. Later than that, it's difficult to find in-depth coverage, not because there isn't any but due to the fact that there are literally tens of thousands of mentions of them in the newspapers, although its sale in 2021 created some stir with this.Onel5969 TT me 01:49, 18 March 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. WP:SK#6. T. Canens (talk) 05:33, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Collapse of Silicon Valley Bank[edit]

Collapse of Silicon Valley Bank (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:CRYSTAL. It should be merged into the Silicon Valley Bank article. User:Dariocister Talk 04:52, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong Keep (snowball keep if there's support). This is an ongoing event, not a future event, so WP:CRYSTAL does not apply. And the notability seems unquestionable. -Elmer Clark (talk) 04:57, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: What? The collapse has happened. To quote the article, Silicon Valley Bank was closed after a bank run, causing the largest bank failure since the 2008 financial crisis and the second-largest in U.S. history. Heavy Water (talk) 04:57, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It isn't gone yet, regulators have assumed control of the organization. So that means it is crystal to say that it is collapsing. Until it is completely withdrawn from the stock market, it still exists. Dariocister (talk) 05:00, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The charter closed. The FDIC controls a successor institution, the DINB of Santa Clara. This is clear from the FDIC press release: Silicon Valley Bank... was closed today... the FDIC created the Deposit Insurance National Bank of Santa Clara (DINB). The whole predecessor institution was transferred to the DINB. DINBs are new banks, established under 12 USC s 1821(m) ("New depository institutions"). The predecessor institution is on the FDIC's failed bank list. Ifly6 (talk) 05:17, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article is unverifiable speculation, rumors, or presumptions? It's not a prediction. It happened today. SWinxy (talk) 04:58, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. WP:FUTURE in this instance seems to refer to scheduled or expected future events. This event is not a future event. It already happened. The FDIC already has a receivership set up; the predecessor institution already closed; the successor DINB is a new institution created for that purpose. All of this is made clear in the press releases issued by the FDIC and by the California state bank regulator. It is further made clear in the context of FDIC resolutions operations (see eg Crisis and Reponse ch 6). Ifly6 (talk) 05:23, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 March 11. —cyberbot ITalk to my owner:Online 05:01, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Cryptocurrency, Business, and Economics. SWinxy (talk) 05:04, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The bank's already failed as per sources and because it was taken over by the FDIC. If you want quibble about the wording of collapse and want to rename the article to "Failiure of Silicon Valley Bank" you can do that but the event's already happened and is significant so there's no need for deletion. Galobtter (pingó mió) 05:20, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep multiple sources cover this. Absolutely a notable event even if the bank somehow ends up back on its feet through some kind of intervention. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 05:23, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep — Per above. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 05:27, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep, definitely not future - would close this as a WP:NAC but I'm not sure if that is allowed for IPs... (long time lurker) 130.64.64.67 (talk) 05:27, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep A current event with ample coverage in reliable sources. As Ifly6 explained, the bank failed. This AfD right now does a massive disservice to our readers. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 05:29, 11 March 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. North America1000 06:24, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Negro Wool Hollow[edit]

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

I don't see how this could possibly meet WP:GEOLAND - finding basically no coverage, GNIS doesn't even know where exactly this is located, and the Ramsey source has only one or two short sentences about it. Pretty much all I've found that unambiguously refers to this place is a single local change.org petition to change the name of this, although I admittedly didn't search too hard under the alternative name. Hog Farm Talk 04:36, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. The only source I can find is https://collections.shsmo.org/manuscripts/columbia/C2366/crawford-county. Historical societies tend to be considered reliable, but it cites a 1944 Master's thesis, which is available here: https://mospace.umsystem.edu/xmlui/handle/10355/82581 Generally Master's thesis are considered not reliable sources, I think.
The author was Zimmer, Gertrude Minnie. The only reference I can find to her is here https://www.cozeanfuneralhome.com/obituary/4962168. She was a librarian and a school teacher.
I downloaded the thesis. It lists the former name once, in a list, with zero context or extra information.
So we know almost nothing of this place, there is not significant coverage, but WP:GEOLAND has a lower bar, but it still has a bar and that bar is above what we have, in my opinion. CT55555(talk) 05:09, 11 March 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. Sandstein 19:16, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Palakunnel Valiyachan[edit]

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

This was nominated for speedy deletion with a poor rationale, but the subject's position did not make him inherently notable, what he actually did isn't exactly clear, and there's no proper sourcing here. Google produces nothing. Drmies (talk) 01:52, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I'll look to see if this guy satisfies WP:NBISHOP but suffice to say I never heard of him in my research on the Malabar Christians. ~ Pbritti (talk) 02:03, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I see no evidence he meets NBISHOP based on the article's own assertions. Regular clergy can always meet the GNG, regardless of their hierarchical office, of course. Jclemens (talk) 17:27, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    He is called as SUBASH CHANDRA BOSE (the veteran Indian freedom fighter and the person who instituted Indian national Army during world war 2) of Syrian catholic History. This comment is made by Mr. MO Joseph a known historian of syro malabar Church. He is mentioned with great reverence in the " Indian Church History" by dr. Xavier Koodappuzha. His personal diary Nalagam was published twice. It is available in Malayalam and is getting ready for third publication. Nalagam is a historical document about the history of Kerala during 1840 to 1880, a first hand information. It also provides valid information about language, culture and social life of Kerala during the rule of British in India 37.231.117.229 (talk) 11:30, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Religion, Christianity, and Kerala. - "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (work / talk) 04:44, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- The article says his diary is an important source for the history of this church in the late 19th century. If so, that might make him notable. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:31, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I have copy of the 2nd edition of the diary 37.231.117.229 (talk) 11:31, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I've added two more general references to the article, a capsule bio and the publication info on his diary. The sources appear to be out there, just not easily accesible or in English. Some unpublished sources[92][93]. Jahaza (talk) 03:23, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:41, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:10, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was merge to Brian Volk-Weiss. Sandstein 19:16, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nacelle (film producer)[edit]

Nacelle (film producer) (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)

Doing this on behalf of 180.150.37.213 on WT:AFD: Company doesn't meet notability requirements. LilianaUwU (talk / contributions) 01:26, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Companies. LilianaUwU (talk / contributions) 01:26, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, everything I can find is either promotional or just a passing mention. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 02:04, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep passes WP:GNG. A major production company that is in news most of the times due to the fact that it is producing TV series, films, documentaries for Netflix and other vod services. I created this page as I found out that an article is missing on this topic. Difficult to sift through hundreds of news stories on Google news and some books. AfD shouldn't be about cleanup. HW Boterman (talk) 23:53, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:01, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge to Brian Volk-Weiss as per WP:ATD below 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. What we have here are references that either talk about the movies (productions) where the company is mentioned in passing (fails CORPDEPTH), or that talk about or interview the execs (fails ORGIND), or ones that regurgitate announcements or PR (fails ORGIND) - all without the reference including any "Independent Content" by was of in-depth original opinion/analysis/fact checking/etc. Topic fails NCORP. HighKing++ 16:12, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge The owner Brian Volk-Weiss has an article. These two pages could be merged. Sagsbasel (talk) 03:04, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge Brian Volk-Weiss looks notable, don't see evidence that Nacelle is independently notable. BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 12:49, 16 March 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. North America1000 06:18, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kai Jurgle[edit]

Kai Jurgle (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:SIGCOV. Unable to find sufficient independent coverage online. JTtheOG (talk) 02:20, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 08:05, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Pierre Léon Gérard Asselin[edit]

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

Ambassadors are not inherently notable. No significant coverage to meet WP:BIO. LibStar (talk) 01:49, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Only a single, far from significant, source. Greenman (talk) 10:25, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sandstein 19:15, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Treason in Arthurian legend[edit]

Treason in Arthurian legend (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:SYNTH issues, article makes a bunch of connections that aren't there, article is all over the place in terms of writing/topic, and the topic is not notable. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 01:23, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment The scope seems to be much more general than just Arthurian legend. I was about to comment that it's just a wp:CFORK of History of treason, and then noticed that that article doesn't even exist. small jars tc 17:08, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I think the SYNTH issues sink this article. Not to mention the lack of coverage on this particular topic, so it fails WP:GNG.Onel5969 TT me 01:07, 18 March 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_March_11&oldid=1145763228"