Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 May 28

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< May 27 May 29 >

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. ✗plicit 23:49, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Fox (American businessman)[edit]

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

Sources are all primary or un-RS. Forbes is a piece the subject wrote. Nothing found otherwise we can use. Oaktree b (talk) 23:49, 28 May 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 Clash (season 5). ✗plicit 23:41, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Rex Baculfo[edit]

Rex Baculfo (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 meeting GNG or MUSIC. Sources used in the article are all mostly youtube or clips form the network. I can't any news sources discussing this individual. Oaktree b (talk) 23:37, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly I agree with this, considering that I originally created the article as a redirect. Yes, Rex has recently won in The Clash (season 5), but each better sources takes long to be released. PJ Santos (talk) 04:06, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 23:42, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

José Silva (parapsychologist)[edit]

José Silva (parapsychologist) (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)

Recent AFC wich not meets GNG. "Sources" findagrave, silvanow and mindvalley are not RSs. Ixocactus (talk) 23:25, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I can't find a previous AFD. Could you provide a link? Liz Read! Talk! 05:37, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Can't find it either. But I distinctly remember such an article. I checked German Wikipedia but cannot find it there either. Sorry. --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:15, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Mccapra (talk) 04:58, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, maybe revisit later. I dispute the claim that he was a parapsychologist. It appears his works were later redefined as paranormal-like to tap that more lucrative commercial market. One of his own lecture ads from 1987: "Mr. Silva who has no formal education, never went to school to learn,...". There are plenty of self-taught geniuses in history, yes, but they have more notability and a wider impact. He appears to have been more of an entrepreneur and lecturer. The article on the Silva Method is sparse at present, which includes a bio section. If notability ever improves, such as a movie made of his life with wide coverage, then revisit as a stand-alone bio, but not as a parapsychologist, imo. 5Q5|✉ 13:08, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 20:25, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was withdrawn. I remain very dubious of the source I questioned, but this AfD has unearthed a much better one.—S Marshall T/C 09:50, 29 May 2023 (UTC)‎[reply]

Gyula Iványi[edit]

Gyula Iványi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This article was originally created by now-sitebanned User:Lugnuts. At the time of its creation it was sourced only to unselective databases. Because it met all the criteria for WP:LUGSTUBS, it was speedily draftified at the end of the second close review.
After this, User:BeanieFan11 moved it back to mainspace on the basis of this source, but I have grave doubts about its reliability. BeanieFan11 was under the impression that the source was a "museum of fencing". I think it's a small Hungarian fencing school, and the .pdf is hardly an academic paper. Please will the community approve this content's deletion. —S Marshall T/C 22:31, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. —S Marshall T/C 22:31, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Ivanyi seems extremely likely notable. The Olympedia piece contains various details and I would argue to be SIGCOV, and the other source seems like something that would be reliable in my opinion. It seems to be a school dedicated to teaching fencing and preserving its history in Hungary, and it says it has a partnership with the Hungarian Military History Institute and Museum (I knew it had something to do with a museum!). The source itself is very in-depth and if reliable would be the second piece of SIGCOV. I'd also like to note that the source at several times mentions how newspapers/books discussed him ("the ... newspapers of the time highlighted that he was the best fencer in the eighth final" ... "Competitive fencing literature rightly considers Ivány the first great Hungarian swordsman,") and that seems to almost guarantee that there's further offline coverage, especially if many sources regard him as "the first great Hungarian swordsman". It also seems he won their first national championship in fencing, too. BeanieFan11 (talk) 22:39, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can't find anything for this person. I think the reference used above is ok-ish. A few more like that, we'd be at notability. Oaktree b (talk) 22:48, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
GNG only requires two pieces of SIGCOV. We've got the Olympedia piece and then the one above. Not to mention that there's assuredly offline sources as this guy seems to have been one of the best fencers of his era and one of the greatest from his country all-time. BeanieFan11 (talk) 22:53, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Olympedia is completionist. It aims to be a comprehensive list of every Olympic accomplishment by every Olympian. Which is a worthwhile endeavour, and I'm glad it exists, but the fact that it is unselective makes it inherently indiscriminate. So Olympedia can't ever be SIGCOV.—S Marshall T/C 22:56, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You're link doesn't say anything about "completionist sources" at all. Nor have I ever seen mention of that anywhere else... BeanieFan11 (talk) 22:58, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Can you really not see the link between "completionist" and "indiscriminate"?—S Marshall T/C 23:00, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry but I'm still not seeing how it would not count as SIGCOV, all I know is that "Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material. BeanieFan11 (talk) 23:03, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's the second bullet point in WP:SIGCOV, yes. The first bullet point says "Presumed" means that significant coverage in reliable sources creates an assumption, not a guarantee, that a subject merits its own article. A more in-depth discussion might conclude that the topic actually should not have a stand-alone article—perhaps because it violates what Wikipedia is not, particularly the rule that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Can you see where that is now? Directly above the sentence you quoted?—S Marshall T/C 23:10, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see how the information in the article is "done at random or without careful judgment" (indiscriminate definition), nor do I see how it is "not put in context" and "not referenced to independent sources" (what it says in your NOT link). BeanieFan11 (talk) 23:18, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A topic gets more notable when a selective source has noted it. When an indiscriminate source has noted it, that source doesn't count towards WP:N.—S Marshall T/C 23:28, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Says what? BeanieFan11 (talk) 23:30, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, I find that query hard to understand. Could you ask your question another way?—S Marshall T/C 23:33, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What says A topic gets more notable when a selective source has noted it. When an indiscriminate source has noted it, that source doesn't count towards WP:N? BeanieFan11 (talk) 23:34, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I did. But I'm not the Infallible Guru of All Wikipedia Policy, so I've asked the experts to confirm or deny my view at Wikipedia talk:Notability#WP:N and WP:IINFO.—S Marshall T/C 23:44, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If we start to exclude sources because they include details on every item in a set then we're on very shaky ground - lots of very reliable entirely authoritative sources do that (say, Oscar winning Best Films, for example). I would also draw a distinction between an Olympedia article with no prose at all about a person, one with brief prose about their sporting achievements only and one with a more detailed biography. Not every profile at all has any prose and I don't think anyone's arguing that an Olympedia profile without any prose is justification for keeping an article. But the subset of profiles which have decent prose seem decent sources. In particular once a profile gets to two decent sized paragraphs I'm fairly convinced we'll be able to find other sources pretty reliably. Blue Square Thing (talk) 07:08, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Hungary Wikipedia page on him seems to have a bunch of offline sources. BeanieFan11 (talk) 22:55, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No evidence that the source is reliable; being published by a small fencing school without any editorial policy or similar makes it self published, and as we cannot identify the author we cannot consider whether the SME exception applies. BilledMammal (talk) 23:03, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • As I said, it seems to be partnered with the Hungarian Military History Institute and Museum (if I translated that correctly) - that would likely be a reliable source, no? BeanieFan11 (talk) 23:05, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      • It might be, but unless the institute is involved in the publication of these documents - and I see no reason to believe it is, being partnered doesn't mean that everything the less reliable entity does is subject to oversight - then whether it is a reliable source or not is not relevant. BilledMammal (talk) 23:07, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
        • From the looks of it, it would seem that the museum would have to have had something to do with it (how else would the fencing school established in 2012 have access to 1900 newspapers, something they cited in the article on Ivanyi)? Also, not sure if this helps, but they seem to have kept a list of newspaper articles discussing them here (you have to click on the images). BeanieFan11 (talk) 23:18, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
          I have access to 1900 newspapers, does that mean a museum has something to do with my work?
          Clicking that link, I only see one newspaper, and it doesn't appear to be relevant. Can you directly link the images you think are relevant? BilledMammal (talk) 23:40, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
          • Do you have access to Hungarian newspapers from 1900? The other newspapers/websites are the ones like [1] and [2] that mention them; the latter seems to be citing them (or at least their founder) for a statement about a historical fencer. BeanieFan11 (talk) 23:49, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Keep, based on the source found below; it appears to be reliable and significant coverage. I will note that it would have been better if editors had looked for such sources prior to moving this article back from draft space; the initial source provided was not suitable and discussion on it consumed editor time that would have been better spent looking for suitable sources. BilledMammal (talk) 01:11, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I found a paywalled Hungarian newspaper archive website, and it turns up over 2,000 results for his name, including one preview that seems to say something like "We indicated in our last issue and read in the sports section of the dailies that Gyula Iványi is the true meaning of the Hungarian swordsman." He looks highly, highly likely notable. BeanieFan11 (talk) 00:57, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I think that the "delete" folks made some valid arguments. But IMO there is enough there to keep. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 02:25, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • At the very worst this is a redirect to some kind of suitable article (Fencing at the 1900 Summer Olympics – Men's sabre for example. The Olympia article by itself suggests that there is the strong probability that other sources will exist to allow the article to be fully developed at a later date. Given the state of the article right now though I'd be entirely relaxed about keeping it - especially given the era he was active in and the sport he competed in. Blue Square Thing (talk) 07:08, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Its clear this has to stay. Themanwithnowifi (talk) 08:08, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Olympics and Hungary. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 09:12, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. ✗plicit 23:43, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Academic regalia of Columbia University[edit]

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

Unclear notability. Very little in-depth independent coverage. Filetime (talk) 20:19, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - Not clear at all to me why this article would be deleted. Also like every year I got to a college graduation to try and figure out who is wearing what and why I come to this page and the one on Stanford, and Harvard, and Oxford and Cambridge and a few others. Jjazz76 (talk) 01:14, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep enough for WP:GNG KylieTastic (talk) 15:13, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep passes WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 20:27, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect‎ to Rayvanny. Everyone that contested this redirect is a sockpuppet and blocked as such. Therefore I've restored the redirect and ECP'ed it. We do not need to spend an entire week debating the actions of a sockpuppeter. Should someone in good standing contest this redirect, then (and only then) would it be worth wasting the community's time continuing a discussion like this. Courcelles (talk) 13:24, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Next Level Music[edit]

Next Level Music (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)

Blatant WP:PROMO. Redirect repeatedly contested. Fails WP:NCORP. Related information at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Muxhi. Jalen Folf (talk) 19:49, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have not understood 197.186.5.253 (talk) 08:49, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Artists they represent as a company MIGHT be notable, this musical company doesn't seem to be. I can't find anything for sourcing. Oaktree b (talk) 22:50, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge This musical company exists but it's too premature for it to have a Wikipedia article. Only two artists under the company with less than 50 recordings under it. PushaWasha (talk) 12:08, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 09:09, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails WP:GNG -- Devokewater 14:17, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - The best I can come up with is [3], [4], [5], and [6]. I have not verified the independence of these sources, but even if they are the epitome of journalistic integrity the sources talk about the launch and plans of the label, and give no indication the label has actually done anything. The awards listed in the article are to be ignored, they are won by the notable founder, not this label. Maybe this will become a preeminent record label in Tanzania or East Africa, but as it stands I don't see how an encyclopedic article can be made from the available sources. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 02:02, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge. This entire proceeding has been mis-reasoned; the AfD was initated because a redirect was contested. That is not a good reason to remove a redirect! If there is promotional re-creation of the article, then protect the redirect instead of making it a redlink. Since the label doesn't have much activity outside of its founder, I don't see much reason for an independent article, but the alacrity with which "delete this corporation" has been decided upon here is totally wrongheaded. Chubbles (talk) 04:52, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. ✗plicit 23:43, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Columbia University commencement[edit]

Columbia University commencement (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)

Unclear notability. Very little in-depth independent coverage. Much of the independent coverage appears to be trivial to actual subject or WP:ROUTINE. Filetime (talk) 19:43, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Has many reliable sources, covers details specific to the topic. It could use a little editing, but not an unusual amount. Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 01:59, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Education, and New York. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 09:09, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Thought I'd be for deleting, since every school has a commencement, and these get local press, but this seems quite good. Hyperbolick (talk) 11:21, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Well done, I think. This university dates back to the US being a colony of England, making this article a documentation of part of our national historical heritage. Although, if it were up to me, I'd eliminate the John McCain profanity quotes, which seem like Clickbait rather than substantive content of the subject. — Maile (talk) 19:40, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:20, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep no issue with this passing wp:GNG - I see no major issue with it. KylieTastic (talk) 15:16, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. ✗plicit 23:44, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kathar Basha Endra Muthuramalingam[edit]

Kathar Basha Endra Muthuramalingam (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)

Kathar Basha Endra Muthuramalingam

Article about upcoming film that does not satisfy the notability guidelines for future films. Unreleased films are only notable if the article content establishes that production itself has been notable. Neither the text of this article nor the sources say anything about production except that it happened. The references are all typical advance publicity.

Reference Number Reference Comments Independent Significant Reliable Secondary
1 news18.com Announcement of release date of film Yes No Yes No
2 ottplay.com Announcement of release of film Yes No Yes No
3 timesofindia.indiatimes.com Another announcement of film, and short interview with actor No No Yes No
4 cinemaexpress.com Another announcement of release date Yes No Yes No
5 ottplay.com More advance publicity Yes No Yes No

This article could be unilaterally draftified, except that there is already a draft, so that the proper disposition is either to delete the article or to merge the article into the draft in draft space. The Heymann criterion is if descriptions of two reviews in reliable sources can be added before the deletion discussion is completed. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:18, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Move to Draft and keep. If 2 notable reviews come will move to main page. Monhiroe (talk) 10:02, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was restore redirect‎ to 400 (number)#431. (non-admin closure) SWinxy (talk) 20:32, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

431 (number)[edit]

431 (number) (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 per WP:Number, and cross checking with 400 (number), this number is already listed on the list of interesting numbers in the 400s, and this article doesn't add much. While I must admit I did not go through the whole process of WP:1729, there is nothing much new added by this article to the list of numbers in the 400s that are interesting. Nerd1a4i (they/them) (talk) 18:57, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 23:45, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Leanne Callaghan[edit]

Leanne Callaghan (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 real notability here outside of being the first female climber to lead "Neanderthal" (a grade VII climb in Scotland), which got her one mention in a UK climbing magazine. Zero SIGCOV in any mainline RS, and she makes tiny appearances in any of the main climbing media (e.g. only logs of her doing a route) as per WP:NCLIMBER. Her climbing career is over now so her climbing notability will not improve. She would not rank as an important British female climber (like Alison Hargreaves) and has no substantive climbing notability. Aszx5000 (talk) 16:04, 28 May 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 Husbands. Aoidh (talk) 14:50, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sarah Reed (musician)[edit]

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

Unsourced article about a non-notable musician. I can only ever locate coverage about people sharing this name, but nothing about this particular artist. Her profile on AllMusic can not provide any useful information to improve the article either. Fails WP:BIO. Tutwakhamoe (talk) 15:41, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 23:47, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

DNSimple[edit]

DNSimple (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)

Relies on primary sources (Company blogs, company slideshow, company announcements) and one user generated content as sources. Only found trivial mentions of the subject online. The article was nominated for speedy deletion in the first ten minutes of creation, and was declined for being "the first DNS provider to offer this capability using a custom DNS record type", a claim that wasn't backed up by any source. Considering that the creating account has only ever edited this particular article, it is highly likely to be WP:PROMO. Tutwakhamoe (talk) 15:30, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 23:45, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Abdulaziz Al-Jalabi[edit]

Abdulaziz Al-Jalabi (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)

Seems to fail WP:SPORTBASIC #5 according to my Arabic searches. The best that I can find are Al Sharq, a squad list mention, and Al Khaleej, which mentions him once in a list of players. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 14:59, 28 May 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. WP:NPASR applies. ✗plicit 23:46, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Rafael Alun Trisambodo[edit]

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

Other than the crime, no in-depth coverage of this government bureaucrat. Delete as per WP:PERP, WP:BIO1E. Onel5969 TT me 10:52, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previous WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:50, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:53, 28 May 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. WP:NPASR applies. ✗plicit 14:17, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Imdad Sabri[edit]

Imdad Sabri (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)

Can't find enough in-depth coverage to meet WP:GNG, and can't see how they meet any of the SNGs. Onel5969 TT me 11:05, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previous WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:49, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:53, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment the current sourcing is pants and I’m not turning up much in Urdu but I did find 1 and 2 and the internet archive has some of his books. The article creator might have done better to focus on his literary corpus rather than his political positions as he was a fairly prolific writer. Not a very strong case so far but I’m not really inclined to delete. Mccapra (talk) 22:33, 28 May 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. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 04:19, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Turkvision Song Contest 2016[edit]

Turkvision Song Contest 2016 (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. Event was cancelled, and except for the organisers Turkvision themselves and Anthony Granger of Eurovoix, nobody seems to have been interested in covering it before or after it was cancelled. Alternatively, all information that might be relevant might be merged into the main article Turkvision Song Contest. The same was done with Bala Turkvision Song Contest 2016 into Bala Turkvision Song Contest. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Azerbaijan in the Turkvision Song Contest 2016 and the deletion of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of languages in the Turkvision Song Contest. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 14:32, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Entertainment and Events. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 14:32, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music and Turkey. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 14:51, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Cyprus, Germany, Latvia, Moldova, Netherlands, Poland, Romania, Sweden, and Ukraine. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 08:58, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Aintabli (talk) 22:31, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Fails WP:GNG, the event itself is not notable enough to warrant keeping an article about a cancelled event, particularly one with spotty information and which largely relies on a single source. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 07:58, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. While some preparations were covered, the actual show, from which most notability stems, was canceled. gidonb (talk) 03:08, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and merge some background/planning details into the main Turkvision Song Contest article. I found reading this article to be very unfortunate and it's a great example of the problems we run into if refs only use primary sources and we don't follow WP:CRYSTALBALL closely. So many things were "confirmed" it seems except the contest itself and even its cancelation seemed opaque. It's hard to gauge the notability of the contest overall given its appeal to a very specific non-English speaking group, but the nominator is right in that even so, it appears that only Anthony Granger was willing to cover the event, and his source for the information for nearly every ref in this article was the contest's own website. Other English hits on Google were mostly mirrors and other wikis. To Nederlandse Leeuw, I would support a further consolidation of the Turkvision articles as I feel the contest itself is likely notable, but not each individual edition or selection process. Grk1011 (talk) 14:43, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree. I don't think all articles about Turkvision need or should be deleted, least of all the main article. But they do need to be brought into proportion with how notable the contest was. A lot of spin-off articles about selection and performance of country/territory X do not seem to be notable enough for stand-alone articles or lists, like the list of languages that has already been deleted with broad support. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 15:34, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, but merge some details into Turkvision Song Contest first. There is important and relevant information here, but not enough to warrant a separate article. Akakievich (talk) 18:33, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment: Azerbaijan in the Turkvision Song Contest 2016 has just been Soft Deleted. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 21:38, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 14:20, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Azerbaijan in the Turkvision Song Contest 2016[edit]

Azerbaijan in the Turkvision Song Contest 2016 (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. Except for ref #2, all refs are eurovoix.com. More generally, this is about a country's possible participation in a cancelled event. How relevant is that? See also previous AfD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of languages in the Turkvision Song Contest. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 13:52, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Relies on a single source and the contest in general is not notable enough to warrant a spin-off article on a specific country's participation for an event that was subsequently cancelled (WP:GNG). Sims2aholic8 (talk) 08:00, 30 May 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. ✗plicit 14:21, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Tamil Maanila Kamraj Congress[edit]

Tamil Maanila Kamraj Congress (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)

Uncited orphan that has been that way since its creation in 2005. Fails to meet WP:GNG, as I was unable to find any reliable sources covering this party in the WP:BEFORE stage. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 13:07, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 05:07, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Question: Fakescientist8000 in your BEFORE process did you search for local / print sources ? Jack4576 (talk) 05:16, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:46, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 14:22, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of religious ideas in fantasy fiction[edit]

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

WP:OR, poorly sourced, fails WP:NLIST. Similar problems are found in List of religious ideas in science fiction and List of fictional religions which likely need their own AfDs. On a side note, this list even confuses fantasy with science fiction (since it lists an example from WH40K). Pretty bad case of WP:NOTTVTROPES too. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 13:06, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science fiction and fantasy, Religion, and Lists. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 13:06, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I can't see much merit in that article as it stands. It would need much tighter definition to be useful. The inclusion of "Good versus Evil" in its "Morality" sub-section broadens its scope to a completely impractical extent; nearly all of fictional literature deals with good versus evil at some level. In any case, morality and religion aren't the same; they overlap, but there are plenty of people and societies that have no religion and nevertheless have morals. I have much more sympathy with a List of fictional religions, because that's defined, and probably someone's written about them, and it's a useful navigational aid for readers. But if the list of religious ideas in fantasy fiction is to be kept, it needs redefinition and extensive pruning. Elemimele (talk) 14:54, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:COATRACK minus the underlying coatrack. Just random things amalgamated into an “article” Dronebogus (talk) 10:36, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The subject matter is interesting and useful. The sections that veers towards WP:OR should have citation-requied tags added. Rick Jelliffe (talk) 00:12, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
WP:ITSINTERESTING + wP:ITSUSEFUL? You are new to AfDs, I gather? Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:06, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. Aoidh (talk) 14:51, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fortress of Amerikkka[edit]

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

The only professional review cited by this article also appears to be the only one that exists for it. I can't find significant coverage. Guy (help! - typo?) 17:29, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. Guy (help! - typo?) 17:29, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:41, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep, there is the review mentioned above (and other, some that were removed just before this discussion started and one that is now on the page). There is a review/analysis in 80s Action Movies on the Cheap 284 Low Budget, High Impact Pictures (2017), p. 219 (the book comes on top of a Gg books search). At least but that is perfectly enough to show notability. And, on top of that, this film is quite important in Kaufman's career as in Louzil's; and in the production of Troma in general (as an attempt (serious or not) at dealing with a more political topic; Kaufman saying about the film: "It was about a futuristic society where everyone in the world hates America. What a preposterous idea that is! " (Produce your own damn movie!) Which makes it notable in another way.— MY, OH, MY! 20:00, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The ones that I removed were user-generated content. The one review cited by Rotten Tomatoes is from "DVDTalk", which is not a usable site - and that's the only professional review that appears to exist. The German one also looks like UGC and is in any case a directory. Inclusion in IMDB does not count for notability either.
    Ask yourself this: a movie *this* bad that doesn't even get a mention in articles about bad movies? Seriously? Guy (help! - typo?) 15:49, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
DVD Talk is an acceptable source for a film review, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 22:27, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep based on review cited in article, and sources identified by Mushy Yank. DonaldD23 talk to me 00:37, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:45, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
    1. Price, Mark (1989-10-13). "A Low-Budget, Action-Adventure Mishap". The Fayetteville Observer. Archived from the original on 2023-06-05. Retrieved 2023-06-05.

      The review notes: "Still, it's hard to imagine even the most bubble-headed fan of gratuitous violence being able to sit through the incoherent plot of "Fortress of Amerikkka," an action-adventure mishap which opened today at the Westwood Cinema and Eutaw Movies. To list everything wrong with this poorly-written, poorly-staged venture would be difficult, not to mention exhausting. Perhaps it will suffice to say what is right: Everyone speaks English, and they all know how to look at the camera."

    2. Lor (1989-05-17). "Fortress Of Amerikka". Variety. Vol. 335, no. 5. p. 38. ProQuest 1438514907.

      The review notes: ""Fortress Of Amerikkka," a.ka. "The Mercenaries," is an old-fashioned sexploitation film that will appeal to that fringe which enjoys truly bad acting, t&a and gore effects. Secdon Troma release from filmmaker Eric Louzil, pic is a slight step from his "Lust for Freedom," but still suffers from awkward direction and the annoying Troma practice of adding hokey dialog and sound effects to fill up dead air. ... Apart from scenic views of forests and mountains, film's technical credits are weak. The background score is extremely poor."

    3. Gibron, Bill (2004-03-30). "Fortress of Amerikkka". DVD Talk. Archived from the original on 2023-06-05. Retrieved 2023-06-05.

      The review notes: "There may be some of you in the audience for oddities that will be more forgiving to this miserable misfire. But Fortress of Amerikkka stands for the proposition that even the more determined democratic drivel will sink like the Bismarck if its not supported by a bevy of bare babes and some viscous vats of vivisected vitals. This land may indeed be your land, but it's hard to imagine anyone claiming this claptrap salute to it anytime soon."

    4. Budnik, Daniel R. (2017). '80s Action Movies on the Cheap: 284 Low Budget, High Impact Pictures. Jefferson, North Carolina: McFarland & Company. p. 219. ISBN 978-0-7864-9741-6. Retrieved 2023-06-05 – via Google Books.

      The review notes: "The film is maybe a little too long and some of the scenes of the partying mercenaries might have been trimmed. Or some of the more obvious scenes with the racist sheriff could have hit the road. But once the sheriff and some fat vigilantes storm the mercenaries and all hell breaks loose, it become worthwhile. Then the narration returns and one cannot figure out what the hell Troma is up to. But it's nice that they tried it. Whatever it is."

    5. Nowlan, Robert A.; Nowlan, Gwendolyn Wright (1991). The Films of the Eighties: A Complete, Qualitative Filmography to Over 3400 Feature-Length English Language Films, Theatrical and Video-Only, Released Between January 1, 1980, and December 31, 1989. Jefferson, North Carolina: McFarland & Company. p. 201. ISBN 0-89950-560-0. Retrieved 2023-06-05 – via Internet Archive.

      The review notes: "In a weak sexploitation film, Indian halfbreed Gene LeBrok is just out of jail and hot on the trail of sheriff David Crane who cold-bloodedly killed LeBrok's brother. His crusade is complicated by a band of mercenary soldiers, the "Fortress of Amerikkka" led by William J. Kulzer, whose game is killing. The acting is horrible and even all the topless busty actresses don't help matters."

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

    Cunard (talk) 10:02, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Withdrawn‎ by nominator. (non-admin closure) LilianaUwU (talk / contribs) 21:28, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Pharah[edit]

Pharah (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)

When it comes to Overwatch characters, it has some sources, but mostly being written discussing the characters as gameplay elements not about the character on why they matters. Only these sources were usable [11] [12]. There's nothing more, most of them were just discussing her gameplay, thus failing WP:N. GlatorNator (ᴛ) 12:06, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect A good chunk of the reception section was really development info about her outfits. There's next to nothing there to support a standalone article.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 12:16, 28 May 2023 (UTC)Keep per sources found.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 11:24, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Video games. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 12:49, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore redirect Soulbust did not do a complete enough job demonstrating Pharah can stand alone as a character. Fails GNG. Even any Scholar hits I might find haven't really been cited by anyone. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 14:05, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I don't view it as my job to have done so, as this is a collaborative encyclopedia. Regardless, present sourcing covers her development history, as well as reception/controversy. It does enough to pass GNG. In any case, I'll look for more sourcing I guess. Soulbust (talk) 20:52, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment: I've added a solid chunk of information and sourcing to all sections in this article including the Reception section, that I know often makes or breaks whether a character shows an ability to clear GNG. Further development/design info has also been added, which is another critical factor. The AfD nomination mentioned two sources as being usable. I'm assuming GlatorNator meant in terms of meeting GNG criteria, as all the sources included are obviously usable (as per... they're used appropriately and in line with guideline and policy). I fully agree with the latter one, though I think this source may perhaps provide a better example of a source helping establish GNG for the character than the former. The Red Bull and Kill Screen sources also provide a considerable amount of coverage.
    I'll look for more sourcing in the coming days, but I think those aforementioned ones in combination with the additional sourcing included in the article provide more than enough basis for a stand-alone article, and I also believe there presently exists a rounded reception section that discusses cosplay, the Indigenous-styled skin controversy, and other societal representation aspects. Soulbust (talk) 02:30, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    All those sources are discussing her as a gameplay element, not providing notability as a fictional character. Even pointing out the below shipping commentary, they're not actually discussing the character, just that a ship exists.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 02:47, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. For the record, I don't play Overwatch. It's hard to find sourcing that doesn't just cover gameplay, but it's certainly out there. I found an article from The Mary Sue (which is reliable per WP:RS/P) which discusses some information on the fandom's ship with her and Mercy.
    It's a well sourced article, but I understand most of that is probably because the game is popular (WP:NOTINHERITED). Still, the race controversy coverage definitely puts this over the edge for me. For that, I think it passes WP:GNG. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 02:18, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. [13] [14] [15] Looking at scholarly sources, I was able to find a few that discuss her in a significant capacity. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 10:51, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Withdraw with additional scholarly sources above, I decided to withdraw this nom. GlatorNator (ᴛ) 11:29, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I heavily contest the withdrawal of the nom, scholarly source does not immediately mean it is reliable. See WP:SCHOLARSHIP. At least one is from a repository of self-published materials. Have these been proven to be vetted at all? ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 13:58, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The Horus article is published and by a biologist/paleontologist, and there's at least 2 standalone book discussions about her cited in the article itself to boot that aren't mentioned above, coupled with the conversation regarding her designs and cultural appropriation already cited in there...I mean do you really want to drag this out?--Kung Fu Man (talk) 14:16, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    A controversy over a single armor set is tangentially related to a character at best. This isn't about her primary armor that she always wears. The Kill Screen article that talks the most about this by far is referring to the ethnic skins as a whole; it is better off as a section in the main "Overwatch character" article. Everything that is currently in the article is tangential at best. Seriously; where is the reception on Pharah's character traits, not just symbolism on her outfit? It doesn't seem like that exists. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 14:39, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The symbolism is directly tied to her character as its intended to include Native American imagery in the game, being that Blizzard developed (either from the beginning, or after the fact, depending on how some sources feel this part of her characterization exists as a way to quell the controversy) her as an Indigenous person.
    Kill Screen article doesn't talk the most about it either... as seen here and Kaplan had to directly comment on it as seen here. Tangential is a severe understatement when talking about the discussion of the Raindancer and Thunderbird skins in relation to how Pharah has been received. Soulbust (talk) 19:14, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 12:05, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

D R Parajuli[edit]

D R Parajuli (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)

Lack of significant coverage, including searching in Nepali ("डिल्ली राम पराजुली"). Also does not seem to pass WP:GNG or WP:NMUSICIAN or any other relevant SNG. User:Nplz/Dilli Ram Parajuli is a slightly better version of this article but it still contains no decent sources that we can use to confer notability. In my own searches, the best source that I can find is The Peninsula, which mentions him as a winner of a raffle at Doha International Airport. Not enough for me. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 11:36, 28 May 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 Withdraw‎. Withdrawn by nominator. (non-admin closure) ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 21:02, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Slender Rising[edit]

Slender Rising (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 nomination also includes the sequel.

Slender Rising 2 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The only reliable sources that have covered these two games are TouchArcade and Pocket Gamer. There has not been enough written about these games from 2013 and 2014 to warrant their two articles (WP:GNG). — VORTEX3427 (Talk!) 11:27, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw I have scoured the internet for sources and expanded and rewrote Slender Rising, now with twelve sources. I apologize for not conducting a thorough WP:BEFORE search before nominating it for deletion. However, I could not find anything for Slender Rising 2. It fits quite nicely in its own section on the Slender Rising article, so when this AfD finishes, I'll probably merge it. Thanks, — VORTEX3427 (Talk!) 11:38, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 04:27, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Geetha (2022 film)[edit]

Geetha (2022 film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Per Wikipedia:Notability (films), the film should have a notable production or 2 notable reviews. There are these reviews: [17] although they are not notable (the second one if from a blacklisted site so I had to comment it out). There is a video review from NTV here (don't think it counts towards notability). The issue is that there is not enough (at least two) reliable reviews seven from The Times of India or 123telugu that review so many films. All the production sources just say that the film is releasing [18] [19] (from OTTplay). The issue with the second source is that a lot of the information is about other films: Earlier this year, another protege of VV Vinayak, Vassishta, debuted with the fantasy drama Bimbisara starring Kalyan Ram, Catherine Tresa and Samyuktha Menon in lead roles. The film emerged a blockbuster at the box office.
Meanwhile, VV Vinayak is gearing up for his Hindi cinema debut with the remake of Prabhas, Shriya Saran starrer Chatrapathi, originally helmed by SS Rajamouli. The latter’s father Vijayendra Prasad has reworked the story for the Hindi version. Bellamkonda Sai Sreenivas and Nushrat Barucha are the leads in the untitled film that’s expected to hit screens later this year or early 2023.

A Google search brings up nothing. DareshMohan (talk) 09:53, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

delete No Notable reviews found.Does not meet Wikipedia:Notability (films) --Monhiroe (talk) 19:20, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:27, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 10:53, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph Yagil[edit]

Joseph Yagil (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 in-depth, third-party coverage. Written as an advertisement. MrGnocci (talk) 10:16, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Finance, and Israel. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 11:17, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I wouldn't say advertisement, as the entry is not trying to sell a product or service. It's PEACOCK and easy to clean. AfD is not clean up. Also, he was a founding faculty dean. Can someone check how he ranks as an academic? gidonb (talk) 04:06, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. He has one well-cited joint publication ("Discount rates inferred from decisions: An experimental study") but then the rest drop off so rapidly that I don't think there is a pass of WP:PROF#C1. His cv [20] lists three books but I didn't find the reviews that would pass WP:AUTHOR. And his work as an academic administrator is not at a high enough level (head of an entire university) to pass WP:PROF#C6, unless one counts presidency of the Carmel Academic Center as being head of a "major academic institution" (I don't think it is one). —David Eppstein (talk) 07:02, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. After more research, decided that he does not pass the bar as an administrator, academic, or otherwise. The article can be cleaned up, just there is no reason why. gidonb (talk) 00:10, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 10:54, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of Pingu home video releases[edit]

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

Unsourced and appears to have been ever since creation fifteen years ago. Also WP:NOTCATALOGUE and WP:NOTIINFO, it's not the job of Wikipedia to list every single home video release that can ever be purchased. Ajf773 (talk) 10:07, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete catalog cruft Dronebogus (talk) 11:06, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect‎ to List of political parties in Turkey. Modussiccandi (talk) 06:34, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Women's Party (Turkey)[edit]

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

Does not pass WP:GNG. Kadı Message 08:19, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 09:41, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect and merge into List of political parties in Turkey, as the party lacks significant coverage in sources to be worthy of an article, as discussed in a recent trwiki AfD. Having encyclopedic content does not exempt articles from passing the GNG. ~StyyxTalk? 23:13, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per Styyx and Beccaynr. Aintabli (talk) 22:35, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - apparently insignificant party with no elected representatives. Searching for Kadın Partisi, I mostly found articles about historical women's parties [21], articles on women's participation in AK Party [22], and an opinion piece that opens with the lament Neden kocaman bir kadın partisi yok--Why is there no big women's party. I was able to find this source which is essentially just reprinting a statement from the organization, and here TRT mentions them briefly in a list of parties investigated by the authorities. Based on the article itself, which cites only primary sources, the party's membership is...zero? Per a government database? Elections are inherently notable; parties are organizations that need to attain coverage to become notable, and lowering standards in this area means playing fast and loose with potential political misinformation that we have no way of verifying. signed, Rosguill talk 05:35, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎—I was the nominator but am closing per the clear consensus. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 23:41, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

James Scott (criminal)[edit]

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

This is a proposal to either delete this article with relevant content merged to Great Flood of 1993, or rename/refactor it to focus on the event. Any option would bring the content into alignment with WP:BIO1E and WP:PSEUDO, as all of the sources about Scott discuss him in the context of the flood. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 18:37, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep James Scott has engendered considerable press coverage over the years and is considered by many to have been unjustly imprisoned. The article about the Great Flood of 1993 covers very different material than the article about James Scott. More recent article about James Scott also cover things other than the flood, such as his behavior in prison and efforts to free him.
SONORAMA (talk) 15:48, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:34, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: per the reasons provided by Necrothesp and SONORAMA Jack4576 (talk) 07:33, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I agree with the users before me. Additionally, I suspect that Scott will soon be a topic of media sensation regarding the alleged misconduct of the prosecution, like we saw after the airing of "Making a murderer". Xwedodah (talk) 05:31, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with the main Great Flood article, with a subsection for Scott's biography where relevant. Has no relevance outside the Great Flood ~~ Cliffordben1994 (talk) 23:19, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into the main Great Flood article. Although it has the sourcing to be a notable page, it runs foul of WP:BLP1E and would likely be more informative as a part of that article. JML1148 (Talk | Contribs) 02:04, 14 May 2023 (UTC) Keep per CT55555. They make a very good point that BLP1E needs all criteria to be met to fall foul of that policy, however Scott doesn't. JML1148 (talk | contribs) 07:34, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into the main Great Flood article per all editors involved. CastJared (talk) 14:31, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • It’s important for America to be taught about this. It happened, he existed, did he cause the floods? Idk. This will still be taught in our history books, why are we trying to erase it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:281:D680:7E80:E050:CA2B:39A4:FCA3 (talk) 06:07, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Split between those advocating Keep and those seeking a Merge.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:34, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge slimmed down and properly sourced content into the main flood article. Article is a clearly a BLP1E. Keep votes provided no sources showing this was anything other than a BLP1E.  // Timothy :: talk  17:06, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - This is not BLP1E, which would be something random like the winner of a lottery or a random contest. Subject is the subject of a full length book cited in the footnotes, for cripe's sakes! Clear GNG pass. Carrite (talk) 15:11, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep; there is substantial source material, per Carrite, and the scope of the flood article is far larger than the smaller catastrophe this individual was convicted for; a merge would thus create a due weight problem in the proposed target. Vanamonde (Talk) 04:20, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: One more go…
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 09:39, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep WP:PERP states "The motivation for the crime or the execution of the crime is unusual—or has otherwise been considered noteworthy—such that it is a well-documented historic event. Generally, historic significance is indicated by sustained coverage of the event in reliable secondary sources which persists beyond contemporaneous news coverage and devotes significant attention to the individual's role". A book about him published decades after the events is that. And the book received a starred review from Publishers Weekly; it didn't fly under the radar. Some editors here might benefit from reviewing what BLP1E is not.Compulsive Researcher (talk) 04:03, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Editors have argued to not keep on the basis of WP:BLP1E but that guideline has 3 criteria that all must be met, including #3 which says If the event is not significant or the individual's role was either not substantial or not well documented. The event was significant and his role was substantial. So WP:BLP1E therefore guides us towards keeping the article in my opinion. So therefore I am looking at WP:GNG and noting that he hit the news many years apart, and had a book written about him, GNG is met. CT55555(talk) 15:04, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Scott's conviction was also the feature of a 2022 documentary. I've updated the article. My !vote should now be considered strong. CT55555(talk) 22:34, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for the exhaustive reasons already mentioned above. Beyond that, my personal experience is that this man is infamous over two states and should easily meet GNG. Grey Wanderer (talk) 22:16, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. consensus is delete based on strength of arguments. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 14:34, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jennifer Anderson[edit]

Jennifer Anderson (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) 05:44, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep: has received coverage in Turkey's state media and in hurriyetdailynews.com; although appears to be passing for the most part. One of the AA articles quotes her remarks at an event. Jack4576 (talk) 09:03, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've looked at the additional sources. This one and this are only 1 line mentions of Anderson. The third one isn't WP:SIGCOV as well. LibStar (talk) 06:02, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 10:07, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete BLP, fails GNG and BIO. Source eval:
Comments Source
Who's Who 1. "Anderson, Jennifer Elizabeth, HM Diplomatic Service; Minister Counsellor and Deputy Head of Mission, Ankara, since 2017". Who's Who. 2012. doi:10.1093/ww/9780199540884.013.255668. ISBN 978-0-19-954088-4.
Article about an event, coverage of subject is "Jennifer Anderson, ministerial counsellor and deputy head of mission, also attended the event, " Fails SIGCOV 2. ^ "British Embassy in Turkey holds fundraiser for women, children subjected to violence – Türkiye News". Hürriyet Daily News. 23 March 2018. Retrieved 9 May 2023.
Article about an event, coverage of subject is "Jennifer Anderson, the minister counsellor and deputy head of mission, and assistant head of BESA Stuart Downing and Robert Unsworth also attended the event." 3. ^ "British Embassy in Ankara organizes fundraiser". www.aa.com.tr. Retrieved 9 May 2023.
Article about an event that quotes the subject, "Jennifer Anderson, the minister counsellor and the deputy head of mission, for her part, described their motivation as “an opportunity to celebrate women’s achievements. ... Touching the issue of “underrepresentation” of women in many areas, Anderson emphasized that it is a “global issue.” 4. ^ "British embassy in Ankara marks Int'l Women's Day". www.aa.com.tr. Retrieved 9 May 2023.
Government annoucement in paper 5. ^ "Appointments", The Times, (London, England), Wednesday 26 August 2009; pg. 55; Issue 69724
Speech at a farewell lunch for the subject 6. ^ "MOFAIC". Archived from the original on 5 March 2016. Retrieved 29 March 2015.
The above keep votes did complete BEFOREs but were not able to present any other sources for eval. WP:BLP states "Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources"'; BLPs need IS RS with SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth for both content and notability per well known core policy (WP:V and WP:BLP) and guidelines (WP:BIO and WP:IS, WP:RS, WP:SIGCOV).  // Timothy :: talk  20:43, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 09:27, 28 May 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. This close is without prejudice to further discussion of the move proposed by Timothy signed, Rosguill talk 05:14, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Martin Rafferty[edit]

Martin Rafferty (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:BIO. Most of the entries are just passing mentions/announcements about the organization he heads. The two awards are fairly obscure, and trying to access the Gates Foundation source brings up a security warning. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:07, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. The Bill Gates Foundation article can be accessed in Archive.org here and mentions him 5 times. Daily Emerald mentions him 4 times. KLCC mentions him 3 times. KVALL mentions him 14 times. BTW, I found several other articles in Google news that mention him. Hence these are not all passing mentions, so he meets WP:GNG and WP:NBASIC.Hkkingg (talk) 06:49, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply. Other than the Gates Foundation, the rest are passing mentions in articles about the organization he founded. The KVAL article is the best of the lot, but that is only coverage by a local TV station about the organization and the "mentions" are mostly things he says and claims. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:18, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I support keeping it as there is enough news coverage to meet notability. Pershkoviski (talk) 20:19, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles (talk) 13:38, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Out of all the currently cited sources, only source 9 constitutes significant coverage, with the rest being trivial mentions or lists as recipients of some minor awards. The sole article by Clackamas Review isn't really enough to support the entire article. Searches of the name "Martin Rafferty" yields more results about an Irish businessman than the American activist. Fails WP:GNG. Tutwakhamoe (talk) 03:08, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 08:11, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: compatriots, I submit this humble plea. Let us not disregard the 9th source. A veritable testament to Mr. Rafferty's public significance, it combines with preceding citations to form a robust mosaic of notability. Assembled together, they satisfy our stringent guidelines. To cast this article into oblivion would be a transgression against truth and a slight to the purpose of our noble enterprise. Jack4576 (talk) 09:34, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move: BLP, Fails GNG and BIO. These refs [23], [24] do have brief info about the subject but not enough to satisfy SIGCOV. The remaining refs are about the org, Youth ERA, which would pass N. BEFORE showed refs about the org, but nothing SIGCOV about the subject. Move the article to Youth ERA and change it into an article about the org with a section and redirect about the subject.  // Timothy :: talk  04:08, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 09:25, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Off topic discussion
@CycloneYoris Did you notice that the relisting was already done twice? WP:RELIST states that you need to have a real good reason to relist a 3rd time and explain your reasoning. Given that you seem to be an experienced editor, I am guessing that you had not noticed it, so you should make a decision on the outcome and close this. Here is what the policy says " in general, debates should not be relisted more than twice. Users relisting a debate for a third (or further) time, or relisting a debate with a substantial number of commenters, should write a short explanation either within the {{relist}} template, or in addition to it, on why they did not consider the debate sufficient. " Hkkingg (talk) 06:58, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Hkkingg: Yes, I'm well aware that this was the third relist, and it is usually done when a consensus is far from established (as is the case with this discussion) so there's absolutely no harm in relisting for a third time. CycloneYoris talk! 07:22, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, but yet you did not follow instructions to disclose your reasoning. Typically when there is no consensus after 2 relists, the page is kept. Hkkingg (talk) 07:56, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There's normally no need to add a reasoning if there is an obvious lack of consensus, and that I can say based on my own experience. So please calm down, I know what I'm doing. Relisting for a third time isn't as unusual as you seem to be implying. CycloneYoris talk! 08:33, 30 May 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! 07:42, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Stavros Georgiou (footballer, born 2004)[edit]

Stavros Georgiou (footballer, born 2004) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Was previously sent to draft at Draft:Stavros Georgiou (footballer, born 2004) and then submitted and declined with no improvement. This current version also doesn't address the issues and the subject still looks to fall short of WP:SPORTBASIC #5. The best sources that I could find in Greek were Alpha News, a copy and paste of a contract renewal press release issued by his employer, APOEL. Sport FM is also the same thing as above. Thema Sports mentions him in an under-19 match report, commenting that he scored 3 goals but the article does not address Georgiou in enough detail to build a meaningful biography. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 09:06, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not a chance as the source does not address Georgiou directly and in detail. We can't build a biography from it. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 15:04, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
he is still young and yet to make an impact im a fan of apoel myself and he is still yet to do anything the only time he actually did something was ina 2-0 win against ermis but it was apoels worst season and only one in a decade tha apoel was in b group of cyprus league so apoel fans didnt really care about those games it was like the season already ended which is why there arent many sources on it im search for some but they are hard to find Demetrissss (talk) 15:26, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If he's "not done anything" that's probably a good indication that he's not notable. MarchOfTheGreyhounds (talk) 19:45, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment No Greek sources? APOEL is a big club, I would have assumed there should be better sources to add. Govvy (talk) 17:00, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Most of his appearances have been very brief and inconsequential, according to Soccerway at least, so that might explain why he hasn't made any headlines. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 08:57, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
he is still young and yet to make an impact im a fan of apoel myself and he is still yet to do anything the only time he actually did something was ina 2-0 win against ermis but it was apoels worst season and only one in a decade tha apoel was in b group of cyprus league so apoel fans didnt really care about those games it was like the season already ended which is why there arent many sources on it im search for some but they are hard to find Demetrissss (talk) 15:25, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
after lots of digging i found an article about his proffesional contract will it be enough to be considered notability? Demetrissss (talk) 15:28, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that, by your admission, he has not yet made an impact makes him a case of WP:TOOSOON at best. I've already posted links above about his professional contract like Alpha News - I presume that the source that you are referring to is along the same lines - and explained why they don't confer notability. Articles that just copy a press release from his employer are not examples of significant, independent coverage. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:38, 29 May 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! 07:40, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ioannis Tsoutsouki[edit]

Ioannis Tsoutsouki (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)

Declined a few times at Draft:Ioannis Tsoutsouki and this current version is no improvement. No evidence of WP:GNG or even the low bar of WP:SPORTBASIC #5 when searching in Greek (Ιωάννης Τσουτσούκης or Ιωάννης Τσουτσούκη). Phile News mentions him twice in an article based on an Instagram post from his employer. Sigma Live mentions him once, commenting that he has debuted. Kerkida (translated) mentions that he scored 4 goals in an under-19 fixture, without adding any further depth at all. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 08:50, 28 May 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. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 14:29, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Asian Jake Paul[edit]

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

The content here that is actually sourced to usable sources (Newsweek and The Daily Dot, both situational, and Billboard's charts listing) is already covered on iDubbbz and RiceGum. This does not need its own page. — VORTEX3427 (Talk!) 08:23, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs and Internet. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 08:53, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The song is notable on its own despite its connections to the two aforementioned subjects. Something which I'm pretty sure a majority of the internet will probably agree to. Deleting this article would be like deleting the articles of individual songs from an album by a artist, additionally not all of the chart positions are covered by the articles you mentioned. DovahDuck (talk) 19:47, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep per WP:NOTMERGE. This article provides additional context that would be inappropriate to include in the main article (per WP:DUE). I basing this off the fact that WP:GNG holds, given the level of sourced detail in the article. A source analysis can change my !vote, of course. 2001:48F8:3004:FC4:D480:5FD5:9310:3BA4 (talk) 02:18, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per reasons listed by the editors above. 03:58, 29 May 2023 (UTC) Barbasthetalkingdog (talk • contribs)
  • Keep Satisfies WP:NSINGLE (independent coverage and chart position) and a separate article provides better context for the single as its own notable subject. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 13:56, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Chart positions only indicates that it may be notable, according to the guideline you linked. As for independent coverage: The Daily Dot and Newsweek are situational (WP:RSP). The first is mainly about the iDubbbz-RiceGum feud and only briefly mentions the diss track. Newsweek leans towards unreliable after it was acquired by IBT Media; this source also only briefly mentions the song as well.
    Press Reality and TrendingAllDay 404. Googling the first doesn't come up with anything, and Googling the second brings up only a handful of social media accounts. Not much to suggest that these are reliable sources. The Reykjavik Grapevine also does not have significant coverage and does not appear to be a journalistic piece.
    Regardless of reliability, none of the working sources here appear to meet WP:SIGCOV. — VORTEX3427 (Talk!) 22:27, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Per WP:WHATSIGCOV, significant coverage is the ability to extract information from the sources without WP:OR. In the article, there is clearly nontrivial sourced information about the single, which is why I would argue for WP:SIGCOV. 2001:48F8:3004:FC4:D480:5FD5:9310:3BA4 (talk) 12:45, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm sorry, but I'm not seeing that on the essay you linked. It says that as an example, "Martin Walker's statement, in a newspaper article about Bill Clinton, that "In high school, he was part of a jazz band called Three Blind Mice" is plainly a trivial mention of that band." So I think that these sources should be classified as trivial mentions. — VORTEX3427 (Talk!) 22:23, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry for the confusion. I was just saying that if an article has been written about the subject and the sources represent the content (ie. no OR), then WP:SIGCOV is guaranteed. That is the idea behind WP:WHATSIGCOV. I believe this is the case here but a more thorough source analysis could always change my mind. 2001:48F8:3004:FC4:D480:5FD5:9310:3BA4 (talk) 03:26, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. Liz Read! Talk! 07:32, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mikhail Komelkov[edit]

Mikhail Komelkov (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:1E, low notability. -Lemonaka‎ 07:23, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep WP:1E does not apply to this article, he is not notable for a single event, but for earning the title, Hero of the Soviet Union and fighting in numerous air battles. Through a quick search on Google Books, I found he is mentioned in the following sources [25][26][27]. He is also mentioned in this webpage about the P-39 Airacobra in the USSR, [28]. There are also some sources on the Russian Wikipedia article about him. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GoldenBootWizard276 (talk • contribs) 08:35, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The Russian Wikipedia article mentions entries on the subject in this biographical dictionary and this history. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 15:33, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. An air ace, who we usually keep, with the highest award of his country, which we usually keep. Consensus is definitely to keep. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:04, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Person is awarded by one of the highest award of USSR. There are many references to him in the literature, although it is not shown in the article. It's easy to google and check. Kursant504 (talk) 12:40, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 07:31, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Leonel López Cortez[edit]

Leonel López Cortez (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)

Soccer executive who fails GNG. Article is basically just a résumé. BlameRuiner (talk) 07:16, 28 May 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 Trevor Jacob. Liz Read! Talk! 06:54, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Trevor Jacob plane crash[edit]

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

Insufficient standalone notability. Although the NTSB report has not been issued as I write this, given what we know already, it's clear that the crash was caused entirely by the actions of the pilot; the airplane, the ATC system, FAA regulations, and so forth had little or nothing to do with it. Thus, discussion of the crash boils down to the actions of the man, which belong in the Trevor Jacob article. Most content of this article duplicates that article already, and the remainder can easily be merged with it. Carguychris (talk) 19:11, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Having the separate page allows for more detailed discussion of the incident than a profile page, especially for someone like Trevor Jacob who is also notable for other reasons. There will naturally be info about the incident on Jacob's page, but having a page specifically for the incident allows for more liberty to expand the page as needed. The incident is also very well covered, including by a wide range of very-well-known national news organizations, suggesting that the event is particularly notable even outside of aviation and is worth more than just a subsection on another page. Slowtationjet (talk) 19:17, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'll note that the article about the crash itself is almost as long as Trevor Jacob's personal page. I feel like this proves that it's worth having a dedicated space to expand more upon the crash itself and use Jacob's personal page to flesh out all of his escapades, including other things such as his snowboarding career.Slowtationjet (talk) 19:23, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

...[this page] is almost as long as Trevor Jacob's personal page.
— User:Slowtationjet

Both pages are relatively short by recent BLP standards, and this page is almost as long as Jacob's personal page mainly because it delves into minor details such as the strap-on fire extinguisher and altimeter. Almost all of the important facts are duplicated, and adding all the minor ones to his personal page would only lengthen it by a few sentences. Cheers. Carguychris (talk) 20:38, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
it also has the same number of notable independent sources Slowtationjet (talk) 19:25, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
All of those sources extensively discuss Trevor Jacob the YouTuber, the strange things he did, and the controversial video he posted. I have yet to see a single article or video about this crash that doesn't discuss these things. It's effectively impossible to disentangle the plane crash from his actions, which is why I think this page is a textbook example of WP:CFORK and should be merged. Carguychris (talk) 20:38, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge back any (minimal) added value and Delete per nom. The parent page on Trevor Jacobs is sufficient to say all that is worth saying. It has been around since 2014 and is never going to get much bigger. Forking 90% of it just adds a pointless click-through for the reader. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 19:34, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and Delete - this is a clear WP:CONTENTFORK and just duplicates the information at Trevor Jacob. At this point in time there seem to be little that is expected to develop in the story beyond his sentencing and so the two articles are unlikely to diverge. - Ahunt (talk) 20:17, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy merge and delete Absolutely no reason this needed to be created as a separate duplicative article. Reywas92Talk 14:17, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and delete. Entirely unnecessary duplication of content which can be placed in more context by the biography. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:53, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - per precedent that aviation accidents that involve the death of Wikinotable people can sustain stand-alone articles. Mjroots (talk) 14:57, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody died. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:31, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, not applicable in this case as there was no death involved. - Ahunt (talk) 15:49, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – I'm adding additional sources to the article. it's overly notable as its own article. it's covered widely and has received significant international attention. as much as Jacob's personal page mentions the crash, the fact remains that this incident is incredibly notable in its own right and deserves its own space to be discussed in the amount of depth that a dedicated page provides. Slowtationjet (talk) 14:43, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - the issue with this article is not a lack of references, it is that it is a WP:REDUNDANTFORK. Adding even more refs won't address that problem. - Ahunt (talk) 15:27, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
To add to that, Jacob's career as a YouTuber is central to the whole incident. A career much better discussed in a biography, were the broader context for the crash becomes clear. There is absolutely nothing in Wikipedia policy that mandates having a separate article for a 'notable incident' that only occurred because someone was trying to boost their Wikipedia-notable career. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:58, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This 2013 nonfatal general aviation accident used to have a Wikipedia article with plenty of references, yet the article was AfD'd. General consensus in the Wikipedia aviation community is that nonfatal general aviation crashes are not notable on a standalone basis unless the event somehow affects aviation as a whole, and even then, the bar is pretty high if there's another logical place to summarize what happened—such as the biography article about the Wikinotable pilot, who by all accounts is entirely at fault, for reasons that can be summarized in a few sentences. Carguychris (talk) 16:49, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and delete per Ahunt's !vote above. CONTENTFORK that has no reason to exist. The plane crash is relevant to the Trevor Jacob article and should be merged there. Nythar (💬-🍀) 04:11, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Note that "merge or delete" is not possible; we can do either but not both.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 06:42, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The intention of 'merge and delete' seems clear to me. What exactly is the problem? AndyTheGrump (talk) 10:38, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Since I first used then term here, to clarify, "merge and delete" means first take any useful content from this article that is not already at Trevor Jacob and add it there, then delete this article, as it is not really needed as a redirect. - Ahunt (talk) 12:51, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yup, I can't really see what else it could mean. Functionally the same as 'merge', except in as much as it avoids the sort of silly arguments I've seen occasionally where people claim that a 'merge' !vote isn't support for deletion. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:08, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and delete per other merge !votes, and in spite of WP:MERGEDELETE. The article isn't much more comprehensive than the section on Trevor Jacob. XtraJovial (talk • contribs) 22:16, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and delete Agree with the nom that this is better incoporated as a subtopic of the bio. Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:27, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and delete as unnecessary content multiplication and fragmentation. gidonb (talk) 02:14, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 06:51, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WEBU-LD[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG as a diginet pass-through. Most recent edits were by User:Whcq, which proves WP:COI. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 05:00, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Mississippi. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 05:00, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Many of the same (GNG and COI) issues with the articles for co-owned WPRQ-LD and WHCQ-LD apply here too. (Indeed, "most recent edits" is a bit of an understatement — other than my addition of categories formerly on the WEBU-LP redirect, and a few maintenance revisions, all the substantial contributions are by Whcq (talk · contribs).) There is a license history going back to 1988 here, but that doesn't mean much without sufficient sourcing to verify anything beyond existence, much less notability. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 23:16, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 06:49, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WHCQ-LD[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Most recent edits were by User:Whcq, which proves WP:COI. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 04:54, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Mississippi. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 04:54, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Many of the same (GNG and COI) issues with the articles for co-owned WPRQ-LD and WEBU-LD apply here too. This old revision does suggest there was some local programming at one point, but since that had been added by Dellington (talk · contribs), and the station is owned by David Ellington, it also helps establish how longstanding the COI issues are here. On the off chance any sufficient sourcing comes up to allow for anything substantial here (no, I am not holding my breath), it might still require TNT at best. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 23:09, 28 May 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. keep based on strength of arguments. GNG requires multiple, independent, in-depth sources, which has been demonstrated. Nowhere has "multiple" been defined as more than two, and by longstanding Wikipedia practice two is considered "multiple." 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 14:27, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Japan Time (TV series)[edit]

Japan Time (TV series) (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. WP:BEFORE searches fail to find any sources to back up notability. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 23:34, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
    1. Japanese sources:
      1. "「秋田犬ふれあいライン」PR. 香港、台湾から誘客へ" ["Akita dog contact line" PR. Attracting customers from Hong Kong and Taiwan]. Hokuroku Shimbun [ja] (in Japanese). 2016-12-22. Archived from the original on 2023-05-11. Retrieved 2023-05-11.

        The article notes from Google Translate: "In order to promote the Akita Inu Fureai Line," a sightseeing route centered on the northern region, and to attract inbound tourists (foreign visitors to Japan), filming by a Hong Kong program production company and a well-known Taiwanese blogger was held in the region. The group covered the food and culture of each region, with a focus on Akita dogs, and is scheduled to be broadcast on TV programs in Hong Kong and on subway stations in Taiwan from next year. ...  The Hong Kong film crew is local's Japanese travel program "Go! Japan ... The Hong Kong program is about 25 minutes long and will be broadcast four times from January 28, 2010.""

      2. Chiba, Sonoko 千葉園子 (December 2022). "香港、台湾で秋田犬PR. CNAなどが県内ロケ" [Akita Inu PR in Hong Kong and Taiwan. CNA and other locations in the prefecture]. Akita Sakigake Shimpō (in Japanese). Archived from the original on 2023-05-11. Retrieved 2023-05-11.

        The article notes from Google Translate: "From Hong Kong, will be able to produce it together with the popular Japanese travel crew. The route connecting Kosaka town is seen in the travel program "Go! Japan", which promotes Akita in Hong Kong and Taiwan, so it will be a work that is directly linked to attracting customers.  ... On this day, the Hong Kong film crew moved to Kakunodate Station (Senboku City) on the Akita Nairiku Jukan Railway. ... The program will be broadcast in four parts in Hong Kong from the end of next month. The duration of one broadcast is approximately 25 minutes."

      3. Matsuda, Mototsugu 松田基継 (2016-07-09). "鉄道観光もいかが 香港番組が本県入り" [How about railroad sightseeing? Hong Kong program enters the prefecture]. Mutsu Shinpo [ja] (in Japanese). Archived from the original on 2023-05-11. Retrieved 2023-05-11.
    2. Hong Kong sources:
      1. Wong, Kei-wan 王奇雲 (2014-09-22). "影心口節目" [Filming words and thoughts program]. am730 (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2023-05-11. Retrieved 2023-05-11.

        The article notes from Google Translate: "Some people say that I have been targeting Asia Television all the time, and I am extremely cynical about their programs. In fact, I am wronged. I am only "right on the matter and not on the station". If there is a good program, I will approve it and introduce it. For example, last Saturday in the evening, when I was having dinner at home, I was attracted by one of their travel programs. You must watch it and turn it on. The program is called Japan Time! There are two program hosts: the Japanese girl Rie and the Hong Kong boy Jam. They can't be said to be pretty boys and girls, but they are fun and entertaining. They speak Cantonese and Japanese at the same time. In that episode, they introduced the filming location of the Japanese drama "Ama" in "Kuji" city. I saw the class boss Qinghai girl diving into the water to collect sea urchins. I really drool. Yes, yes, I drool over the sea urchin , not those divers. The original program started broadcasting in 2005 and was broadcast on International Channel Hong Kong and Taiwan rebroadcast. Look at the layout, it seems to be outsourced, bridge construction, production, post-production by production company kick , TV station should not pay money , at any time The advertising fee will be added! The "Japan Tourism Bureau" and the airline are behind the program Sponsorship without big star spending , so there is a long shot, but it is a pity that there was no Who knows, right now they have made more than 400 episodes..."

      2. Leung, Sammy (2014). "亞視將亡確感可惜" [It's a pity that ATV will die]. Sing Tao Daily (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2023-05-11. Retrieved 2023-05-11.

        The column notes: "而隨後的《日語大放送就是簡單有趣的日本旅遊誌,雖然它介紹的地點有些我們未必會去,但兩位主持 Rie 和 Jam 相當風趣幽默，有時又會在日文當中夾雜一、兩句廣東話，既親切又地道。若然亞視真要完結，我最捨不得的應該是這兩個節目了。"

        From Google Translate: "And the subsequent "Japanese Big Show" is a simple and interesting Japanese travel journal. Although it introduces some places that we may not go to, the two hosts, Rie and Jam, are quite humorous, and sometimes they will include a sentence or two of Cantonese in Japanese. The words are both kind and authentic. If ATV is really going to end, these two programs should be the ones I'm most reluctant to part with."

      3. Wong, Git-ling 黃潔玲 (2014-03-05). Lee, Oi-ming 李藹明 (ed.). "一家去旅行：放任假期童玩「野」 大自然就是遊樂場" [Traveling as a family: letting go of the holidays. Children play "wild". Nature is playground]. Ming Pao (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2016-04-23. Retrieved 2023-05-11.

        The article notes: "香港製作的日語旅遊節目《日語大放送》，自2005年起播放至今，雖然在亞視播放，節目卻一直不乏支持者，更是香港史上最長壽的旅遊節目。邱忠業（Jam）是主持之一，節目中他與拍檔以日語和廣東話，鬼馬地介紹日本許多好玩地方；"

        From Google Translate: "Hong Kong-produced Japanese-language travel program "Japanese Broadcasting" has been broadcast since 2005. Although it is aired on ATV, the program has always had a lot of supporters, and it is the longest-running travel program in Hong Kong's history. Qiu Zhongye (Jam) is one of the hosts. In the show, he and his partner introduce many interesting places in Japan in Japanese and Cantonese."

      4. Long, C (2018-06-26). "【日本人在香港】在港藝人理惠的兩個家" [[Japanese in Hong Kong] The two homes of artiste Rie in Hong Kong]. Metro Pop [zh] (in Chinese). Metro International. Archived from the original on 2022-03-20. Retrieved 2023-05-11.

        The article notes: "因為主持電視節目《日本大放送》而深入民心的理惠（Rie）"

        From Google Translate: "Rie, who is deeply rooted in the hearts of the people because of hosting the TV show "Japan Time""

    There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Japan Time (Chinese: Go! Japan TV 日本大放送), formerly known as (Chinese: 日語大放送), to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

    Cunard (talk) 08:01, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep: per Cunard's work Jack4576 (talk) 11:16, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Twitter can not be used as a source. Two of the other sources appear to be from blogs. Another is a travel piece but I can't tell if it's about the subject or not, the translation is kind of difficult. Dr vulpes (💬 • 📝) 03:07, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    My understanding is that Twitter can be used as a source where appropriate. Nevertheless, it is not the only source being relied upon here. The use of blogs is also fine if consensus can be reached that the usage is appropriate. Jack4576 (talk) 04:12, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    In no circumstance is a tweet an indicator of notability (WP:TWITTER covers the very limited usages of them). These tweets are photos of newspapers, and the newspaper articles themselves might be valid sources, but it's difficult to say with the limited information provided. Dylnuge (Talk • Edits) 04:42, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah sorry no WP:TWITTER is pretty clear here same with blogs as per WP:BLOGS. Don't get me wrong I've used Twitter as a source but only as a last resort. An example would be in the article List of most-followed Twitch channels where I had to use Twitter as a source because there was legit nothing else out there I could find. Dr vulpes (💬 • 📝) 07:42, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: The source eval above clearly shows there is not SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth. Mentions, promo material, interviews, do not show notability.  // Timothy :: talk  04:28, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Japan Time is notable because it received substantial coverage in the Hong Kong newspaper am730 and the Japanese newspaper Mutsu Shinpo  [ja]. It also received significant coverage in the Hong Kong newspapers Sing Tao Daily and Ming Pao and the Japanese newspapers Akita Sakigake Shimpō and Hokuroku Shimbun  [ja]. Rie, one of the two television presenters for Japan Time, used her Livedoor blog and Twitter account to share the media coverage her television show received.

    According to Ming Pao, Japan Time is "the longest-running travel program in Hong Kong's history". The actor Sammy Leung wrote in Sing Tao Daily, "Japan Time is a simple and interesting Japanese travel journal. Although it introduces some places that we may not go to, the two hosts, Rie and Jam, are quite humorous." Writing in am730, columnist Kei-wan Wong said that readers have said that he is always targeting Asia Television and being "cynical" of their programmes. He said, "I am wronged. ... If there is a good program, I will approve it and introduce it." Wong said Japan Time is that show, writing, "I was attracted by one of [Asia Television's] travel programs". He wrote that the Japan Time programme hosts Rie and Jam were "fun and entertaining", discussed its history (it began broadcasting in 2005, has 400 episodes, is broadcast in Hong Kong, and is rebroadcast in Taiwan), and discussed its layout and production and sponsors.

    Cunard (talk) 06:38, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 09:08, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LFaraone 03:27, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: The "Keep" responses follow a common misunderstanding on Wikipedia policies and their use in AfDs with the "web search hits mention it, therefore keep". Thankfully this AfD has not been unbalanced or influenced by canvassing from outside Wikipedia or from on-wiki WikiProjects. Because AfD discussion resolution can be decided on votes and ostensible consensus, canvassing can be effective and the AfD closer may opt to go with the numbers game. I respectfully ask that the soundness of arguments made and Wikipedia policies are the focus when closing the AfD.
The one non-trivial "Keep" answer says that blogs and Twitter tweets are "independent reliable sources", which the editor had added to the article since the AfD nom was made[32]. This is an incorrect understanding of what "reliable" on Wikipedia means. Blogs and Twitter do not fit this definition. Instead the "Keep" answer shows why the article should be deleted. Assuming the sourcing were what Wikipedia deems reliable and weren't blogs, tweets, and short mentions here or there, the most in-depth coverage is a short synopsis and minor details like over 400 episodes which is not detailed or in-depth about this show which is not nearly enough for GNG. Despite the show's longevity, information and coverage is sparse. I admire the editor's effort to improve the article since the nom but it does not demonstrate the presumption of notability or why the article should be kept according to policies. Saucysalsa30 (talk) 05:13, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • The "Keep" responses follow a common misunderstanding on Wikipedia policies and their use in AfDs with the "web search hits mention it, therefore keep". – which "keep" responses do this?

    The one non-trivial "Keep" answer says that blogs and Twitter tweets are "independent reliable sources", which the editor had added to the article since the AfD nom was made[33]. – I did not say that blogs and Twitter posts are independent reliable sources. I said that the newspaper articles I added to the Wikipedia article are independent reliable sources.

    I said that Japan Times received substantial coverage in the Hong Kong newspaper am730 and the Japanese newspaper Mutsu Shinpo  [ja]. No one in this AfD has explained why those two newspaper articles are insufficient to establish notability.

    Cunard (talk) 07:25, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    which "keep" responses do this?
    Yours and the one-liner agreeing with you, like Timothy and Dr Vulpes kindly pointed out. This is a very common mistake that even the most experienced editors fall into so I'm not saying you did anything wrong. In an AfD I saw yesterday, an experienced editor with over 10 years and over 100k edits believed that someone's personal blog barely name-dropping someone is a reason to "weak keep", but nonetheless keep, an article.
    I said that Japan Times received substantial coverage in the Hong Kong newspaper am730 and the Japanese newspaper Mutsu Shinpo
    Yes you said this but can you please share this "substantial coverage" in am730 and Mutsu Shinpo? Twitter and a couple blogs, one of which is defunct, don't help.
    Even if theoretically that serious problem did not exist, what we're left with are a couple short mentions in local newspapers per the tweet screencaps. This isn't substantial and nowhere close, and what is written is very minimal. am730 (the scope and reliability is not known) and Japan Times didn't see it fit to put this on their online newspaper?
    No one in this AfD has explained why those two newspaper articles are insufficient to establish notability.
    Respectfully, four people already have explained. See above and my other comment, and the comments by Dr Vulpes, Dylnuge, and Timothy. If all it took were a couple short newspaper articles to prove notability, which in this case are not provided, then a Wikipedia article could be made about practically anything. No, this does not in any way establish notability. We can't even presume notability per GNG, which itself is an assumption.
    The case for keeping this is spurious, based on the invalid assumption that a few tweets from the program's host screencapping short newspaper pieces (2 of which are focused on a dog) and a couple blog posts including by the same program host, are significant, in-depth, independent from each other, sourcing. What you quoted from the blog posts barely mention the show except the first one. The threshold for inclusion on Wikipedia is very low but this is far from meeting it.
    This program has been running for 18 years yet very little has been said about it including in local media and despite the best efforts for promotion. That's as telling as all other reasons to delete it. Saucysalsa30 (talk) 23:26, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Two sources that establish notability are:
    1. Matsuda, Mototsugu 松田基継 (2016-07-09). "鉄道観光もいかが 香港番組が本県入り" [How about railroad sightseeing? Hong Kong program enters the prefecture]. Mutsu Shinpo [ja] (in Japanese).
    2. Wong, Kei-wan 王奇雲 (2014-09-22). "影心口節目" [Filming words and thoughts program]. am730 (in Chinese).
    They are not "Twitter and a couple blogs". They are not "a couple short mentions in local newspapers". They are newspaper articles about Japan Time. Both the Hong Kong newspaper am730 and the Japanese newspaper Mutsu Shinpo  [ja] are reputable sources. Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline says:

    "Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material.

    Two newspaper articles about Japan Time "addres[s] the topic directly and in detail". That a Hong Kong television programme has received substantial coverage internationally in Japan in addition to Hong Kong strongly establishes it is notable.

    Cunard (talk) 23:57, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Honestly if I felt there was a good case to keep I'd support it because it looks like a fun program, but unfortunately not. Two articles don't "establish notability", and in terms of verifiability we do not have the articles. All we have is program host Rie's pictures on her social media. How does a short blurb from a tabloid am730, conveyed by a screencap on Rie's blog, "establish notability" of anything?
    Something notable, especially a program running for 18 years, will have thousands of media, possibly including books, covering it, its history, challenges, leadership, operations, all of that.
    Both the Hong Kong newspaper am730 and the Japanese newspaper Mutsu Shinpo [ja] are reputable sources.
    No case has been made for their reputability, especially for Mutsu Shinpo, a small local newspaper in Hirosaki. What I can find about am730 is that it's a Hong Kong based tabloid (tabloids usually have a bad rep). It's with the South China Morning Post Group which is owned by Alibaba Group which the Chinese government has tight control on.
    At this point, 4 editors have taken the time to explain why the single case for keeping this article has not been great. I've realized that if someone needs to dig through the program host's social media from 2016 to find minimal evidence to tell us little more than the program exists, there's not much of a case to be made to show that it's notable. TimothyBlue summed it up much more succinctly than I. I've said what I've had to say, so I'll leave the rest up to the closing admin(s). Saucysalsa30 (talk) 06:23, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Significant coverage in two reliable sources establishes notability. From Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline:

    There is no fixed number of sources required since sources vary in quality and depth of coverage, but multiple sources are generally expected. Sources do not have to be available online or written in English.

    Wiktionary defines the word "multiple" as being "more than one". From Wikipedia:Verifiability#Access to sources, "Do not reject reliable sources just because they are difficult or costly to access. Some reliable sources are not easily accessible. For example, an online source may require payment, and a print-only source may be available only through libraries."

    am730 is sufficiently reliable for a review of a television programme. According to this 2014 article in South China Morning Post, am730 was ranked the ninth most credible Hong Kong print media publication out of 22 surveyed. It ranked ahead of 17th place Apple Daily, which is "marginally reliable (i.e. neither generally reliable nor generally unreliable), and may be usable depending on context" according to Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources. The am730 article provides multiple paragraphs of coverage (at least 276 words when translated from Chinese to English) about the subject. It is not "a short blurb".

    I consider Mutsu Shinpo  [ja] to be a sufficiently reliable regional newspaper based on these sources:

    1. Page 107 of this 1985 journal article says: "こ うした事 情 の下 に,八 戸市 の『デ ー リー東北 』と 弘前 市 の 『陸 奥 新報 』 は 「主読 紙」 的地 域紙 と して の地位 を確 立 して お り,判 型 な ど体裁 の上 で全 国紙 や 県 紙 に 準 じる ば か りで は な く,内 容 の 面 で も全 国 ・... 後 者 も,前 者 ほ どの実勢 は ない もの の, 「津軽 に生 きるみ んな の新 聞」を標 語 に津軽 地方 に広 く展 開 を試 み て い る。"

      From Google Translate: "Under these circumstances, Hachinohe City's "Daily Tohoku" and Hirosaki City's "Mutsu Shinpo" have established themselves as 'main readers' regional papers. Not only do they conform to national and prefectural newspapers in terms of appearance such as format, but also in terms of content, it is nationwide. ... Although the latter is not as popular as the former, it is also trying to expand widely in the Tsugaru region under the slogan 'Newspaper for everyone living in Tsugaru'."

    2. According to this 2004 journal article, "The Mutsu Shinpō, headquartered in Hirosaki, is, conversely, considered a Tsugaru-centered newspaper, claiming a circulation of just over 50,000. In research unrelated to this project, readership of local newspapers in Hirosaki City was indicated by survey respondents as higher than that of national newspapers. In addition, the local newspaper was documented as an important information source, ranking second behind television news, with both the amount of information supplied and the accuracy of the information related to local issues supplied by the newspaper rated as weakly positive by local residents." The footnote says, "See Rausch (2002); readership of the Tōōnippō was reported at 67 percent and the Mutsu Shinpō at 26 percent, while the national-level Yomiuri Shinbun and the Asahi Shinbun were reported at 14 and 17 percent, respectively."
    Cunard (talk) 07:18, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete‎. User:BigHaz deleted as WP:A7. (non-admin closure) Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 08:27, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Muhammad Luqman[edit]

Muhammad Luqman (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 · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 03:15, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, speedy delete is also a better choice. DreamRimmer (talk) 04:17, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Although it's likely that this article is going to be speedily deleted, I've noticed that the page creator has a history of creating micronation articles that are speedily deleted. Is it worth reporting at AN/I or leaving a warning on their talk page? JML1148 (talk | contribs) 04:52, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. There is consensus among established editors that the sceptre has sufficient coverage. New editor and IP keeps were largely discounted in this consideration. (non-admin closure) SWinxy (talk) 04:50, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sengol[edit]

Sengol (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)

Trivial topic that hugely violates WP:NRVE, since there is no pre-2023 source that describes the sceptre as anything beyond a gift presented to Nehru. Can be merged with the Indian Parliament page. SubtleChuckle (talk) 02:26, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. SubtleChuckle (talk) 02:26, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support to merge: Agreeing with the statement but would reject deletion. 139.5.240.112 (talk) 02:48, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support to Keep: I believe that deleting the article is too extreme. A simple disclaimer would be sufficient. This would allow us to keep the article open in case someone comes up with evidence that the item in question was more than just a gift presented to Nehru. Here is an example of a disclaimer that could be added to the article:
  • The following article discusses the possibility that the item in question was more than just a gift presented to Nehru. However, there is no concrete evidence to support this claim. The article is presented for informational purposes only.
  • By adding a disclaimer, we can keep the article open while still acknowledging the lack of concrete evidence. This would allow us to be transparent about the information that is available and to avoid making any definitive claims. Prateek23021995 (talk) 03:32, 28 May 2023 (UTC) — Prateek23021995 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
    • The problem is that we do not have reliable sources for the 'Background and 1947 ceremony' part, and getting rid of it would mean that 3/4 of the article is gone. If we are to keep this article, there should be no mentions of the rajaji et al story and should just be mentioned as 'XYZ claims that the sengol was ...'. SubtleChuckle (talk) 03:39, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support to keep.The sources are reliable, even if they came from this year. Less important historical artifacts have their own articles, so there seems no reason for deletion. Jagmanst (talk) 03:20, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The sources are merely newspaper from 2023 quoting religious establishments and ruling party. How is that reliable? SubtleChuckle (talk) 03:39, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Its not an historic artifact. It was a gift maybe one of the hundreds or thousands received during independence. 36.255.229.7 (talk) 03:44, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    There are contemporary newspaper sources that confirm that Nehru was given the sceptre by religious people, perhaps one of many gifts/gestures at the time, as pointed out. The story about Mountbatton giving it to Nehru in an official ceremony looks fabricated.
    The artifact seems to have been relatively unimportant one, historically (though important enough to be kept in a museum).However with the current government making it a central part of the new parliament, it has now become a significant object.
    So I suggest article is re-written with accurate facts. The re-branding of an unimportant historical object/event into something more important is interesting in itself. Jagmanst (talk) 04:22, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Agree. The obvious 'stories' that masquerade as facts should be removed, in which case the article becomes small enough that it might well be a subsection of the parliament page.
    SubtleChuckle (talk) 04:42, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I'm seeing pretty easy WP:GNG compliance here with some of the news sources[34][35][36][37]. WP:NRVE is met from these sources, and I suspect there are some contemporary sources from around the 1947 ceremony, if that happened. There are some wiki sources that need to be replaced and a copyedit needed to smooth over the prose, but that can be fixed. JML1148 (talk | contribs) 04:35, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The news sources are merely newspaper quoting the ruling party, that isn't reliable. We need some contemporary sources that mention the event as anything beyond the gifting to Nehru, in which case we could keep it.
    SubtleChuckle (talk) 04:40, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    ...but the sources I linked don't quote the Modi government extensively? This article is pretty critical of it, saying that the 1947 ceremony claim is false. Potentially there is more sourcing to be had about this? I suspect WP:NPOV is the main issue of this article, not notability. JML1148 (talk | contribs) 04:56, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    When you get rid of the fabricated stories present in the article, (those involving Rajaji and Mountbatten), the article becomes trivial enough to be a subsection of either the Sceptre page or the new parliament page. SubtleChuckle (talk) 05:54, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It doesn't seem to be confirmed that the 1947 ceremony isn't real. WP:NPOV needs to be considered here. JML1148 (talk | contribs) 07:09, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Mountbatten was at Karachi, Pakistan on the claimed time. All the available sources (written in 40s/50s) mentions the event to be taking place at Nehru's residence which clearly proves that it was not a Official/Ceremony. It was merely a gift presented to Nehru by a religious establishment.
    SubtleChuckle (talk) 07:32, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    "And since India had decided to hold its celebrations on the midnight of August 15, it would have been impossible for Mountbatten — who was still Viceroy — to be present in both Karachi and New Delhi on the same day. Mountbatten administered the oath to Jinnah a day earlier in Karachi and then went to India."
    http://tribune.com.pk/story/1160291/pakistan-created-august-14-15/
    SubtleChuckle (talk) 07:37, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    As the story has been claimed by some sources and disputed by others, there appears to be some form of controversy. The section can be reframed to reflect this. JML1148 (talk | contribs) 06:55, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Satisfies WP:GNG. Covered extensively by various news agencies. Has ample WP:RS. Rasnaboy (talk) 05:34, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Satisfies WP:RS. Extensively covered by various Newspapers, News channels and News agencies. Satisfies WP:GNG. 67.83.187.221 (talk) 06:00, 28 May 2023 (UTC) — 67.83.187.221 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Smerge : per<SubtleChuckle> WP:NRVE No verifiable source yet (other than a news article’s unverifiable and anecdotal claims) on the authenticity of the current sceptre’s (from Allahabad Museum/Parliament) claimed lineage as being from 1947. Sengol can have a wiki entry but section on 2023 should be removed/edited to include a ‘unverified/contested’ warning. MeowMeow77 (talk) 13:20, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: The topic has been extensively covered by various news agencies. Satisfies both WP:GNG and WP:RS. I think it's an extremely important topic needing it's own page. PadFoot2008 (talk) 02:21, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: I believe there is sufficient SIGCOV to to keep the article. While there might be dubious claims about the origin of the sceptre, now that a Afd has been raised, the supporters of keeping the article have 7 days to find reliable proof.
  • To the nominator: I would suggest you now step away from the article and now let the Afd run its course. Your current edits are now bordering on edit warring and being disruptive; the supporters spend more of their edit time replacing content that you remove than actually allowing them time to firm up the article with RS sources. No need to BLUDGEON the article while it goes through the Afd process. I also make the good faith observation that your edits seem very advanced for an account of such a young age. Equine-man (talk) 07:51, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Important historic object and widely covered in news. Has enough number of RS.-Nizil (talk) 07:53, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Object of historical and current importance, added a reference to TIME's article published on 15th August 1947. Satisfies WP:RS and WP:GNG. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2406:7400:56:2E8B:B441:4A94:CEE3:2A6C (talk) 10:17, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: I do not think deletion of this article is good idea — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tu it to man (talk • contribs) 15:59, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep:Sengol shows remarkable significance presence of South India in India Histor of Independence [38], It's a symbol of Democracy from very beginning, keeping it far better option rather than deleting a peace of Democracy — Preceding unsigned —  Abhishekd189 (talk 18:56, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Satisfies WP:RS and WP:GNG. Even if Nehru 1947 event has contested claims, the 2023 Modi event is widely reported and well sourced. The New York Times has noted it as an object that has come to encapsulate the meaning of the new Indian Parliament. It is object of historical and current importance, added a reference to NY Times article published on May 28th, 2023.RogerYg (talk) 21:58, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "At a Hindu prayer ceremony during the inauguration (which also included an interfaith ceremony later), Mr. Modi prostrated himself in front of a scepter, an object that has come to encapsulate the meaning of the new Parliament — a new beginning from an ambitious builder, one determined to shed not just the remnants of India’s colonial past, but also increasingly to replace the secular governance that followed it."[1]— Preceding unsigned comment added by RogerYg (talk • contribs) 21:59, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Asking for improvement is fine but this one clearly passes WP:GNG. This The Hindu article is about Sengol as mentioned in ancient Tamil literature. Possibly, a deeper search into history books & journals would reveal more details about it. --Mixmon (talk) 22:55, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep passes WP:GNG and WP:RS.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 06:00, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Did some refactoring but no vote. This should fix the broken reference syntax and some other issues. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 06:19, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep:As per abobe discusssionsBlackOrchidd (talk) 06:52, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep subject has received significant attention from independent sources to support a claim of notability. Notability is not temporary; once a topic has been the subject of "significant coverage" in accordance with the general notability guideline, it does not need to have ongoing coverage. RV (talk) 08:38, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The Sengol is an object that is similar to the Mace of the United States House of Representatives. It may have been treated as a walking stick in the past. But, the current government has installed it as a symbol of parliament's power --PastaMonk 01:15, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Strong to Keep This is a current event many new generation people don't know the history of Sangol and it is getting current notable media attention for the new Indian parliament. People wanted to know more even what is described here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kaushlendratripathi (talk • contribs) 13:06, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Historic events are not relevant. Currently, this staff is considered as the symbol of parliamentary authority by the elected government of India. For this reason has as much importance as the staff of Parliament in other democratic countries --PastaMonk 15:10, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Merge as per the WP:NOTNEWS policy. 119.152.238.112 (talk) 05:43, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Smerge : per<SubtleChuckle> WP:NRVE, evidence not available in history as a devolution ceremony.--Irshadpp (talk) 18:17, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Nom has misunderstood WP:NRVE. There is no need for any pre-2023 source to establish notability, since the topic has received more than enough coverage in 2023. Maduant (talk) 20:30, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • There seems to be a strong consensus to keep the article. When will the decision be made? Jagmanst (talk) 06:55, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "Modi Opens India's New Parliament Building as Opposition Boycotts". The New York Times. 2023-05-28. Retrieved 2023-05-28.
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! 05:38, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Tamale-Louisville Sister City Relationship[edit]

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

This is mentioned at Tamale, Ghana#Sister_cities and Louisville, Kentucky#Sister_cities. But it is just a fact, not a topic for an encyclopedia article. Walt Yoder (talk) 01:51, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Most of the article consists of just empty words. Not enough content to justify a separate article. Tutwakhamoe (talk) 02:01, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Tutwakhamoe. The article barely talks about what the cities have done together! JML1148 (talk | contribs) 04:48, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Walt YoderThe article is relevant. The cities have done quite a lot together, and @JML1148 is right that the article has not said much about what the cities have done together. So, more content shuld be added, so that the deletion notice is revoked. This particular sister city relationship has built infrastructure, offered scholarships, undertook yearly exchange programs and regular visits. @Tutwakhamoe has a point that more content should be added. So let's add more content and remove it from the delete notice. This sister city relationship has stood for nearly 50 years. I think it is quite relevant. Let's allow a few weeks for more content to be added. Ihikky (talk) 12:37, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Building infrastructure, offering scholarships, participating in student exchanges and having foreign visits are ALL WP:ROUTINE event, there is not much things about the sister city relationship between Tamale and Louisville that sets them apart from the sister city relationship between other cities. Considering sister city relationship between even larger cities don't even have their articles, I'm not so optimistic about how this one is somehow notable enough in source coverage to pass WP:GNG. Tutwakhamoe (talk) 14:33, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I concur. The sources and detail is just WP:ROUTINE, and there doesn't seem to be anything notable about the relationship @Ihikky: If you have anything else that can be added, please do so in the next few days. AfD notices also cannot be removed until the discussion has ended. JML1148 (talk | contribs) 06:33, 29 May 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 California State Railroad Museum#Diesel locomotives. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010Talk 18:10, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Amtrak 281[edit]

Amtrak 281 (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 cannot find even a single reliable source discussing this locomotive. Highly unlikely for an ordinary diesel locomotive to be individually notable outside of its model (EMD F40PH). Trainsandotherthings (talk) 01:00, 28 May 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. This was a weak deletion rationale and equally weak arguments to Keep this article. But I see a consensus to Keep the article from those participanting in this AFD. Liz Read! Talk! 00:44, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Emily Piriz[edit]

Emily Piriz (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 had redirected this article, but it was reverted. Fails WP:NSINGER. Bgsu98 (Talk) 00:44, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Women, Television, and Florida. Bgsu98 (Talk) 00:44, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - If she only placed 12th on American Idol, then I could understand redirecting this. But she also placed on La Voz. I don't believe that redirecting is the right course for subjects that have gained notability for participating in multiple series. --Jpcase (talk) 01:01, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: I can't access the Telemundo article but reading the headline I think it may amount to SIGCOV Jack4576 (talk) 01:54, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 00:48, 28 May 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)‎ MarchOfTheGreyhounds (talk) 13:25, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mahmoud Abdin[edit]

Mahmoud Abdin (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)

Doesn't meet WP:SPORTBASIC as I only found databases on him while expanding the article, nor WP:NOLYMPICS as he didn't get a medal. Paradise Chronicle (talk) 00:46, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Olympics, and Egypt. Paradise Chronicle (talk) 00:46, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • This looks to have a really good chance of notability - I've found when Olympedia gives bios, especially decent-sized ones - they turn out to have enough coverage. The Olympedia piece alone could actually be considered SIGCOV in my opinion, as it has three decent-sized paragraphs. Also, the offline source in the article looks like likely sigcov, as his name is in the title (it seems to be titled "The Death of Mahmoud Abdin").

BeanieFan11 (talk) 01:05, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep In addition to the obituary already cited on the page (which is not a paid obituary, but a feature in the sports page), whose title is translated as mentioned by User:BeanieFan11, there are plenty of articles that satisfy WP:GNG in Al-Ahram. As an example, the main headline of the sports page on February 13, 1936 is "تكريم الاستاذ عابدين بطل مصر في لعب الشيش" (Honoring of Professor Abdin, Egyptian Champion in Fencing). The online database for Al-Ahram is subscription only, but I am happy to send PDFs if necessary to confirm (although they would be in Arabic). Canadian Paul 03:15, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: It did pass WP:GNG. Agreed with Canadian Paul. CastJared (talk) 03:45, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as well. The Olympedia gave me a dead link, that's why I replaced it with what I found and nominated for deletion.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 04:23, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You can withdraw the nomination and close it yourself with a non-admin closure if you've changed your mind. MarchOfTheGreyhounds (talk) 09:45, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't seem to be possible. I tried, but 7 days have not yet passed. Paradise Chronicle (talk) 10:07, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
See the guidelines here. But I will do it for you as you have clearly withdrawn the nom, no worries. MarchOfTheGreyhounds (talk) 13:24, 28 May 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_May_28&oldid=1158800395"