Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 November 30

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

Media Organisations Biography Society Web Games Science Arts Places Indiscern. Not-Sorted

< November 29	December 01 >

Guide to deletion

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. —Ganesha811 (talk) 16:51, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sweet Something[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

non notable event with no lasting impact or coverage and is unlikely to have any lasting impact GRINCHIDICAE🎄 23:28, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per my PROD rationale: "WP:NOTNEWS. This is an absolutely bog-standard break and enter that happened to make the news because the thief did something quirky. Zero indication of any encyclopedic significance, or any lasting coverage or effect." The article creator moved the article today from being about an event ("2023 Sweet Something burglary") to being about the bakery, which is a bog-standard local bakery with no non-local coverage. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:35, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink, Crime, Companies, and Canada. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:34, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence it meets N:ORG, and the burglary didn't move the needle. Star Mississippi 03:17, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I love reading stories like this one - but not in an encyclopedia. Neither the bakery nor the event have enduring notability. Owen× ☎ 19:53, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As I have to agree with others above. I'm not sure what guideline was it, but this seems like one of those one-off events and certainly no lasting notability. --Whosethose (talk) 05:16, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We don't technically have a WP:CORP1E policy, but if you just say "1E", the cool kids will know what you're talking about. ;) Owen× ☎ 20:56, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge‎ to Henry Kissinger#Death. I'm closing this as "Merge". It's up to editors interested in this subject to decide what, if any, of the content is worth moving over to the subject's article. Then this page can either become a redirect or you can take it to WP:RFD and argue about whether or not it should be deleted. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:50, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Death and funeral of Henry Kissinger[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I don't find this page to be particularly necessary; his funeral is private and the page is just short quotes from the U.S. and other countries. the only important parts of this are already echoed at Henry Kissinger#Death. Darling ☔ (talk · contribs) 23:01, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politicians, Politics, United States of America, and Connecticut. Darling ☔ (talk · contribs) 23:01, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. There's nothing notable about the death itself. Even the section on his page will likely be truncated as soon as it isn't breaking news. Zebradreams07 (talk) 23:10, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm undecided. Leaning keep or Merge and then redirect - I think the death was sufficiently covered it may justify a standalone article. The current state of an article is totally irrelevant to whether or not we nominate it for AFD. On notability alone, this probably passes. Though, I personally would consider merge the appropriate path. It likely warrants a standalone article on notability, but this does not necessarily mean it is the most appropriate avenue. Merging relevant content into the Death section of the subject is probably better than a standalone article. I personally feel this should have been a merge discussion rather than AFD. Kind of a weird spot though. — MaxnaCarta ( 💬 • 📝 ) 23:14, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So, why I nominated this article for deletion if I wasn't sure, better said, I left the article intact and I wasn't deliberately putting in the deletion template, with the respect that you deserve, ok 8.242.167.228 (talk) 23:22, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: the notable portion already exists in Henry Kissinger. Nothing to merge, and an unlikely search term for a redir. Owen× ☎ 23:17, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Maintain, this article is very good and don't deserve erased, guys. 8.242.167.228 (talk) 23:20, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Rename I don't think the funeral merits a dedicated article, however I do think having a separate page to include more national and international reactions for such a controversial figure would make sense. Expanding the article and renaming to either Death of Henry Kissinger or Reactions to the death of Henry Kissinger could work. (the second one has already been used for similar circumstances, see Reactions to the death of Elizabeth II or Reactions to the killing of Osama bin Laden) --jonas (talk) 23:30, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- I would agree with you if not for the fact that they're all just brief comments and the amount of them (right now, at least) don't compare to either of the articles you linked. both were pretty much world events; Henry Kissinger's death was fairly minor compared to the two. Darling ☔ (talk · contribs) 01:42, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge if not expanded, move if expanded The existing content in the article is basically what's on Henry Kissinger, but if the article gets significantly expanded (which is quite likely), the article should be kept and moved to Reactions to the death of Henry Kissinger per jonas. ❤History Theorist❤ 23:37, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If you doubt, so, why I nominated this article for deletion if I wasn't sure, better said, I left the article intact and I wasn't deliberately putting in the deletion template, with the respect that you deserve, ok 8.242.167.228 (talk) 00:03, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:35, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Henry Kissinger - Madeleine Albright, Colin Powell, Warren Christopher, Alexander Haig had their death details incorporated into their bio articles. — Maile (talk) 04:07, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete Obviously we do not need a separate article for the topic and we do not need to compile platitutes by unrelated people. Those that are actually more relevant can be summarized in the main article, and this is not comparable to Elizabeth II. Reywas92^Talk 05:02, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - this can all be duly covered at his bio. Iamreallygoodatcheckers^talk 05:23, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Re-direct into Kissinger's bio page. GoodDay (talk) 05:27, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect As I feel it is a better outlet for AfD that an article be redirected not deleted, the remainder of this article should be merged into the appropriate section of the main Henry Kissinger article. Conyo14 (talk) 18:00, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Henry Kissinger#Death. I agree with Conyo14 and others that there is no need for a separate article at this time, but a redirect with any relevant content merged to the appropriate section would be useful. A. Randomdude0000 (talk) 18:36, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge,as others have said Inspector Semenych (talk) 18:55, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect As an WP:ATD: It's a valid search term and title that would likely be recreates as a redirect anyways. Redirects like this title are are created all the time. Hey man im josh (talk) 22:36, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It seems like a redirect to Henry Kissinger#Death makes sense here. SWinxy (talk) 23:05, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per others above ~Gwennie🐈｟💬 📋｠ 02:17, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no significance outside of the subject themself. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 07:37, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per others Wiki O'Ryan (talk) 23:42, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge would indeed be the wisest choice here. TH1980 (talk) 02:04, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, I can see no significance of this article outside of the news cycle and the biography of Kissinger, Bacus15 (talk) 12:25, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per others Ryme071 (talk) 20:38, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - There's barely an article here. It consists of 3 sentences and then a reactions section. -- Cosmic6811 🍁 (T · C) 05:48, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge a trimmed down version per others above, avoid turning it into a memorial. There is no need or sourcing to support a stand alone article. // Timothy :: talk 17:19, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete since all there is to Henry's singular page is "quotes", and even though it's developing, his funeral might be somewhere soon but the death of George H. W Bush has pictures of the Rotunda, state funeral and military salutes, in other "Death and funeral" wikipedia pages of others like Pope John Paul II. There are pallbearers taking the coffin of John Paul, in these pages. They describe how they died either in the page or in their own article but Henry's only cause of death on his death and funeral and Wikipedia page is nothing, barebone editing. No natural causes or something. In the article, it literally says "also stated that the funeral would be private" which essentially makes the entire page not at all a good page. Nowhere near a Featured nether a Good Article. 70.167.194.163 (talk) 18:03, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge This article is mostly random quotes that could be merged into the main article. If it had more substantial content then it might be worth keeping. Mori Calliope fan talk 20:52, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as I don't see much content here worthy of being merged; Henry Kissinger#Death already has the relevant reactions. Elli (talk | contribs) 22:22, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge There hasn't been significant developments other than immediate reactions from public figures, and the funeral has been kept private with few details, it looks like also there won't be a memorial service as initially planned so a slimmed down version of this article could easily be fit into the main subject's article. See for example: Rosalynn Carter's section on how even a public memorial service didn't even need a full article.

Hyperba21 (talk) 19:50, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. I don't see any strong arguments for Keeping this article. If an editor wants to work on it in Draft space, let me know but know that an immediate move back to main space will trigger a CSD G4 speedy deletion unless there are substantial improvements. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:53, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ritesh Hada[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Contested WP:BLAR. Ping Ldm1954. The article fails GNG and ANYBIO having almost no "significant" "third party" coverage from reliable media outside of being mentioned in the context of the university he founded.

Ldm1954 argues in this edit summary that the article should be judged under WP:NPROF however, I disagree since this specific person does not fit in the traditional definition of a academic or a professor (they have zero papers or academic publications) and instead seems like a business person who happens to be involved in edtech (and thus should be judged via ANYBIO and GNG). Sohom (talk) 17:11, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately the above statements are not correct. I reverted a delete and redirect of this page by @Sohom Datta without discussion as too abrupt. I will leave to others to discuss, with my obvious opinion that WP:NPROF holds for an accredited university. Ldm1954 (talk) 17:18, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I fail to see how statements are incorrect, Contested WP:BLAR means the same thing as your explanation. Anyway, lets agree to disagree and let the AFD run it's course :) Sohom (talk) 17:41, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Education, Gujarat, Maharashtra, West Bengal, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:56, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I do not see any reason of not considering him in GNG and ANYBIO segment.

Here are additional citation for the reference:

[1]https://www.ahmedabadmirror.com/pvt-institutions-fill-up-gap-for-shortage-of-oxygen-beds/81798801.html

[2]https://indianexpress.com/article/cities/gandhinagar/indian-army-purchase-general-m-m-naravane-gujarat-university-7792236/&sa=D&source=docs&ust=1700839806687361&usg=AOvVaw1la3PGyQ8dkh32RIanlYfb

[3]https://www.theweek.in/wire-updates/business/2020/09/02/pwr24-karnavati-university.html Hemang.gandhi (talk) 14:33, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Non of these are specifically about the article subject. They are about the universities and other various organization the person has founded and those do not tend to confer notability (To give you a example, Innersloth, the developers of the hugely successful game Among us are not notable, but Among us itself is). Sohom (talk) 14:45, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:49, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete. Because Karnavati University (established 2017) is not a major university, being its president does not inherently make this person notable. Sources do not establish this individual's own notability. The subject does not meet criteria for NPROF, ANYBIO, or GNG. Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 20:41, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable, especially not when inherited from a barely notable university. microbiologyMarcus ^{(petri dish·growths)}

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 Eritrea–United States relations. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:54, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Embassy of the United States, Asmara[edit]

AfDs for this article:

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Most of this article is about the bilateral relations not the actual embassy. Fails WP:ORG. Note this article has deleted 6 months ago. LibStar (talk) 22:55, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations, Africa, and United States of America. LibStar (talk) 22:55, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:51, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — not actually about the purported subject. — Biruitorul ^Talk 23:53, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:47, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Eritrea–United States relations: not notable enough for a standalone page. Owen× ☎ 23:19, 30 November 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 Sri Vaishnavism. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:55, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Tridandi Swami[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

verifiability issues, notability guidelines, possibly original research, in addition to extremely non-neutral language. I've tried to do research of my own to verify any of the claims and have been unable to do so. Would recommend this for drafting, but the creator hasn't made edits to anything since 2011. C26sm1 (talk) 21:06, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Hinduism and Bihar. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:16, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:54, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:47, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

copypasta from an offline source, but redirect to Sri Vaishnavism as a viable ATD. Star Mississippi 03:43, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 23:25, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Chancellor Miller[edit]

AfDs for this article:

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Miller does not seem to meet our notability criteria. The article only cites an IMDB page, and my Google searches could not find any major SIGCOV. Per the notability guideline for entertainers, Miller does not seem to have played substantial roles in any notable pieces of entertainment based on his filmography section. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 19:39, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, and Kentucky. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 19:39, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:45, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. SmartSE (talk) 01:17, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:57, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:46, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no evidence of GNG coverage.

JoelleJay (talk) 20:39, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Ash (band)#Charlotte Hatherley, Nu-Clear Sounds and Free All Angels (1998–2004). Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:56, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Slashed[edit]

AfDs for this article:

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NFF. Previously deleted and immediately recreated. DonaldD23 talk to me 19:44, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and United States of America. DonaldD23 talk to me 19:44, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Because there are a LOT of interviews in reliable media (Guardian, Belfast Telegraph, etc) at the very least a redirect to Ash (band)#Charlotte Hatherley, Nu-Clear Sounds and Free All Angels (1998–2004), where it is treated. But not opposed to keep if NME sources or other can be checked and considered significant.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 21:21, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:57, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:45, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, as nominator I am not opposed to a redirect as detailed above. DonaldD23 talk to me 23:40, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as above, I don't think this is notable enough. microbiologyMarcus ^{(petri dish·growths)} 18:20, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. WP:HEY. Consensus has found that PamD's expansion shows an encyclopedic article can be written on this person. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 13:53, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Joasia Zakrzewski[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Clear case of WP:BLP1E, known only for cheating by taking a car at one race. Only other coverage of her seems to be [4], but that's basically a WP:SPS, since she's clearly submitted the information for the article herself. Joseph2302 (talk) 19:40, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Sports. Joseph2302 (talk) 19:40, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Medicine and Scotland. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:17, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Question: Is there some list of cheating in sports (or in running sports in particular) that a WP:SUMMARY of this could be merged into? This subject doesn't seem notable enough for a stand-alone article. The coverage is about the cheating incident, not the person per se, so this seems to be a typical case of building an article about a non-notable person out of a single passing news event largely of localized or micro-topical interest (i.e., probalby fails WP:BLP1E). The cheating event itself probably passes WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE, for inclusion somewhere, since it did generate some independent press, but this doesn't seems to be a stand-alone article topic, especially not a biography of a living person. I am leaning toward delete if there's not a list article to merge a concise entry into. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 21:42, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: She has held, albeit briefly, the international record for distance run in 48 hours - see https://www.irunfar.com/history-of-the-womens-and-mens-48-hour-world-running-records and https://www.runnersworld.com/runners-stories/a43418171/camille-herron-shatters-48-hour-world-record/. PamD 23:32, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
And found several more sources under "Joanna", and various records broken. PamD 10:45, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete or redirect. WP:ONEVENT IMHO. Redirecting to a list of record holders and/or article about cheating that mentions her might be better, with the list making more sense IMHO. PS. Sidenote. Is her first name legally "Joasia"? In Polish it is a diminutive of Joanna. Some sources use that name instead [5], [6]. If kept, this may need to be renamed to Joanna Zakrzewski, as Joasia may be her nickname, not proper first name. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:18, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The article needn't be at her official name, but at the name by which she is most commonly known. But thanks for the info about the other name, as it finds more sources about her. PamD 07:58, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:24, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep there's enough here unrelated to the event that this doesn't fall under one event IMO. Garuda3 (talk) 02:47, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:45, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notability has been demonstrated well by PamD. --Grnrchst (talk) 08:42, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep recent contributions have demonstrated notability microbiologyMarcus ^{(petri dish·growths)} 21:43, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. Star Mississippi 00:54, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Betaproteobacteria-1 RNA motif[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not meet WP:NBIOL and WP:GNG. No source besides one paper. Hongsy (talk) 04:12, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Biology-related deletion discussions. Hongsy (talk) 04:12, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify or Delete. Published in 2017, it is possible this has been mentioned in other manuscripts under a different name, which might be identifiable via sequence searches or deep review of articles citing the paper supporting this stub. However, I believe that until a motif such as this has been confirmed in some way through experimental evidence, we shouldn't have an article about it. I looked and we do not have an appropriate list to add a mention to. Therefore, my !vote to either Delete or Draftify. (same comment as that on a similar AfD)

User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 01:41, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

keep: see my comment at [[7]] (w.r.t. the deletion discussion for IMPDH RNA motif ). Zashaw (talk) 09:23, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:32, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 06:33, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 22:31, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 23:39, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fondazione Child[edit]

AfDs for this article:

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Only trivial mentions and no significant coverage. Fails WP:NORG. 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 03:17, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Italy. 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 03:17, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:26, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The last AfD didn't seem terribly long on, well, policy based arguments - and the coverage in the article or available with a WP:BEFORE (searching for Fondazione per lo Studio e la Ricerca sull’Infanzia e l’Adolescenza doesn't really help, either) is pretty scanty. Absent SIGCOV from RS we're failing WP:GNG, no? The presumption that someone who funds something is notable doesn't hold water... Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 09:18, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 12:00, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:01, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 22:31, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: 15 minutes of fame is not SIGCOV. -- Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 23:23, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:57, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Place of Peace[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The few cited sources do not support notability per WP:GNG, most are primary, and the rest do not appear to be WP:SIGCOV. glman (talk) 22:02, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture and South Carolina. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:17, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep: I think references 1, 2, and 5 are significant secondary coverage. The article does need a lot of work since many of the other references are primary and/or irrelevant. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 01:57, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
1 is good, I agree. 2 is a passing mention, not WP:SIGCOV - "The family, including Tsuzuki’s children Yuri and Seiji, was also responsible for the creation of Place of Peace at Furman University." 5 is a list, it's better than two, but still a trivial mention. I don't think this meets WP:GNG. glman (talk) 03:52, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Buddhism and Japan. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:36, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- In addition to what's already in the article this piece from The Chronicle of Higher Ed shows that it meets GNG.
- [8] Central and Adams (talk) 17:37, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:31, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this article, a bit a of an absurd nomination. In addition to coverage noted by previous keep votes, there's an AP article [9] which was syndicated as far away as California & a reworked version of which appeared in the Japan Times [10]. Also passing coverage in Forbes as a key part of naming the college campus one of the most beautiful in America [11]. DCsansei (talk) 15:54, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes GNG microbiologyMarcus ^{(petri dish·growths)} 21:45, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. – bradv 22:35, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Media Work Inc (design company)[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Guess we have to go through this yet again. Utterly non notable company, complete promotional garbage sourced to unreliable sources, PR and other nonsense. There is absolutely nothing in the way of meaningful, in depth coverage in this article or elsewhere. Impressive client list is about the extent to which anyone can say anything about this company, though that can't even be reliably sourced. PICKLEDICAE🥒 21:49, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, England, and California. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:18, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Visual arts and Advertising. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:38, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:G11.

Infomemoh (talk) 02:49, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt obvious promotion, nothing to keep. May reach notability in the future, but I think it would have to come from AfC. This feels very COI. microbiologyMarcus ^{(petri dish·growths)} 21:48, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to List of Wikipedias. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 20:47, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Gan Wikipedia[edit]

AfDs for this article:

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Nothing has fundamentally changed since Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gan Wikipedia (2nd nomination), still no independent sourcing, should be redirected again. Fram (talk) 20:44, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 20:44, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt. CSD G4. Kinopiko ^talk 01:12, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Wikipedias per previous nomination. Waddles 🗩 🖉 16:52, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per Waddles, I thing redirect is good for keeping the article redirect to releated topics. Thnx :) ~~ αvírαm|(tαlk) 16:08, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. —Ganesha811 (talk) 16:49, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Vongchavalitkul University F.C.[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not able to find anything via WP:Before and has been unreferenced since the article was created. Jeraxmoira (talk) 20:15, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports, Football, and Thailand. Jeraxmoira (talk) 20:15, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 19:18, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 19:19, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – amateur club without sources... Svartner (talk) 10:21, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to List of Wikipedias. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:59, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wu Wikipedia[edit]

AfDs for this article:

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No indication of any notability, no change in sourcing since Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wu Wikipedia, should again be redirected. Fram (talk) 19:45, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Websites and China. Fram (talk) 19:45, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Wikipedias per previous nomination. Waddles 🗩 🖉 16:51, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 19:42, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ani Adjimanova[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unfortunately, I could not find any significant coverage at all, just database pages like Mak Fudbal. I even searched in Macedonian (Ани Аџиманова) but with no success. No evidence of WP:GNG and WP:SPORTBASIC. I created this article in good faith under a presumption that significant coverage would exist but I have failed to find evidence to support my weak presumption. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:22, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and North Macedonia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:22, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:37, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 19:15, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- Tried making online search only found few statistics sources, nothing to establish notability.Wasilatlovekesy (talk) 06:25, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- per nom. --Whosethose (talk) 13:10, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 20:48, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Andi Hasa[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I'm struggling to find evidence of WP:GNG and WP:SPORTBASIC. He is present in most database sources, which do not confer notability, but I can only find trivial coverage in acceptable news sources, such as Panorama. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:02, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Albania. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:02, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:37, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 19:15, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Bishonen | tålk 14:29, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Naveen Rajasekar[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable BLP. All refs appear to be same article. Entire career is unreferenced. Valereee (talk) 17:48, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and India. Valereee (talk) 17:48, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tamil Nadu-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:04, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I can't find any claim to notability and the one 'source' used is pure spam Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:06, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The sources added have the exact same title and text, contributing nothing to notability. Does not meet WP:NBIO. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 19:13, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is a professional profile. I don't see a way for this to meet N. If it does so eventually, REFUND is available but there's not much here that could go toward an article.—siro χ o 02:40, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete lacks indepth coverage fails WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 01:40, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - does not meet notability threshold. This is an advertisement at best. Madeinlondon2023 (talk) 02:35, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:59, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mainstream Media (media group)[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Part of fake news network Big News Network. Doesn't meet WP:NCORP standard. Aronitz (talk) 17:01, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 November 30. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 17:17, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism, News media, Companies, Websites, Bahrain, and United Kingdom. Skynxnex (talk) 17:54, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete WP:G11 Kinopiko ^talk 20:33, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete: This organization definitely exists, because I can find several passing mentions of them in directories. But their name appears designed to make it hard to find information about them, possibly so that a blatantly promotional Wikipedia article like this one is the only source of information (same goes for Big News Network, below, about which I could find more). We shouldn't help them. But if someone could find reliable sources I would reconsider. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 14:49, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:G11 as @Kinopiko mentioned. Couldn't find good sources. Infomemoh (talk) 02:46, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to List of tunnels in Pennsylvania. Chosen as an WP:ATD. —Ganesha811 (talk) 16:48, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Acheson Tunnel[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable railway tunnel, one of a dozen on the line. No obvious merge target, and there's really nothing to merge. Mackensen (talk) 16:31, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The article is pointless and definitely fails notability. BigSneeze444 (talk) 16:35, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and Pennsylvania. Shellwood (talk) 16:46, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of tunnels in Pennsylvania per WP:ATD-R. StonyBrook _babble 19:28, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I originally nominated this for PROD but an ip objected to it without reason. This tunnel fails WP:GNG very easily. Nagol0929 (talk) 12:32, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of tunnels in Pennsylvania. It should eventually redirect to Rook Subdivision when that article is created. (The article about the railroad that operates the line, Wheeling and Lake Erie Railway (1990), hardly mentions the line and doesn't mention the tunnel, so it wouldn't be a good redirect target.) Pi.1415926535 (talk) 23:05, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ^Complex/_Rational 17:16, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sore Throat (punk/new wave band)[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No evidence that this band is in any way notable. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 15:40, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD cannot be processed correctly because of an issue with the header. Please make sure the header has only 1 article, and doesn't have any HTML encoded characters.—^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 08:48, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and England. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 15:40, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Can only find mentions of individuals with sore throats, nothing about a band. Gnewspapers doesn't have anything. Oaktree b (talk) 22:27, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - They were a pre-Internet local punk band so sources will be tough to find today, which may be unfair, but unless anyone can find anything in old magazines or punk history books, there is simply not enough with which to build a viable article here. Note that the article attempts to use an AllMusic bio page, but that page is just an empty placeholder and I suspect that it mixes up two bands of the same name. I can find no pro reviews or historical discussion for their one album either. The band is briefly mentioned at the article for one member who moved on to other things -- Matthew Flowers -- and the band could possibly be redirected to him, though I doubt that the current title is a likely search term. Finally, if the band article survives this process, it needs to be cleaned up severely. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 15:12, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: not much notability, unfortunately; did play on The Old Grey Whistle Test (video), but other than that I haven't found much. I don't think this is worth a redirect; the search term is fairly unlikely and Flowers wasn't really a frontman, just a manager/co-songwriter/keyboard player. Darling ☔ (talk · contribs) 19:02, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. —Ganesha811 (talk) 16:46, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sumner Hill, California[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Declined PROD. Like Indian Lakes Estates, below, this is just a subdivision. The user who removed the PROD added a few news articles as references, but these are trivial coverage of routine legal matters. Informal settlements like subdivisions are subject to WP:GNG, which is not met in this case because of the lack of significant secondary coverage. This is just a WP:MILL housing tract like any other in the western world; it's on WP simply because a) it had a GNIS entry for some reason, and b) the prolific mass-article-creator Carlossuarez46 had internet access. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 15:40, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD cannot be processed correctly because of an issue with the header. Please make sure the header has only 1 article, and doesn't have any HTML encoded characters.—^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 08:48, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and California. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 15:40, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:GNG and WP:HEY. The Sumner Hill community's legal battle against encroaching development went on for six years, reaching appellate court and resulting in a $3.2 million jury award to the homeowners. As a result, there was WP:SUSTAINED coverage about the community over a period of time, which I would hardly call a "routine legal matter". Cielquiparle (talk) 03:18, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: if the $3.2M lawsuit were a precedent-setting case, it would deserve its own article. But it isn't, leaving the subdivision to fend for itself in terms of notability. Owen× ☎ 23:50, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
On that basis, the subsequent $25 million lawsuit that the Rio Mesa developers won against Fidelity National Title Insurance is arguably "precedent-setting" per the 2016 Fresno Bee article: "It effectively says to the title company industry to be more careful what they do and that California insurance laws are very strict and are designed to protect." But anyway the lawsuits' precedent-setting isn't what's in question here. It's whether Sumner Hill, California, actually exists and is "notable" as verified by significant coverage in multiple reliable independent secondary sources. And the answer to that is yes on the basis of the sources that are already in the article. Cielquiparle (talk) 02:41, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
But @OwenX, thanks for reading and for raising the question which certainly is interesting. I've added the point about constitutional protection of public access to navigable waters, where the appeals court actually ruled against the Sumner Hill homeowners – notable enough for the discussion to be cited in Stanford Environmental Law Journal. Cielquiparle (talk) 03:56, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There's no question Sumner Hill exists. What we are debating here is notability. If the $25 million case was a precedent-setting one, I'd love to see a separate article about it. As for the notability of Sumner Hill, I have yet to see coverage that suggests notability. But I'd be happy to hear what other editors think about this. Owen× ☎ 13:59, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@OwenX There's more in the article than just about the lawsuit though. Cielquiparle (talk) 16:49, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I know there is, but as I said, I don't find any of it to meet our notability standards. Right now, it's not even mentioned in Madera County, California. Owen× ☎ 17:20, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It is now. Cielquiparle (talk) 07:58, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate the effort, but I'm not sure what that changes. The article about the county, in existence on WP for 21 years, never mentioned the subdivision until you rushed over to add the link, in an attempt to defend the page about Sumner Hill in an AfD. My point was not that we can't have a page about Sumner Hill because it's not mentioned in Madera County, California. It's that despite having links to five other unincorporated communities, until you did so yesterday, no one even thought of mentioning Sumner Hill there. In the end, mentions on WP do not establish notability. Notability must be established by independent, reliable third-party sources, and so far, we haven't seen those. Owen× ☎ 15:44, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Easily meets WP:GNG, as there is significant coverage in reliable secondary sources which have been added to the article. These include multiple focused articles in the Fresno Bee over a WP:SUSTAINED period of time, starting in 1985 when the Sumner Hill subdivision was created at Peck Ranch. Yes, per WP:GEOLAND, subdivisions are not inherently notable...but the subsequent legal dispute between the Sumner Hill homeowners and the Rio Mesa developers over access to the San Joaquin River generated sustained media coverage over nine years, such as the 2007 "Tempers roiling on the river"; the 2008 article "River subdivision residents keep trails out"; and the 2012 "Homeowners win case on river access". The 2012 article in The Recorder published by American Lawyer Media provides an in-depth summary and analysis of the appeals court ruling, including key points on the history of the Sumner Hill development and dispute. (The 2012 ruling is also cited in the 2017 Stanford Environmental Law Journal and in the West Virginia Law Review, suggesting that the case has implications in other contexts, including issues related to constitutional protection of public access to coastal waterways.) Far from being ignored by the County of Madera, Sumner Hill has often been upheld as a "prominent development" within the county's broader plans for the "Rio Mesa" area, as explained in the 2012 Business Journal article and others. All in all, compared to the other Madera County stubs recently under review, this one is actually worth keeping; understand that private gated communities are not popular, but WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not a viable reason to delete. Cielquiparle (talk) 18:52, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
On the contrary! Private gated communities are extremely popular, as witnessed by their increasing prevalence. I am a big fan myself - used to live in one until a few years ago. However, I do not let my personal preferences bias my actions when editing a neutral point of view encyclopedia.

Notability criteria have nothing to do with whether or not we like the subject matter. Wikipedia has articles about some of the nastiest people and organizations in history. The difference is that those people and organizations are extensively covered by non-primary sources, thereby establishing their notability. Almost all the sources you provided have to do with two non-notable court cases, and the rest are local publications of limited value as a secondary source.

Pardon me for asking, but are you in any way connected to the subdivision or the court cases? If so, you must disclose it per WP:DCOI. Owen× ☎ 21:15, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No. I never heard of this place until I did the research. I disagree with your assertion of non-notability which seems entirely subjective. But we can agree to disagree. Cielquiparle (talk) 21:20, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, passes WP:GNG per Cielquiparle's research and expansion. BeanieFan11 (talk) 18:01, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, passes WP:GNG per HEY research and expansion. Djflem (talk) 03:33, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and kudos to Cielquiparle for the in-depth research. The sources show there is significant coverage of this place in multiple reliable sources. Firsfron of Ronchester 17:06, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. There is one strong keep argument here, showing that reliable sources cover the topic of immigration policy under "New Labor" governments. Nonetheless, I see consensus here that the article as it stands is unacceptable synthesis. This discussion does not preclude recreation with better sources and better framing, or the use of the sources provided to expand a broader article. Vanamonde (Talk) 08:04, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Immigration under New Labour from 1997 - 2010[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This page is essentially a polemic written from a very one-sided point of view. The references are either non-existent or come from very selective quoting of existing news articles, and it does not offer a balanced view of the issue. It seems astonishing that it has the bold (unreferenced) claim "the impact of the net increase has changed the ethnic demography of the United Kingdom" in the opening paragraph, which is essentially meaninglees given that ethnic demography is a constantly-changing thing. This seems to be an article solely created to prove some kind of nebulous political point. Some might argue that there is scope for the page to be improved and given a neutral point of view - I would be included to say that the best thing to do would be to merge a small amount of the content here to Immigration policy of the United Kingdom. It is notable that there is no comparable page for the immigration policies of any other government of the UK, which seems to also add to the suggestion that this page is being used as some kind of coatrack to air partisan grievances about a particular government.

Automated comment: This AfD cannot be processed correctly because of an issue with the header. Please make sure the header has only 1 article, and doesn't have any HTML encoded characters.—^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 08:48, 30 November 2023 (UTC) SparksSparksSparks (talk) 15:31, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agreed with nom, a textbook coatrack article heavy on WP:SYNTH and arbitrarily focused on a particular window of time without clear explanation why. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 15:48, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Do I need to fill out a form stating "Why did you make this article", where do I fill it in, can you direct me to it? Tweedle (talk) 22:44, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and United Kingdom. Skynxnex (talk) 17:51, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per OP. Does seem to clearly be written to make a political point. Heavy WP:SYNTH as Skynxnex says. — Czello ^(music) 18:02, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:SYNTH – FenixFeather ^{(talk)(Contribs)} 21:19, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Could just be article about immigration to the UK during that period, Labour or not being in power doesn't really matter... Oaktree b (talk) 22:30, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That is true but why that particular period? There is already a general article about UK immigration policy as mentioned above, the time period isn't particularly notable (the period from 1948 - 1962 is much more notable in terms of UK immigration policy), and there aren't any other articles about other time periods anyway. SparksSparksSparks (talk) 10:10, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
OK so if I had instead created an article detailing 1948 to 1962 immigration policy would you have started an AfD calling for the removal of that article because "there aren't other articles covering it so why have that one"? Yes or no? Tweedle (talk) 22:44, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I would have suggested it be merged into the main article Immigration policy of the United Kingdom, which seems a much better place to list immigration policy than a series of articles about arbitrary time periods. SparksSparksSparks (talk) 09:15, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep lack of comparable articles is irrelevant in terms of a notability discussion; WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST. There are numerous reliable source texts covering precisely this topic (the first two are book length academic texts): Labour's Immigration Policy: The Making of the Migration State (Palgrave Macmillan, 2017), Immigration Under New Labour (Bristol University Press, 2007), How immigration came to haunt Labour: the inside story (The Guardian, 2015), The Immigration Legacy of Tony Blair (Migration Policy Instittue, 2007), Immigration Under New Labour: Policy and Effects (Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 2011). Throughout the New Labour period, there was a vast amount of media reporting on the issue (and FWIW, there continues to be). The article does not appear to be a case of WP:TNT, the only issues raised above are specific content issues, that can be handled with minor cleanup. For example, this sentence "during this period around 2.2 million immigrants entered the United Kingdom,[3] the salience of the issue of immigration rose to one of the most prominent political issues in the country,[4] and the impact of the net increase has changed the ethnic demography of the United Kingdom." Is there anything there which is factually incorrect? Yes, I can quibble with the language of the last clause (is it net migration? is it comparable to other similar countries? University of Oxford's Migration Observatory provides good sourcing for these kinds of issues), but, to reiterate, I'm not seeing enough evidence that this is WP:TNT worthy. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 20:58, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Entire AfD rests on a WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST fallacy. If the charge being levelled at me by extension of this articles creation is that I didn't have enough time to cover every single other period of migration policy in British history, then well I'm going to have to declare myself GUILTY!

"The references are either non-existent or come from very selective quoting of existing news articles"

Fascinating to find out that the Telegraph, the Guardian, the BBC, the Migration Observatory, Migration Policy and Will Somerville's book are 'very selective quoting or non-existent' sourcing. Thanks for that insight!

"astonishing that it has the bold (unreferenced) claim "the impact of the net increase has changed the ethnic demography of the United Kingdom" in the opening paragraph, which is essentially meaninglees given that ethnic demography is a constantly-changing thing"

Claims in the lead which are substationed in the body of the text do not need a reference (can't remember the exact WP:RULE name forgive me but someone down here will be able to verify this for me) if there are plenty of references covering it but besides that you literally state in the same breath that the claim is true, which it is, but that it's 'meaningless because its always happening' so what is the gripe here? Remove it for all I care and for the rest of the claims of language you can change around, that's still not a reason for deleting the article lol

"It is notable that there is no comparable page for the immigration policies of any other government of the UK, which seems to also add to the suggestion that this page is being used as some kind of coatrack to air partisan grievances about a particular government."

No again it's not, you are free to cover whatever 'scholarly' topic you want on here granted that there is enough sources warranting for it to be its own separate article (which there is in this case as the sources on this article are atm and the above user has shown). Tweedle (talk) 22:44, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: the title already broadcasts the POV nature of the page. I was initially pondering a possible merger into Immigration policy of the United Kingdom or Modern immigration to the United Kingdom, but the combative attitude of the author here makes me fear the target of such a merger would, in turn, become the new political battleground for this content. And frankly, there's just not enough encyclopedic content here to justify wasting editors' time with soch POV battles. Owen× ☎ 19:51, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, in my opinion this is textbook WP:SYNTH - the sources back up each individual statement but their collection together as a subject is done purely by us, which is not how we should be covering article subjects. Daniel (talk) 00:55, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a case of WP:SYNTH and some original researches. Freinland (talk) 07:48, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 23:27, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Alberte Bekkhus[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The sources point out that the person is not notable. Leader of Red Youth won't add much to notability Tls9-me (talk) 10:12, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The person lacks notability and there are just mentions of the person in the given sourcesMicheal Kaluba (talk) 14:36, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Women, and Norway. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 13:53, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:17, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Being leader of a political party's youth chapter is not an WP:NPOL-passing role, but the sourcing is nowhere near strong or substantive enough to deem her as passing WP:GNG for it. Bearcat (talk) 22:26, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 10:38, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jorekhali Senior Fazil Digree Madrasah[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Declined and rejected multiple times at AFC but moved to mainspace by COI editor so here we are, fails WP:NORG and blatant advertising. Theroadislong (talk) 12:32, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools and Bangladesh. Theroadislong (talk) 12:32, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:12, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No coverage found in Google or Gnews, what's used now as sourcing is government documents (test results). appears PROMO as well Oaktree b (talk) 15:07, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom fails WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 02:09, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 15:08, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bethlehem Academy (Faribault, Minnesota)[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

fails general notability guideline. only sourced to a database (i assume, the link is dead). ltbdl (talk) 08:35, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools and Minnesota. ltbdl (talk) 08:35, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
●Comment- Found the link in the wayback machine here. it is indeed a database. 😎😎PaulGamerBoy360😎😎 (talk) 15:44, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education and Christianity. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:07, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete- per all of the statements I have made above & Below. 😎😎PaulGamerBoy360😎😎 (talk) 23:00, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. While the article is clearly deficient, the subject is notable and there are many independent links from Google. The article's sources are inadequate but sources exist. They show that the school has been in continuous existence for over a century and a half. Kablammo (talk) 11:40, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@kablammo: may i have links to those sources? ltbdl (talk) 15:06, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Ltbdl I have added 9 new references to this article, the refs are most likely the same links @Kablammo found. Although None of the refs I have found have significant coverage. 😎😎PaulGamerBoy360😎😎 (talk) 17:11, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I took a look at the added sources, and everything except for the sports coverage is junk sadly. They are all simple database sites without in-depth coverage.

Many of those can be modified by the school, and is of questionable reliability.

Unless Kablammo's links are substantial, I agree with PaulGamerBoy that there is not enough coverage to write an entire article about the school. Ca ^{talk to me!} 17:23, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have reviewed the links and also some books citing local newspaper articles, and I agree that these, while independent, are little more than brief mentions rather than in-depth sources. Therefore I have stricken my Keep. Kablammo (talk) 12:42, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Found this additional coverage here Atlantic306 (talk) 00:19, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That is not about the school itself. 😎😎PaulGamerBoy360😎😎 (talk) 20:02, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Part of it is directly about the founding of the school by the Dominican nuns, there is even a picture of the original building Atlantic306 (talk) 00:55, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Whoops sorry i only read the first few paragraphs & the images didn't show on my browser. They appear now. 😎😎PaulGamerBoy360😎😎 (talk) 17:44, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Wider assessment of the significance of the sources mentioned is needed.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NotAGenious (talk) 12:00, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:12, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

~~●Comment- After assessing the sources provided I personally feel that they do not provide enough "significant coverage in reliable sources", see my !vote above~~. 😎😎PaulGamerBoy360😎😎 (talk) 15:02, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

PaulGamerBoy360, Please consider a couple of additional sources below. — Jacona (talk) 18:53, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

•Keep- Due to the additional sources found, I am changing my !vote to keep 😎😎PaulGamerBoy360😎😎 (talk) 14:47, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. [This https://www.newspapers.com/article/the-irish-standard-bethlehem-academy-fa/136433285/] clip from 1896 is WP:SIGCOV. This article (and part2) from 1915 discusses their 50th anniversary, so founded in 1865. There are more, but I stopped here. This school was around 130 years before the internet. I'd be willing to wager there is lots of offline coverage in those 130 years. While I'm not arguing that being old alone is a guarantee of notability, I find it exceedingly unlikely that a school in continuous operation for 158 years would not be notable, and found sufficient evidence in just a couple of minutes. Based on these and other references, this article passes WP:GNG and therefore WP:NSCHOOL. Jacona (talk) 18:44, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. There are book references, One is "Preaching with Their Lives: Dominicans on Mission in the United States after 1850" ISBN 9780823289660. I have also found multiple references to a 1954 book about the school entitled "Five Decades". I can't find the book online. Maybe someone else has better skills than I. Here is one mention. Jacona (talk) 20:00, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep in view of the reliable sources coverage identified by Jacona that show significant coverage so that WP:GNG is passed and deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 22:57, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge‎ to Yo-kai Watch. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 14:04, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jibanyan[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails SIGCOV and notability, most of the sources at reception were trivial. Not sure the first source at further reading section helps, but the second one is dead? Anyway, even thou we can still access it; not sure it will squick through WP:GNG. GreenishPickle! (🔔) 13:42, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Literature, Television, Video games, and Japan. Skynxnex (talk) 17:48, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Yo-kai Watch. The reception is worse than bad and there's no indication of GNG being passed. I didn't say the character list because that is honestly TNT material in itself. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 19:50, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Zxcvbnm. The reception doesn't support a separate article, per WP:SIGCOV. Shooterwalker (talk) 21:24, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge‎ to F.E.A.R.. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 14:04, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Alma Wade[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Probs fails SIGCOV and notability in my book, relying mostly at rankings. The sources/book looks lime its isn't enough yet and most the sources from google search shows talks about the game, and not the character itself (some of them, but mostly plot and passing mentions). GreenishPickle! (🔔) 13:29, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Video games. Skynxnex (talk) 17:47, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to F.E.A.R.. There is no indication of standalone notability. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 19:54, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge what can be saved to the parent game, but for the most part just redirect.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 09:51, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Kung Fu Man. The limited coverage suggests a redirect is best. But some amount can be preserved at the target. Doesn't meet WP:GNG. Shooterwalker (talk) 21:23, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. If anyone would like the article userfied to work on it, please let me know. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 15:09, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Joann Hess Grayson[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No notability criteria is met. The article has no secondary sources independent of the subject and I cannot find them either. This person has no available secondary coverage elsewhere, so they do not qualify under WP:GNG or WP:ANYBIO. Further, they do not qualify under WP:ACADEMIC as their H-Index is 0 and the general consensus is that to qualify under the Academic guideline, am H-Index of 15+ is required. — MaxnaCarta ( 💬 • 📝 ) 08:54, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. — MaxnaCarta ( 💬 • 📝 ) 08:54, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator. Xxanthippe (talk) 10:21, 23 November 2023 (UTC).[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Missouri and Virginia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 13:57, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No evidence of WP:GNG or WP:PROF notability in the article or elsewhere. I found one article with 200+ citations but psychology is a high citation field and only one well cited publication isn't enough. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:49, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've added some news sources detailing some of some work she has done and some of the awards she's received for her work, all mainly at the statewide level. Bridget (talk) 10:15, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Psychology. Bridget (talk) 13:18, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. based on the 2 new citations added by @Bridget --> 1 and 2.Royal88888 (talk) 03:04, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I do not believe this constitutes significant coverage. A local newspaper has covered the granting of a non-notable award. There are countless people given awards of a similar level all over the world, and coverage in a local newspaper does not, to me, demonstrate significant coverage warranting inclusion in an enyclopaedia. — MaxnaCarta ( 💬 • 📝 ) 05:02, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. Doesnt seem to pass NPROF but seems to pass GNG with the newspaper coverage about her and the awards that she received. --hroest

How? One is a local newspaper with a stub on being given a non-notable award, and the other addition does not count as it is the paper of the university the subject teaches at, it is not a secondary source independent of the subject and hence does not demonstrate notability. I'd like to see anyone supporting to keep the article provide me their three best sources. If significant coverage can be demonstrated I will withdraw the nomination.— MaxnaCarta ( 💬 • 📝 ) 05:04, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: More discussion is needed for a clearer consensus to be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Shoerack (talk) 13:21, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Little sign of WP:NPROF, and I don't think that routine short items in local news about minor awards constitute WP:SIGCOV for GNG. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 12:32, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 13:08, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Váci Mihály Gimnázium[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unsourced. Xx236 (talk) 12:14, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD cannot be processed correctly because of an issue with the header. Please make sure the header has only 1 article, and doesn't have any HTML encoded characters.—^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 08:48, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This one is blatant PROMO. Stuff like "it has always preserved its own traditions, teaching methods suitable for any of the students and remained a strong institution." has no place in an encyclopedia. Industrial Insect (talk) 17:23, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools and Hungary. Skynxnex (talk) 17:45, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:09, 30 November 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. CAPS is an assertion that isn't policy based, leaving us with a weak delete and no further input Star Mississippi 00:56, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ryang Kyu-sa[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article fails WP:GNG. Simione001 (talk) 01:19, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 01:19, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 01:19, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 01:19, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Japan and North Korea. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:40, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: This one is technically also notable given he has international caps, however more research needs to be done to establish how long he's played for the North Korean national team. Dazzling4 (talk) 01:53, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The number is international caps isn't relevant when establishing notability as per WP:GNG. Simione001 (talk) 02:06, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 20:06, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 20:08, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:22, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 10:51, 30 November 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 Palletalawinna. as it now exists (thank you). Star Mississippi 00:58, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Palle Talawinna Udagammedda[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not meet WP:GNG and WP:PLACEOUTCOMES. No reliable source. Hongsy (talk) 02:50, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Sri Lanka. Hongsy (talk) 02:50, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Well, it certainly has a railway station, which suggests it exists and probably passes WP:GEOLAND. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:23, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
delete Katugastota has a railway station, if GMaps is to trusted. There's no source given for the location, it's the usual useless reference to the Sri Lankan census, and if the location be believed, it's a neighborhood in Kandy, not a village. Mangoe (talk) 13:11, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:16, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Palletalawinna is a settlement with a railway station of the same name. The settlement is not a suburb of Kandy per Google Maps. However, the article title includes Udagammedda and the only reference I've found under the article title is the GNIS. Rupples (talk) 04:19, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Palletalawinna, which is a notable geographic location. Additional references provided to clarify Palletalawinna passess WP:NGEO. Dan arndt (talk) 03:00, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dan arndt, there is no Palletalawinna article. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:12, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Liz: I meant it should be renamed to Palletalawinna, as that is the WP:COMMONAME for the location. Dan arndt (talk) 07:50, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

To muddy the waters further, there's Palle Talawinna. Rupples (talk) 08:07, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:04, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 10:50, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @Liz:/@Rupples: have created Palletalawinna so that a redirect is now able to be achieved. Dan arndt (talk) 04:08, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I support this redirect. Rupples (talk) 21:02, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 13:36, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keenagolla[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not meet WP:GNG and WP:PLACEOUTCOMES. No reliable source. Hongsy (talk) 02:44, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Sri Lanka. Hongsy (talk) 02:44, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:13, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Other than a nature reserve, other references are about a tea estate in another province. Nothing found in gazetteer under this name or latest census. Rupples (talk) 15:58, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Found co-ordinates, it is mapped and the area around is populated. There's a Keenagolla primary school in Walapane Education Division.[12]. No. 1408 on this official list [13]. Striking delete on this evidence. Keep getting Timed Out when trying to connect to the Divisional Secretariat website, which may give further proof of the village's/hamlet's existence. Rupples (talk) 15:14, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:30, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 10:50, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:24, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Patrick Smyth (runner)[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable runner. No major achievements or medals won. Natg 19 (talk) 20:35, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and United States of America. Natg 19 (talk) 20:35, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets WP:NTRACK - Top 8 finish at 2017 World Mountain Running Championships (and team bronze). Plus, along with what is in the article appears to meet WP:GNG with these: [14], [15], [16], [17]. RonSigPi (talk) 21:28, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep We don't decide whether to keep an article based on achievements or medals won, we decide based on the presence or non-presence of coverage. And this athlete has enough specific coverage as demonstrated above. --Habst (talk) 14:37, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as none of the sources provide Wikipedia:Significant coverage beyond saying he won X championship. बिनोद थारू (talk) 02:00, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Stifle (talk) 10:10, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The Runner's World and ESPN articles (a few comments above this one) are good sources, the interview can fill in the spaces but is primary sourcing. I think we have enough for notability. Oaktree b (talk) 15:13, 30 November 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!} 08:23, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Carmen E. Garza[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Delete per WP:USCJN - [Magistrate judges] are.. "not inherently notable" and per consensus at WP:Articles for deletion/Margaret J. Schneider. Article appears to focus more on misconduct allegations than subject itself Snickers2686 (talk) 22:03, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law, United States of America, and New Mexico. Snickers2686 (talk) 22:03, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 23:19, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Magistrate judges are not inherently notable, but some do rise to the level of notability. This judge was the subject of a "rare public order" that "appeared to be the first time that an order had addressed abusive conduct by a federal judge" under judicial employment dispute resolution rules that had not previously been applied. This means the subject's alleged actions were the focus of scrutiny in an order that has implications for other federal judicial employees in the United States, illustrating a broader level of importance than the "run of the mill magistrate judge" cited in the AfD discussion for the cited comparator. And the conduct was publicly attributed to this specific judge, which is not especially common since judges accused of similar conduct often force the closing of any investigations by resigning. I think these factors push this over the line for notability. SeenToBeDone (talk) 03:11, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep: Completely agree with the nom that magistrate judges are not inherently notable, but the misconduct allegations against her have resulted in enough coverage from a multitude of sources for this subject to meet WP:BASIC, such as in the Washington Post (in the article), Bloomberg [[18]] and Reuters [[19]]. Some rewriting is likely needed but WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP. User:Let'srun 01:12, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Stifle (talk) 10:09, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: This particular individual seems notable for the judicial "item" that was used for the first time over the misconduct allegations. No judgement on the merits of the accusations, but this lifts the particular biography into notability for the amount of coverage it had. Oaktree b (talk) 15:42, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:12, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

James Richman[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

There is a suspicion that this person does not exist.

There are no publications in the Latvian language (he was supposedly born in Latvia), several Latvian community members did some research and found nothing. Džeims could be a proper (but rare) Latvian name, Ricmens is not a Latvian surname and to me just sounds like a prank — "Rich man".
Almost all of the sources used in the article do not seem reliable. No prominent media have reported on him. Even if this person is real and a billionaire he should not be notable here as there are no reputable third-party publications about him.
Deletion discussion already started on Polish Wikipedia. Papuass (talk) 08:56, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD cannot be processed correctly because of an issue with the header. Please make sure the header has only 1 article, and doesn't have any HTML encoded characters.—^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 08:48, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Papuass (talk) 08:56, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This is kind of fascinating. I did some basic research: of the sources in the article, one doesn't mention Richman at all, and two are dead links. The most reliable source is probably Yahoo Finance, but all other sources are somewhat obscure, and some are scrapers. An online search also doesn't bring up any sources such as the Financial Times, The Economist etc. mentioning Richman. Of course there's not specific requirement for any of these sources to mention him, but you would think that this guy would come up at least once in any of these established sources.

Furthermore, there's the website of JJ Richman, Richman's supposed company. It's pretty bare bones. Of course having a fancy website is also not a requirement for having a Wikipedia article, but you'd think that with "teams across the globe", they would list their staff or something, anything. Lastly, pictures of the supposed James Richman. There's a bunch, and they are mostly photoshopped images of some bloke with shades. Maybe that's the actually existing James Richman, but again, you would think there would be at least one normal picture of this guy somewhere that doesn't look like a YouTube thumbnail. Cortador (talk) 09:34, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Yahoo Finance story comes from "Insider Monkey". I am not sure what kind of company they are and what is their reporting quality. JJ Richman exists on Linkedin, but user form Polish Wikipedia could not find it in registry of Singaporian companies where it is supposed to be registered. Papuass (talk) 10:06, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Good catch. I assessed the sources the article uses, and it's mostly sources making claims that, mysteriously, aren't mentioned anywhere else e.g. Richman being the richest European and possibly the second-richest man in the world. Articles also commonly link to news aggregators, which speaks for the quality of their editing process. I also checked the UK's company register, and while there are a couple of companies called "Richman", none is called "JJ Richman", and they are all dissolved or a different kind of business. My current impression is that "James Richman" is a guy who photoshopped a few selfies and got the attention of some low-quality news sources. But even that speculation aside, the source situation is in my opinion dire enough to warrant deletion. Cortador (talk) 10:20, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The photographs I found in articles and a Youtube video are all in only a few poses (with a different background). So that might as well be AI generated photos. So the person might not even exists or it might a model/actor that posed for one photo shoot. Might not be related to those using the "Richman" name (which BTW sounds like a comics character Richie Rich).

As for sources: note that I already removed some fake information. Some sources are clearly fabricated so someone took effort to fabricate information. The main example I'm very sure is fabricate is the one about investment in a 3-D printed heart. 3-D printed heart was a real invention, but Richman was not acknowledged in the paper about the heart. See also: Removed, falsified information.

I see Cortador already added some more info on sources curently in the article on Talk:James_Richman. Nux (talk) 12:33, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Medicine, Technology, and Latvia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:46, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The author was 'a member of the Counter-Vandalism Unit.'

Xx236 (talk) 12:32, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I reviewed some sources on plwiki and some things on enwiki. Already removed some of the information that I'm quite sure was falsified (meaning other sources that should confirm an investment do not say anything about Richman nor JJ Richman company). I was also unable to find any source that confirm registration of JJ Richman company which supposed to be stationed in Singapure. Unless I'm missing something, JJ Richman company is very likely to be a scam. Wikipedia is most probably intended to boost credibility of the company that probably doesn't even exists or doesn't have the money and abilities they say they do. Yes, I'm aware the this is a big accusation. Even if the company and the person exists it is definitely not as influential as the initial article suggested. So the article should be removed. --Nux (talk) 12:58, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I agree that this is likely at best a prank and at worst a scam, but even if it wasn't, the bottom-tier sourcing justifies a deletion on an article about this supposed major investor that no reliable sources mentions, ever. Cortador (talk) 14:52, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: As nominator. --Papuass (talk) 13:48, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. There is general agreement that the sources provided to support this article's existence are insufficient. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 15:30, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Internet meme trolls in Kerala[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Reverted WP:PROD. The regional subject of "Internet meme trolls in Kerala" in particular does not appear to be a notable topic, and neither do any of the individual "trolling groups" mentioned. This simply isn't encyclopedic material, and is akin to writing an article called "Garage bands in Kerala" and using it as a WP:COATRACK to include WP:INDISCRIMINATE / WP:NFT material about you and your friends' non-notable bands. The fact that some minor and mostly local/regional coverage exists that mentions trolls and Kerala is about the same as minor newspapers mentioning that a live music scene exists there and mentioning some bands. This is not in-depth coverage of the quasi-broad article subject as such, nor in-depth coverage of particular trolling groups or individual trolls. It simply is not plausible that Kerala especially has a noteworthy trolling phenomenon happening, when Internet trolls are active all over the world, doing the same sorts of stuff everywhere. Even if something like that could be demonstrated about Kerala, it would only rate a sentence or two at Troll (slang)#India, not a separate articles, since there isn't anything distinctive about the trolling activity in (or regarding) Kerala.

WP:BEFORE: I Googled around for additional source material but didn't find anything better than what is already in there, though exactly how to search for something like this is bit subjective. It's possible there is some additional coverage that actually is significant, in some non-English language(s) of India, but I doubt it, and am not competent to find it. This is pretty typical of general-search results, and this of Google News results. Lots of passing mentions about someone being trolled, someones doing some trolling, some venue with a bunch of trolls. In short, it looks like coverage of Internet trolling everywhere. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 08:38, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. For the reasons outlined in the nomination. I tried to tidy up this article, dealing mainly with format, but could see that it's a non-notable topic. Regards, BoyTheKingCanDance (talk) 09:41, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Arbitrary and lacks encyclopedic value. Internet trolls are everywhere across the globe. Nothing special about Kerala to warrant an independent article. Sources are run-of-the-mill, and fails WP:INDISCRIMINATE. This also serves as a WP:PROMOTION for troll pages and trolls from Kerala, treating Wikipedia as a personal blog for local interests.--The Doom Patrol (talk) 09:49, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

FactorDaily is not "local/regional coverage", unless one counts India as "local/regional". And its article, alone, is fairly substantial. The The News Minute article is on the same two named groups, and is an additional, second, independent source. Both sources discuss specific things that are particular to their circumstances, such as what topics have caused them problems, and the Times of India piece (which is somewhat the poorer than the others, which people not used to Indian news media might not expect) then adds to that commentary on the language issues.
The real problem here is that the article writers here in the English Wikipedia cannot write English. With these sources available, gibberish like the second paragraph means that L1 English speakers will probably not appreciate what is in the sources and what the subject is. The Deccan Herald source has been completely misrepresented, for example.
Simply put:
Trolling has become a cottage industry in Kerala, exemplified by two main groups, Troll Malayalam and International Chalu Union, that have grown and become organized, with their own semi-formal moderation systems and rules of conduct, since 2015. They target mainly Indian public figures, have rules about not invading their private lives or making fun of their physical attributes, and have trolled non-Indian figures as well, sometimes resulting in figures in the Anglosphere outside of India (e.g. Mitchell Johnson) suddenly (and to their surprise) having hundreds of memes in Malayalam appearing as replies to their social media posts.
Running jokes that they employ include giving K Surendran the nickname (in Malaylam) "onion plant", and high profile trolls have included trolling Sachin Tendulkar by pretending to apologize to Maria Sharapova for having trolled her years before for saying that she didn't know who Tendulkar was, and agreeing that she has turned out to be right to do so all along. Common reactions to their trolling have been particularly strong when it comes to Modi, and a meme targetting Christianity caused an artist from Canada to try to take their FaceBook page down by falsely claiming that their logo was copyrighted by him.
There you go: A stub supportable from all four of the aforementioned sources that actually explains the subject. Now try the Google Scholar search in the advanced search box above and be surprised at the sources that are not yet in the article and the further scope for expansion that there is from people who have actually made academic studies of this. ☺
Uncle G (talk) 10:18, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I could probably construct a similar-scope stub, with similar quality sources, about the live music scene in Albuquerque, New Mexico, including various specific bands, and this won't make it an encyclopedic topic that needs a stand-alone article with coatracking of non-notable bands. Even if something can marginally pass WP:GNG (and I'm not at all sure from the above that this does) doesn't mean that we must have an article for it. When it's something trivial, of almost entirely local or regional interest, and not appreciably different from the same sort of thing everywhere else, other than some names are different, then the best option (if we cover it at all) is generally as a paragraph or maybe a section in some broader article. There are some trollings that have generated considerable press coverage, from Stephen Colbert's repeated on-TV advocacy of his audience vandalizing Wikipedia, way back in the day, to the last few years' torrent of online anger directed at J. K. Rowling (on multiple issues), but we cover these things very briefly at Stephen Colbert (character), and with barely any mention (two sentence clauses, basically) at Political views of J. K. Rowling focusing instead on reactions to her by notable people.
FactorDaily is described as "an Indian digital media publication", but that doesn't make it a reliable source (and it appears never to have been discussed at WP:RSN). It did get two awards for specific articles and was co-founded by a legit journalist, Pankaj Mishra, which are promising, but our article at FactorDaily has no other information that would help establish reputability or lack thereof, and it doesn't have a lot of coverage about it, itself. Our article at The News Minute suggests it only has a staff of 12 (only one of whom was notable, Chitra Subramaniam, who is no longer there), but it also has won awards for two articles. Also seems never to have been reviewed at RSN. But the "fairly substantial" FD article isn't on the general topic of our article, but two of the coatracked groups (TM and ICU). The NM source similarly isn't really about our topic but about Indian TV shows and satire of them and their cast members in general, with brief mention of the same two groups. This isn't sufficient. Times of India shows up a lot at RSN, and is listed as no consensus or mixed reliability at WP:RSP. Their article isn't about trolling in/from/about Kerala, and even explicitly says it is about the fact that "for a lot of Malayalis, especially outside Kerala, social media is the only means of venting their frustration" [emphasis added], particularly at various celebs, some of them Westerners. It's the only mention of Kerala in the article. It also wanders into WP:FRINGE nonsense with declarations like "Malayalis and Bengalis are a people who are genetically short tempered, irritable and argumentative". Not a pinnacle of reliablity. Nothing in these stories indicates an actual and distinctive subculture of trolling in the state; it's routine regional-flavor coverage of Internet antics that aren't identifiably different from or more prevalent than trolling everywhere.
To address the draft stub above in some specifics (and I would have AfDed that version, too): "a cottage industry in Kerala" is basically WP:OR (as is the central notion of the current poor article). There simply is not any real sourcing that something definably distinct, something unique, is happening in Kerala. This isn't appreciably different from writing about, say, the restaurant scene in a particular city. There will be coverage, and there will be claims that it's special, but no demonstration that it's special. (And that's not what cottage industry means, anyway.) "Exemplified by" is a reach; two sources mentioning the same two groups (which strongly suggests direct cannibalization of one publisher's story by the other, espcially given the length of the list of such groups [deleted since this AfD started] in our erstwhile article; seems just a bit too coincidental) doesn't demonstrate them to be exemplars of the activity of all of them. "their own semi-formal moderation systems and rules of conduct": So what? This is true of, say, just about every "Group" on Facebook, and every other subReddit, and various of the larger wikiprojects on Wikipedia, and any big software dev project on GitHub and Sourceforge, oh yeah and plenty of local bands. Engaging in the everyday human interaction and collaboration behavior of negotiating what to do and how to do it doesn't generate notability. "hundreds of memes in Malayalam appearing": If some Malayali celeb irritated a bunch of Americans, Canadians, or British, then they'd end up getting "hundreds of memes in English appearing" in their feeds that are otherwise dominated by Malayalam. Nothing encyclopedically interesting going on. Next is some random trivia; I could write the same sort of material about the memes and jokes and jibes I post on Facebook, but that wouldn't make it encyclopedically useful information (even if I were arguably notable), and if I violated someone's copyright in the process and got put in Facebook jail, that wouldn't be non-INDISCRIMINATE to include either. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 16:51, 30 November 2023 (UTC); rev'd. 03:10, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- As a postcript, I should note that I could probably double the size of the above just from the sources already in the article. But that was enough to show a stub. Plus, now I have to catch a bus, and also get back to Creeks in Kentucky to vacuum up more GNIS mess substubs before someone notices them and starts another nomination spree. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 10:55, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  Google Scholar results (you have to remove the quotation marks from around the query to get them) are articles broadly about Internet subculture, Internet trolling/memes more narrowly, or Internet culture in India more narrowly, that just happen to mention Kerala (usually in passing), because of a few online incidents there like e-protest about a particular legal case, and cyberbullying of a particular actress, plus evidence that happened to be collected there, e.g. pertaining to the Kerala assembly election in 2021, and so on, but these sources also cover similar stuff in and collect similar evidence from other places. Skimming 10 pages of such search results, I find zero sources that are particularly about a topic that could be called "Internet meme trolls in Kerala" (or the renamed title "Kerala troll community"). The header at the top of the results says "About 178 results". Kerala has a population of about 34.5 milion. Countries about the same population as Kerala state include Poland, Morocco, Uzbekistan, Afghanistan, Peru, Malaysia, Angola, Mozambique, and Saudi Arabia. Substituting their names into the search produces "About X results" of the following, respectively: 2,310, 459, 168, 1,760, 521, 1,170, 189, 157, 983. So, also from a statistical perspective, there appears to be nothing unusual going on in Kerala with regard to the Internet and memes and trolling. We just don't have any encyclopedic need for national much less sub-national articles on Internet memes and trolling activity in them. WP isn't a database or index of Internet subculture shenanigans, or a place to lionize them on a localized level. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 03:46, 1 December 2023 (UTC); updated for improper page rename, 05:03, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Internet and Kerala. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:46, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom.~~ αvírαm|(tαlk) 13:45, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The article is about the community of troll memes in Kerala [20] and its happenings through trolls in India and internationally, trolls are very famous in Kerala and the Kerala troll community has had a huge impact on politics in India itself in a big way. Maria Sharapova vs Sachin Tendulkar fans trolls[21] are very viral and much talked about internationally, Sachin later spoke about it, just like Kerala vs Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi political trolls[22] have become a huge news and political debate. I am interested in keeping the article, this article will be helpful in future to learn about trolls in Indian zone Spworld2 (tαlk) 4:43, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
We already know what the article is about. That some famous people have been trolled is irrelevant; notability is not "inherited" by a non-notable subject interacting in some way with a notable one. Someone famous speaking about being trolled doesn't make trolling in/from Kerala different from any other trolling. Whether you'd like to keep the article is also irrelevant. "Will be helpful" is not a valid argument either. About your sources: The ToI piece has already been covered above. The BBC News piece never mentions Kerala (or Malayali, Malayalam), and that tiny "article" is about Indians in general. The Onmanorama source ("known for its hyperlocal coverage of Kerala") is not about trolling in/fron Kerala either. It's about "Malayalees all over the world in one accord took to social media sites" (emphasis added) to criticize Modi for bad-mouthing Kerala. This has nothing at all to do with an alleged trolling subculture in Kerala, and is precisely the same as a story that said something like "People of Indonesian descent all over the world sent angry messages to Donald Trump on Truth Social for calling Indonesia bad names." — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 17:12, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@SMcCandlish, Two incidents are mentioned here for reference, as I know Kerala area I can know more, here this article is not promoting special groups, I am not writing for money, trolls are very useful and exploiting in this decade in Kerala, India is really a democratic country. Because of that the state of Kerala holds fast to democratic values,In that, trolls are used a lot in Kerala to protest against the ruling parties when they are working against the people, sometimes trolls even change the governance reforms in Kerala, so many trolls are manifested in the daily life of the people of Kerala,This is a community where meme trolls are born, not only 10 or 100 people respond by trolling in Kerala, tens of thousands respond by trolling on various topics, the current government of Kerala has often received trolls and changed the rules of governance, Kerala is the most trolled by the Indian central government.LPG gas price hike, petrol price, fascist rule all react to Kerala community trolling and protesting Spworld2 (talk) 5:55, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

That you know something about the subject of the article is not a reason to keep it. The material might be improved by removing all the name-dropping of non-notable alleged trolling groups (only two of which were attested in reliable sources so far), but that doesn't make the idea of "Internet meme trolls in Kerala" an encyclopedically notable topic. No one accused you of writing for money, and that's just extraneous. I'm not sure what "trolls are very useful and exploiting in this decade" really means, but it doesn't seem to be a valid rationale for keeping the article. Democratic values are unrelated to whether this is a proper encyclopedia article. Internet trolls all over the world are protesting things, very commonly against people in power; this is not special to Kerala. We have no reliable-source evidence at all to support "trolls even change the governance reforms in Kerala ... changed the rules of governance" and that is an WP:EXCEPTIONAL claim requiring exceptional sources. There is no evidence of more trolls in Kerala affecting daily life than elsewhere. There is no evidence that Kerala is a special home of "troll generation". There is no evidence for your "tens of thousands" claims, but even if there was, so what? There are many more trolling posts about, say, Donald Trump, but we do not and should not have an article about trolling related to Donald Trump. "trolled by the Indian central government": there is no reliable sourcing for the idea that the government of India is itself trolling Kerala. All of the claims you are making are exceptional and highly dubious ones, without any reliable sourcing to back them up, and it simply makes clear what your blog-style, non-encyclopedic, speculative and exaggeratory intent is in developing this article further, so is an additional reason to delete it. Kerala makes up only 2.8% of India's population, and has the lowest population growth rate of any Indian state, so this figure will actually go down. It is not plausible that Kerala is a special nexus of globally notable Internet activity of any kind. It's like claiming that Peoria, Illinois, is really a unique centre of influence in hip-hop. This is nothing but regional-pride writing, and it doesn't belong on this project. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢, 😼 03:03, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As only 2.8% of India's population is in Kerala, I could read in your reply that Kerala issues should not form articles at international level, which is a very weak idea than in some European countries. Looking at the figure of 2.8%, is this not valuable? It is rare in the world to correct administrative reforms with internet meme trolls and it is happening in Kerala [23],[24]. I am not clamoring for an article for my selfishness, Kerala people are a community that has a great interest in trolls which they clearly reflect in their daily lives. From the common people of Kerala, to the Kerala Police[25],[26],Collector[27] and Ministers[28], trolls are very influential in politics [29],football elections, cinema and governance protests. This internet meme I wrote is titled Trolls in "Kerala" I am asking you whether it is possible to keep this article under a different title or to stop it by changing the subject and if you can help me how to stop this article according to Wikipedia rules. more reference : [30], [31],[32]- Spworld2 (tαlk) 10:30, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

Nothing to do with whether something is "valuable" in some vague sense, and WP not needing local-interest blog-like material about Kerala is not a reflect on Kerala's "value". We don't have such material about New York City or Saudi Arabia or the entirety of Russia, either. Using the Internet to affect politics is routine, everywhere, and has been since the rise of the public Internet in the mid–late 1990s (I would know; I was one of the pioneers of doing it!). "It is happening in Kerala". Well, pretty much everything of a general sort that happens everywhere is happening in Kerala, and everthing of a general sort happening in Kerala is happening everywhere else, too. To return to my themes above, there is a restaurant industry in Kerala that is very similar to that everywhere else, there is a local music scene in cities in Kerala not unlike those in other cities around the world, and Internet trolling is a thing there, just as it is everwhere. Let's look at these sources, in the order you provided them:

The ham-fisted government of Kerala goes after 138 people for "defaming" various government figures. That the alleged defamation happened via the Internet is not actually interesting, since everything is online these days. The does nothing to establish that "meme trolling" in Kerala is more prevalant than anywhere else or different in character from anywhere else (it just demonstrates that Kerala has a jerk of prosecutor who has no respect for the idea of people in a democracy freely expressing displeasure with governmental representatives). This might well be worth a mention at Kerala somewhere under "Government" or "Politics" as a governmental over-reach thing, not as an Internet thing in particular.
IRA appears to be an unreliable, disreputable publisher [33]. Taking this item at face value, it is a college paper written in badly broken English, and cites only one source (broken citation) that is just some interview with a non-notable person anyway. It claims that Internet and social media are important in Kerala (true of everywhere); has a lot of general information about what trolling is and does, everywhere (primarily satire and annoyance of parties believed to deserve it); and says its gist is "trolls and its [sic] importance to the cyber world of Kerala". Well, trolls are important in the "cyber world" (nice 1997 'Net-speak there) of everywhere, but this does nothing to establish that trolling is important especially in Kerala in a general way, or is somehow different there.
(Un-paywalled here) Kerala police on their official "social media page" (service unspecified) posted a video of someone verbally abusing someone else and criticizing the police. The apparent point was to use it as an example of bad behavior in some kind of public education campaign. Lawyer claimed it violated Kerala Police Act privacy protections, and a police bureaucrat said it had been taken offline and wouldn't happen again. This has nothing to do with our topic. It mentions the word "trolling", but confusingly uses it to mean the police posting a video of a suspect, not the public trolling the police. It's just completely irrelevant.
Memes and angry posts about the state police and one of its bureacrats were ridiculing and critical, and a few "went viral" locally. This happens everywhere. Half my Facebook feed is full of political venting of this sort (most of the rest being cat pictures). Anyway, it had no effect other than annoying some bureaucrats, and no action was taken, since none of it was illegal.
An Indian Administrative Service officer posted on Facebook that fans of the German association football team in the FIFA World Cup 2018 would probably be removing their fan signs from the area after their team lost. Yep, that's the entire "story". This is yet another case of "troll" being applied to a government figure posting something online, and nothing to do with any alleged trolling subculture in Kerala.
In the exact same vein. Another Kerala bureaucrat was criticized by a few people for mentioning a phrase from a left-wing meme in a Facebook announcement about a highway flyover's construction. His post was also said to have "gone viral", but this time with an actual figure: shared 650 times, which for a public figure is basically nothing. He was said to be "trolling" right-wing misogynists from RSS/BJP. But as usual this does absolutely nothing to establish the idea of a notable subculture of trolling in Kerala that isn't the same as trolling everywhere much less connected to various "trolling groups".
Trolling, often political, is happening in Kerala. (Same as everywhere.) Then there's lots of general info about trolling, which has nothing to do with Kerala in particular. Leaders of political parties have been trolled (same as everywhere). Brief mention/quoting of the same two trolling groups mentioned in a source in previous posts above (or maybe this is the same source). Complaints about the left-leaning government of the state arresting trollers (doesn't specify exactly what for). Political opponent sides with the trollers, and says the party in power is abusing that power against freedom of expression. Like the first source, this is potentially useful material on political over-reach and suppression to use at the article Kerala, under "Politics" or "Government", but it does not even hint that trolling as an activity in Kerala is something unusual and noteworthy. Rather, government bureaucrats cracking down on people criticizing them is the entire story. That the crticism is online is simply a fact of the times, and nothing to do with Kerala in particular. And "trolls are very influential in politics" is not demonstrated by this, as a statement about Kerala (by any of these sources).
JSTOR article, finally something not completely trivial. Got access to full text through WP:TWL. I read this in detail, and it is about political figures getting online and using social media more and more, and relying on supporters to engage in online argument on the candidate's behalf. It likes to call them "trollers", but there is nothing in here about a special trolling subculture in Kerala. It is simply documenting that politicians in Kerala are bleatedly doing what politicians everywhere are doing (including slick ad campaigns and other methods they weren't bothering with before, not just social media stuff), and the reason is because their consituencies have gotten much more media-savvy over the last few years. The Internet is giving them also a new reach to the Malayali (or Malayalee if you prefer) disaspora. They're also learning that old media (like TV recordings of them making campaign promises they did not keep) can come back to haunt them. Article closes wondering whether this stuff is good for democracy or just a bunch of noisy polemics. Kerala was the focus of this piece not because something unique is happening in Kerala, like an unusual subculture of trolling, but because Kerala has been very slow to catch up. At any rate, it does not support the retention of this article.
An opinion piece that is simply tracking Twitter trends that pertain to Malayalis, noting politicians using social media to attack each other, and also mentioning the use of Twitter and other platforms by the public to vent their frustrations at various public figures, and goofing off with hashtags just for the fun of it. As with the JSTOR piece, this is just evidence of social media use in Kerala catching up with everwhere else. There's nothing noteworthy about this material.
Irrelevant. Says two Indian bureaucrats got trolled on social media (happens everywhere), and has no connection to Kerala other than that one of the targets speaks Malayalam. Notably says: "Then there were the usual troll posts modelled on hit film dialogues ...", i.e. it is conciously aware that trolling is just a general Internet thing and comes in thematic variants.

To address a couple of other comments: "This internet meme I wrote ...", yes it's clear that you are deeply involved in this stuff, and are trying to write about stuff of local interest to which you are closely connected. See WP:NFT. "[is it] possible to keep this article under a different title or to stop [deletion] by changing the subject": Not likely. The title is poor, but has nothing to do with a deletion action; if kept, it would probably be renamed through WP:RM process. If you changed the subject (to what?) then it would need to be in a different article. But if you go off and write "Social media in Kerala" or "Malayali Internet memes" or other claptrap about essentially the same topic, it will just be brought up for deletion again, because your idea of taking a random topic like "memes and trolling on social media" and intersecting it with "Kerala" or "Malayalis" does not produce any kind of encyclopedic topic to write about. We don't have articles like this about Botswana or Texas or Aberdeenshire or Beijing, either.

So, after all of this I still have to conclude that absolutely nothing is going on with this erstwhile article other than "regional pride" writing, trying to make it seem like something magically special is happening in Kerala, when it is the same stuff as everywhere else, maybe just a bit late out of the gate. This is precisely the same as misusing local and regional news coverage of local music performances or restaurants to try to gin up a perception of a notable and distinctive music or cuisine subculture of great importance in a particular city, when in reality nothing special is going on whatsoever. This is not the right site for writing that is anything like this. You need to start a blog or a Facebook group or something like that. See also WP:NOT#BLOG and WP:NOT#SOCIAL. This is an encyclopedia for topics of global interest. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 13:00, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This article has been further developed to make it Keep WP:KEEP for WP:NRVE, added more references, and changed the title to Kerala Troll Community ( it may be against Wikipedia policy, some have given notice for this - this Due to lack of knowledge about the policy or carelessness) Kerala Troll Community consists of trollers[34], meme makers[35] and Kerala cartoonists[36], Kerala Sarcasm Producers This section may also be called[37] - Spworld2 (tαlk) 5:56, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

Let's cover these sources too, then, in the order in which you've given them: 1) Basically says that Kerala is belatedly catching up to the idea of Internet memes (we already knew that from the above), and that ones from Kerala reflect local humour (true of memes everywhere), and that experienced trollers in the area have a good sense of what works as a meme (true of trollers everywhere). 2) Profile of someone and her feminist memes page with "more than 11,000 followers" which is basically nothing. That she happens to be in Kerala is incidental (she has to be somewhere). This is no different from, say, a profile of a local chef or guitarist. 3) Not relevant. That Kerala might produce more cartoonists than average is an interesting factoid, but unrelated to the subject of the article exept in the most peripheral way. And note that we do not have an article at "Cartooning in Kerala" or "Cartoons in Kerala" or "Animation in Kerala" or anything like that. No topic of that sort is notable. We have articles like Anime (= Animation in Japan) and American animation and even History of French animation, about entire industries and "schools" of cartoon/animation style at the nation level, but not about cartoon/animation (or internet!) activity in particular US states or departements of France or prefectures of Japan. 4) Not relevant; it's about humour and comedy in Kerala, and is just like an article about the comedy scene in Santa Barbara or in Hong Kong, and we don't have articles about things like that. We do have articles on national-level comedy as a distinctive variety and quasi-industry, e.g. British comedy, Canadian humour, Chinese comedy, etc., but they are not subnationally divided. Anyway, this 4th citation makes no mention of the Internet, memes, or trolling, other that to cross-reference someone's one-off tweet.

As with the above material, there is no evidence of something you now want to title "Kerala troll community". There is no evidence that there is any such "community", any more than there is a "community" of this activity everywhere else. There is no evidence that trolling and memes and other Internet activities are different in Kerala than anywhere else; they are simply covered by media in Kerala in a Kerala-specific way, the same as newspapers in Idaho in the US or Sumatra province in Indonesia will focus on local people and events in coverage of internet-related goings-on in those places. There is not only no evidence that Internet memes and trolling are more developed in Kerala in some way than anywhere else, there is very strong evidence (in the previous round of this source analysis) that they are a recent phenomenon there, slowly catching up with the rest of the world including more tech-savvy states of India. The material you want to write belongs on a blog or social media site, and non-encyclopedic material exactly like it could be written about memes and trolling in just about any other well-populated (and not technologically deprived) subnational jurisdiction on the planet. What you are trying to do is very clear: You are gathering isolated, unconnected press mentions of anything to do with Internet memes, trolling (under conflicting definitions of that term), the Internet at all, and humor or comedy, that have any connection to Kerala, and trying to synthesize this into a story of Kerala as a unique environment of online satire worth global attention. This is pure original research and an opinion editorial, not an encyclopedia article. Nothing like it belongs on this site. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 11:07, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kerala troll community is an independent community that participates in troll activity from different places in kerala and at different times every day, the purpose is the same, it is created according to the event of politics[38], entertainment and sports, it is childish to avoid it by saying that there is no proof. There will be many people in the world who believe in Gods. Some Gods we cannot see in their belief. They look at what is written and history, they create articles, they don't see them because there is no proof. Many news links from trusted sources are included here and in the article reference, some may be of related topic and may be related to the article [39] Newly added reference links related to the article are posted here and hopefully the article can be kept in this section if it can comply with the notability policy WP:KEEP for WP:NRVE.Spworld2 (tαlk) 4:45 , 4 December 2023 (UTC)

And here we go again. Review of these sources in the same order: A) (Accessed via WP:TWL.) We've already been over this source, above. It says that instead of just doing things like having street-corner rallies and handing out flyers, politicians in Kerala are finally catching up to using social media and the Internet. Also has a lot to do with one new political party and their coverage by TV and print news media. This does nothing to establish a distinct Internet-using community/subculture in Kerala. B) This is a suppositional and politicized opinion piece about troller psychology written by a non-psychologist (a controversial retired police bureaucrat) and has no connection to Kerala at all other than the writer happens to be from there. P.S.: WP:KEEP does not apply to this (there is no speedy keep criterion this qualifies for), and it's already explained to you below how this fails NRVE. Simply repeating the same thing over and over again is not a valid argument. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 04:55, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - POV fork. Kinopiko ^talk 20:37, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Do you mean a WP:POVFORK from Troll (slang)#India, or is there another article we need to look at? — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 03:04, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This article has been further developed to make it Keep WP:KEEP for WP:NRVE- Spworld2 (tαlk) 5:55, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
The detailed analysis I've done on the sources you've provided demonstrates that this completely fails NRVE. All any of it proves is that trolling and memes happen in Kerala, which everyone already knew, and which doesn't constitute an encyclopedia topic. To quote NRVE: "the evidence must show the topic has gained significant independent coverage or recognition". The topic of this article is an alleged distinctive subculture/community of Internet trolling and memes that is particular to Kerala, but there is no evidence for this, only for the the same Internet satire activity there (and belated at that) as is found all over the world. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 11:19, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The article has moved to Kerala troll community during the AfD discussion. Certes (talk) 11:46, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
it may be against Wikipedia policy, some have given notice for this and this Due to lack of knowledge about the policy or carelessness Spworld2 (tαlk) 5:56, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
Delete, per SMcCandlish's exceedingly patient and exhaustive analyses of the sources. JoelleJay (talk) 01:24, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
i think that this article should be deleted. This isnt even a relevant subject???Lolitszenitsu (talk) 15:37, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Adding a reference from some verified source that is not of local interest to keep the article status This may be included in the above discussion, or an advertisement on an independent topic as stated in the category WP:SIGCOV by a valid reference from a verified source. WP:NRV (WP:NRVE) may consider promotional web links or non-verified sources. Verifiable objective evidence that the subject matter has received substantial attention from independent sources may be accepted to support a claim of notability, there is a lot of evidence that there is such a community in Kerala, another way of thinking is that there is no similar fact in other countries in the world, some discussion members are asking above, there is, but we do not see such a big troll meme impact as a day-to-day activity or democratic protests against the government like in Kerala. But it has a big political impact in Kerala, it even affects the central government of India, and the ruling party is losing big in elections in Kerala, creating a troll meme (troll community). Many things going on in Indian nationalism are discussed by trolls, it is very childish to ignore such a popular article as nothing, this article should be kept for further discussion from Kerala area, every time adding the above sources or new references.[40], [41][42],[43],[44],[45],[46],[47], trolls are very influential in politics in Kerala [48],[49],here,[50],[51],[52], [53],[54] - Spworld2 (tαlk) 3:00, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
reference -
BOOKS📖 [55][56][57],[58][59]

JSTOR⚜️ [60], [61]

DOC📄 [62][63] [64] [65]

📺📰🌐 [66][67][68], [69][70][71] [72] [73] [74] [75] [76][77][78][79][80]
Spworld2 (tαlk) 4:38, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
I'm sure no one wants to see me fill up several more screenfulls (screensful?) of analysis of this stuff, and I do have a life. Most of these links are just copy-pastes of material already examined above in detail, many of the rest are not reliable sources, more are simply off-topic (about humour and movies and etc.), and what remains are exactly like all the others above: they demonstrate that people in Kerala are (belatedly) getting on board with the Internet and social media, and they use them for the same things and in the same ways (including trolling and memes) as everyone everywhere else in the world (who have regular Internet access). You can dump 100 more "sources" like these here, and the result is going to be the same: they do not demonstrate that Kerala has a uniquely notable, distinct, important, or influential social-media environment, much less anything even vaguely like a special community or subculture of trolling. Let me put it this way: even if you have 10,000 sources that say that cats breathe and eat and poop and die, it does not prove that you have a magical flying cat. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 12:32, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Objection from my side is over, I offer you a Arctic Ale by Allsopp beer🍺 for properly postmorteming this for so many days 🤝 - - Spworld2 (tαlk) 01:38, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per the through analysis of references done by SMcCandlish. Owen× ☎ 20:01, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Politics of Kerala or any related article to Kerala because judging by arguments of both Spworld2 and SMcCandlish, it seems there is some significance within India. Freinland (talk) 08:04, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It would be better to rename it as "Social Media Politics in Kerala"--- Spworld2 (tαlk) 01:43, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, I find SMcCandlish's review of the sourcing to be the most persuasive and accurate of the above contributions and agree with them on that basis that the article shouldn't be retained. Daniel (talk) 10:25, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. There isn't as much participation here as I'd like, but I'm not seeing the GEOLAND argument being rebutted. Vanamonde (Talk) 07:51, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Tando Jan Mohammad[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This should meet WP:GEOLAND, a city allegedly this size, however it is unreferenced and I couldn't find sources to add. Boleyn (talk) 07:04, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Pakistan. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 07:55, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Soft keep - there's something at those coordinates with this name that shows up on google maps. This PDF refers to "RHS Tando Jan Muhammad", although I'm guessing as to what the RHC means (regional health clinic?) and the Asian Development Bank was doing a project at the Tando Jan Muhammad grid station . Maybe it's a spelling issues Mohammad vs. Muhammad? Do these back up the claims? Not really. Should we keep it because something is there that has notability? Probably but I'm not thrilled about it. Kazamzam (talk) 14:25, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone willing to try checking for sources using ٽنڊو جان محمد ? Google Maps when I tried it takes me straight to the place at 25°04′13″N 69°12′48″E / 25.070227532132545°N 69.21344574421661°E (ٹنڈو جان محمد), with five schools, a police station, a post office, and two colleges, all with pins.
RHC means Rural Health Centre (It is on the front of the building in English.) and Google Maps gives that a pin at 25°04′38″N 69°12′38″E / 25.077117407694686°N 69.21061919511067°E. It's just down the road from the police station with the 60 cans of beer. ☺
So that may be the name use when searching for sources.
Note that earlier versions of the article were confused as to whether this was a village or a city. There are translation problems here. As well as a problem of people filling the article with junk over the years. The Sindhi Wikipedia is pretty poor, too, but at least it gives the name to use.
Uncle G (talk) 17:26, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Tando Jan Mohammad is both a city and a district in Sindh, Pakistan. Added 3 new references to this article – 2 archived references: (#1) Pakistan Bureau of Statistics, Government of Pakistan website, (#2) Local Government Department, Government of Sindh website. Added an additional reference from Fallingrain Genomics (Fallingrain.com) website showing Tando Mohammad Khan - Pakistan Page. It's been mentioned here before that these town articles were accepted UNREFERENCED some years ago and now we have to go back and work on them. Ngrewal1 (talk) 15:59, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I'm relisting to get some assessment of additions to the article which was previously unreferenced.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:41, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: the city is mentioned in some news releases (e.g. [81], [82], [83]), and easily meets WP:GEOLAND. Owen× ☎ 20:16, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. Discussion is trending keep, with editors claiming to have found significant coverage in Arabic. However, no discussion of these sources occurred, and late keep !votes were not adequately grounded in policy, due to either brevity or to the misindentification of WP:FPL, which is not a current policy or guideline and does not have any weight at this time. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 15:29, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Abdulaziz Al-Elewai[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No indication of wp:notability under GNG or SNG. The only sources are dtatbase type entries on web sites, and the few sentences of text are just basic database type facts. North8000 (talk) 22:21, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewed during NPP.

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Saudi Arabia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:21, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - have you bothered checking Arabic-language sources? Those would be very relevant to determine notability. Also, I think that the current name for the player is not the most commonly used English transliteration, so I would double check that too when looking for English-language sources. Paul Vaurie (talk) 07:46, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - from my limited understanding of how to do research in Arabic, I'm finding sources like this which is SIGCOV, and I'm sure there are plenty of other sources. Player seems to be playing for a club with a large amount of press coverage for his country, and has won an international trophy at youth level for Saudi Arabia. I would say keep and improve the article rather than deleting it and having someone recreate it in a couple month's time. At the very very worst if no other sources are found, draftify. Paul Vaurie (talk) 07:56, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 19:33, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Drafify - not currently notable, but might be in future. Giant Snowman 19:40, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 05:11, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - @GiantSnowman:, Per Paul Vaurie. I found [84], [85], among may more Arabic sources. Young player with ongoing fully pro career in one of most famous Saudi teams. Article needs improvement, not deletion. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 23:24, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not proposing deletion. Giant Snowman 17:48, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:37, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep a few Arabic sources out there if you bother to look, nothing much Englis-hwise however. Thief-River-Faller (talk) 21:45, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep notable player. Freinland (talk) 08:10, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: according to our WP:FPL, Footballers who have played a full international match for their country are deemed notable, and thus do not have to meet the specific notability criteria at this page.. The policy may very well be too permissive, but as long as we have it in place, the choice is clear. Owen× ☎ 14:18, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. (non-admin closure) Atlantic306 (talk) 00:34, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Rami Meir[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I believe this article qualifies for deletion under a variety of policies; however the most relevant are WP:ARTIST/WP:GNG. More specifically, w/ regards to the former, the only permanent exhibit of Rami Meir's artwork is hosted by the Union of Mountain Jewish Artists of Russia (hereafter UMJAR), an organization he was the chairman of. Further, with the research I've done, all sources regarding the article subject seem to lack WP:RELIABILITY, with most of the references (both listed and others I found through research) seeming to violate WP:COI, if not directly WP:SELFSOURCE. For those sources for which I was not able to find direct evidence of CoI, I have significant concerns about WP:PARTISAN, due to a consistent lack of citations within the sources as well as other issues. To expound on a few of these claims further:

With regards to STMEGI sources, of which several on Rami Meir can be found, I believe these to be CoI. One of the cited references currently on the Article has a quote from the executive director of STMEGI claiming "[STMEGI] invited [UMJAR] to unite into a professional Union at the site of the Community Center of Mountain Jews in Sokolniki,” following which Rami Meir was elected chairman. Additionally, STMEGI seems to be an ongoing financial backer/charitable donor of UMJAR. Further, STMEGI has ties to Meir specifically, having previously awarded him their S.I. Weinstein Prize in 2021 as well as having hired him previously as an educator.

With regard to the various Azerbaijani news sources (the one referencing Meir most frequently being media.az, but all the sources I've found in this category share similar flaws), ensuring that these sources are verifiable or reputable has been difficult. Admittedly, this could be due to language/cultural barriers so I welcome input from those more familiar; however due to the concerns RE media freedoms in Azerbaijan, and the lack of citations or similar journalistic practices, these sources lack any way to verify their accuracy and independence. Media.az--again as an example--lacks any listed author on its article pages. The only contributor I can find evidence of on the site is their editor-in-chief, who received an honorary journalism degree directly from the President of Azerbaijan, along with others in the publication's leadership team. While this doesn't necessarily prove that that the source is biased, it does add further strain to the reputability IMO.

There are additional concerns I have about the article's quality; however for the most part they don't necessarily reach the reasons for deletion in their own right, so I'll not mention them unless they become relevant. KJGinger (talk) 23:02, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. KJGinger (talk) 23:02, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. KJGinger (talk) 23:02, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. KJGinger (talk) 23:02, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Azerbaijan-related deletion discussions. 23:21, 7 November 2023 (UTC)--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 23:21, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Poetry, and Israel. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:11, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don't know enough about poet and musician notability, but far as his artwork most everything is PR or passing mentions user generated. fails WP:ARTIST. Hoping someone from another sort list will comment. As far as the reasons listed in (UMJAR etc.) I don't feel I can address. The specificity of the request makes this article hard to vote on. --WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 17:55, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:28, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no improvement or participation since I looked for sources on 11 November 2023. Fails WP:ARTIST and reads like promotion of a living person. --WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 01:56, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep meets GNG, [86], [87], [88], [89], [90]. I think a search for Ра́ми Ме́ир would turn up more. // Timothy :: talk 12:38, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 05:03, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes WP:GNG. Katy Williamson (talk) 07:40, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - seems ok, but needs to be better sourced. Since most sources appear to come from the same website. Furthermore, it appears he is notable enough considering career as well as chairmanship of artistic union. Homerethegreat (talk) 10:12, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:35, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Doesn't seem to be a WP:GNG issue here.MaskedSinger (talk) 08:33, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I added more sources. Passes WP:GNG.Antimargi (talk) 13:47, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. While I sympathise with a number of the comments regarding how difficult it is finding sources that provide SIGCOV and therefore notability as defined by Wikipedia's inclusion standards, the upshot is that as we do not provide original research we need this material to exist to have articles on the site. The consensus is that the coverage is not significant and therefore doesn't meet the general notability guideline. Daniel (talk) 00:50, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ryang Myong-il[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article fails WP:GNG. Simione001 (talk) 01:21, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 01:21, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 01:21, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 01:21, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Korea-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:38, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: playing 11 international matches is more than enough to establish notability of a footballer. Dazzling4 (talk) 01:50, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The number is international caps isn't relevant when establishing notability as per WP:GNG. Simione001 (talk) 02:06, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 20:06, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 20:08, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete clearly fails WP:GNG, the fact he played internationally is irrelevant and does not inherently confer any notability. Angelo (talk) 13:26, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Will probably get deleted (as will most NK articles), but I've added as much as I could find in Chinese media. Being a North Korean footballer, it is impossible to find any coverage in North Korean media, as it is not accessible, though I've no doubt there is coverage within the nation. Davidlofgren1996 (talk) 20:20, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - The criteria used for these North Korean players are terrible. Nam Song-chol, who played in the 2010 FIFA World Cup, was deleted (arbitrarily in my opinion, as the discussion did not reach a clear consensus). Svartner (talk) 01:49, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting so that recent additions to the article can be assessed.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:00, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - @GiantSnowman:, Many sources have been added to article. Has many sources, especially for a North Korean player, and has fully pro experience in the Chinese Super League. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 18:04, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
which of these gives SIGCOV of this player? Giant Snowman 19:09, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:28, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: BLP, fails GNG and NBIO. Nothing above, BEFORE, or in article meets WP:IS WP:RS with WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth. BLPs require strong sourcing. // Timothy :: talk 13:42, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. While there was valid disagreement over the applicability of BLP1E in this context for various reasons, keep arguments did not rebut the concerns raised regarding depth of available independent coverage in light of the article's status as a BLP, and deletion enjoys both a numerical majority and momentum towards the end of the discussion. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 15:23, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Erin Hatley[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Subject appears to be a case of WP:BLP1E due to winning a beauty pageant, with a lack of sustained coverage with which to pass the WP:GNG. Let'srun (talk) 15:02, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Women, Beauty pageants, and Tennessee. Let'srun (talk) 15:02, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: She appears nowhere in the news after winning the title, very much a case of 1E. Oaktree b (talk) 20:00, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Coverage exists here, here, here, here, and here. 00:03, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
Comment. I'm curious to know what page creator @Ejgreen77: thinks of this. MaskedSinger (talk) 11:46, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That user was the one to post those sources, but forgot to sign their name. Let'srun (talk) 01:22, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
oh thanks MaskedSinger (talk) 06:42, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - She also finished in the Top 10 in Miss America 2011. She additionally got more coverage here and here as a victim of a peeping tom incident. Clearly is not a WP:BLP1E case.KatoKungLee (talk) 05:55, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 02:51, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think any of the new sources listed above help, beyond confirming the pageant win and doing things after as a pageant winner, and they aren't terribly long either, most have a big photo, then a few paragraphs. The peeing tom incident doesn't add to notability. Oaktree b (talk) 14:54, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I would disagree. If someone peeps on me, it will not make the news.KatoKungLee (talk) 21:25, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:24, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: for the reasons mentioned about by KatoKungLee. The level of coverage takes this beyond that of BLP1E. Rublamb (talk) 07:47, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: ridiculously irrelevant. Unless we're now creating articles for squirrels. MisterWizzy (talk) 13:57, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

say what? Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 15:12, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I disagree with KatoKungLee's assessment of the sources; as this is a relatively low-profile individual, the sourcing level for controversial claims is a lot higher, per WP:BLPSOURCES. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 15:11, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: per KatoKungLee. The criteria in BLP1E #3 clearly state: We generally should avoid having an article on a person when each of three conditions is met: [...] 3. The event is not significant or the individual's role was either not substantial or not well documented.. In our case, The two events - Miss Tennessee 2011 and Miss America 2012 - were both significant, and Hatley's role in both was unarguably substantial and well documented. Owen× ☎ 20:40, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per OwenX arguemtn against 1e which appears more sound than delete voters. बिनोद थारू (talk) 03:43, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. @OwenX: and others are misapplying BLP1E, I believe; Miss Tennessee is the competition that chooses the state's representative to the subsequent Miss America Pageant, and as such the coverage being discussed here all stems from the same event. More importantly, we have two short sentences of content we can write that is independent of the pageant itself. Vanamonde (Talk) 07:56, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Whether it is one event or two, nothing changes the fact that this doesn't meet requirement #3 of BLP1E: the event (or events) is significant, and her role in it was substantial and well-documented. There may be valid reasons to delete this article, but BLP1E isn't one of them. Owen× ☎ 14:01, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BLP1E. Freinland (talk) 08:09, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, sourcing needs to be impeccable for BLP sources, and quite frankly I don't think is here as proposed. Per Ritchie333. Daniel (talk) 10:27, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 03:17, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hohem[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Solid NCORP fail. Every single hit one can find on Googe is a PR piece obviously written or paid for by the company, as are all the references. Page author claims to be from NZ, but has this inexplicable interest in Chinese tech companies. No response to previous COI query on talk. Fermiboson (talk) 02:03, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Technology, and China. Fermiboson (talk) 02:03, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

*I propose keeping the article on Hohem. This company has received notable third-party recognition, including the Red Dot and IF Design Awards, which are significant in establishing its notability. These awards are independent of the company's self-published materials, adding to the article's credibility.

~~To enhance the article, I suggest:~~

Adding more independent, reliable sources: This will strengthen the article's verifiability as per Wikipedia's guidelines.
Removing or revising promotional content: Ensuring compliance with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy.

~~Loving This Mayweather (talk) 03:54, 23 November 2023 (UTC)~~ WP:SOCKSTRIKE per This[reply]

Yes, those would help; do you have any you can add, rather than simply restating policy to us (we're intimately familiar with AfD policy), thank you. Oaktree b (talk) 15:02, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Are you, or are you not, the same person or affiliated in any manner with any of the following:

User:Voxl
The corporation that is the subject of this article
Kevin Xu

Moreover, have you used large language models such as ChatGPT in the process of drafting up your above comment? Fermiboson (talk) 03:59, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I deny the association you mentioned; my stance is solely based on Wikipedia's preference for improving articles over deletion when objective facts are presented. I am merely stating facts without any bias. I adhere to all Wikipedia rules, and if any evidence suggests that I have violated any regulations, please feel free to block my account. Loving This Mayweather (talk) 04:20, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Fermiboson (talk) 08:59, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete due to lack of significant third-party coverage. I'll chance my vote if coverage can be demonstrated.Cortador (talk) 06:55, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This product review has a by-line in a site that seems RS, [91]. Not sure how much notability that adds, but it's one source... Oaktree b (talk) 15:00, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not enough reference to pass Notablity.

Bimanmandal (talk) 15:24, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

KeepTo argue for retaining the Hohem article on Wikipedia based on significant coverage in third-party sources:

1.Award Recognition: Hohem's receipt of prestigious awards like the Red Dot Design Award and iF Design Award provides significant, independent third-party recognition, meeting Wikipedia's notability criteria.

2.Independent Coverage: Information about these awards on the official Red Dot and iF Design websites serves as reliable, independent sources, essential for Wikipedia's standards.

3.Public Interest: The awards indicate Hohem's relevance and contribution to technology, aligning with Wikipedia's goal of providing publicly interesting information.

1.Red Dot Design Award: iSteady V22.Red Dot Design Award: Hohem iSteady3.Hohem iSteady M6 phone gimbal - Ifdesign Pulebbbhngg (talk) 00:09, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

— Pulebbbhngg (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 19:57, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain how, as an account with only one edit, you have managed to find this AfD. Fermiboson (talk) 00:51, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You are just a university student in China, and you are still young. Please don't use your worldview to interpret this world, for it is vast. Just because you haven't seen a B2 bomber in China, does that mean you don't know of its existence? Thank you! Pulebbbhngg (talk) 12:58, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am not a university student in China. Fermiboson (talk) 22:30, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If you believe that these rewards are relevant, you need to demonstrate that they have received independent coverage. Cortador (talk) 10:31, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: We need to hear from more editors who are not socks or one edit accounts.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:23, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Ordinarily I'd want to say the existence of lots of product users (and they seem to have a lot of users, even in google scholar results) would generate interest among encyclopedia users, and would want to see the article retained. The nominator's conclusion coverage is all bought-and-paid-for seems unsupportable.

But there's so little on this company as a company rather than their products, that it doesn't seem that anyone cares about them as a company. I did a search for Chinese sources and only found one (aside from product reviews) that seems even close to significant coverage:

A lengthy article in an independent source, more along the lines of earned media than a company-produced piece but still very reliant on the company [92]

If someone can come up with additional reliable sources I'll reconsider my vote. But I don't see the value in an article that's basically a list of product releases and some uncited/primary-sourced text. Oblivy (talk) 14:05, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete due to lack of independent third-party coverage. Cortador (talk) 10:30, 30 November 2023 (UTC) (duplicate !vote struck) Elemimele (talk) 12:49, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is a company therefore GNG/WP:NCORP requires at least two deep or significant sources with each source containing "Independent Content" showing in-depth information *on the company*. "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. I'm unable to identify any references that meet the criteria for establishing notability. HighKing⁺⁺ 22:15, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep‎. Withdrawn. 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 09:55, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Andy Barclay[edit]

AfDs for this article:

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Redirected via AfD 10 years ago and the point still stands. The character fails WP:GNG and the article is currently full of plot summaries. Attempted to boldly blank and redirect but was reverted, seeing if a consensus can be formed here. 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 03:06, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Film, and United States of America. 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 03:07, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
~~Redirect to Child's Play (franchise).~~ I think some of the reception section can be merged to Child's Play (1988 film) as well. —siro χ o 05:05, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hm, I may have been a bit too fast on the draw on this one. I am surprised to see a fair amount of SIGCOV of the character in [93], [94] and [95] —siro χ o 05:10, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per above sources.★Trekker (talk) 14:07, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 06:44, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Formalizing my rec after reviewing the sources above a second time. —siro χ o 03:24, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 07:02, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

1950 Afghan invasion of Pakistan[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Seems unreliably sourced, doesn't seem to be any real academic reliable sources behind it. The sources don't even state this as an invasion either, and more as a border skirmish, which there is already pages for. Noorullah (talk) 05:41, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

So my proposal is this: Delete the page if the information cannot be verified with better sources, and if it can, integrate it into the Afghanistan–Pakistan border skirmishes page. Noorullah (talk) 05:43, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is simply not true, in my sources, according to Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (history), I have used reliable sources, such as Violent non-state actors in the Afghanistan–Pakistan relations in the Routledge Handbook of Contemporary Pakistan, which states “It didn’t take long for Pakistan to repel this rather crude invasion.”

There isnt “only one source” which you stated earlier, this can be backed up in the Yale Journal where it is stated: “It didn’t take long for Pakistan to repel this low-scale invasion, and its government announced that it had “driven invaders from Afghanistan back across the border after six days of fighting.”

There are also sources from that time period such as the associated press, which on 5th of October stated “Invaders Out, Pakistan Says” and the Chicago tribune states this as well (even though you need a subscription to see the archive). Therefore I don’t think your reasons are valid for the deletion of this article, this event in history happened and it doesn’t deserve a passing mention buried in a skirmish page. VirtualVagabond (talk) 06:44, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

For the associated press. I’m obviously saying the 5th of October in 1950, just clearing that up. VirtualVagabond (talk) 07:11, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This source has no mention of it: [96]

This is an article page: [97]

[98] - Aparna Pande is not a scholarly source.

[99] - Not a reliable source at all.

[100] - This is not a reliable source at all, and doesn't even seem to mention it.

To simply conclude, none of these sources are entirely reliable, and some of these are entirely passing comments. It needs to be verified by proper scholarly sources, and if it can be verified, I am still advocating for it to be otherwise merged, unless that source can explicitly state it was an invasion. Noorullah (talk) 19:19, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, thank you for taking your time to respond.

The first source wasn’t meant to cite the invasion, rather it was supposed to cite that Afghanistan and Pakistan had a strained relationship since Pakistan’s independence, which I was talking about in the Background section.

As for the second source, according to Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (history), historical articles are permitted except if they are covering present day events or events that occurred in the last two years.

Also, in the “Reliable sources for weighting and article structure” section, point 2, 4 and 8 permits different types of articles, so I’m not sure why my citation would be a problem.

For citation 3: Aparna Pande is an experienced author and journalist who works at the Hudson Institute, which suggests her reliability.

For citation 4 and 5, could you please tell me what makes them unreliable? If you can prove so, I will be more than happy to remove/replace them, also, the fifth citation isn’t there to cite the invasion, but the unpopularity of the “Frontier Corps Balochistan”, which is a paramilitary force in Pakistan.

And I’m not sure what your definition of a passing mention is, it’s a book about a large chunk of Pakistan’s foreign policy, and the invasion was given expansion and sources in the references I gave. The evidence for it being an invasion was given in my last comment. VirtualVagabond (talk) 23:04, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I see with the first source.

@VirtualVagabond

----

Citation 3: An author and journalist does not follow under HIST:RS. I quote from Who is a Historian on HIST:RS

"Historians carry out original research, often using primary sources. Historians often have a PhD or advanced academic training in historiography, but may have an advanced degree in a related social science field or a domain specific field;" See here as well: Wikipedia:Reliable source examples#Advice by subject area as what defines a reliable source for this matter.

---

Both the sources (for 4 and 5) are purely blog sites, which isn't reliable information especially to talk about the unpopularity of something, a reliable book would be better.

---

In this case alone, the article for the second source isn't enough as its not scholarly, and there is otherwise, no scholarly source to further verify. To prove this is an invasion, it needs a reliable secondary -- especially a scholarly source to state it is an invasion, not a contemporary news report off of what one side said during the conflict, (regarding the associated press). Noorullah (talk) 00:26, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The Jamestown Foundation is a perfectly reputable research organization, working on a number of issues.

However this article in Asian Survey in 1962 calls the 1949 and 1950 fighting "border incidents."

This (in December 1955) calls it "border incidents" .."Pakistan protested to Afghanistan for the violation of her territory by Afghan tribesmen and elements belonging to Afghan Army." Buckshot06 (talk) 04:08, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If that is true, then that is fair game, but as aforementioned by VirtualVagabond, the Jamestown foundation was cited for something else.

And seeing the other sources you provided stating that it was border incidents supports what I believe that it should be merged into the Afghanistan–Pakistan border skirmishes page. @Buckshot06 Noorullah (talk) 04:26, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

My citation 3 stands, in Wikipedia:HISTRS#Who is a historian, it states: "Historians carry out original research, often using primary sources. Historians often have a PhD or advanced academic training in historiography, but may have an advanced degree in a related social science field or a domain specific field;” Aparna Pande has a degree in political science, which is a related social science, therefore her citation is viable. The fifth citation also happens to be cleared up as reliable now as seen from Buckshot06’s reply earlier. And I’m not sure how the fourth citation is a blog, but I will replace it if you want.

Also from Buckshot06’s earlier reply, the word “incident” doesn’t mean it’s a skirmish. Again, it was a low-scale invasion. It was clearly an invasion due to the sources I gave and the fact that the Afghan tribesmen and army infiltrated into internationally-recognised Pakistani land, which satisfies the definition of an invasion.

The Oxford Languages dictionary definition for invasion: “an instance of invading a country or region with an armed force.”

The 1950 invasion was a clear example of this. VirtualVagabond (talk) 19:10, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Aparna Pande is an author, not a historian. There would need to be more reliable sources that can verify such.

The fifth citation (being jamestown), doesn't mention the conflict and is related to a different citation which you mentioned.

The economic and political weekly is not a reliable source to cite for this.

There is no reliable sources calling it an invasion as addressed.

The sources buckshot added mention it as an incident, not an invasion. And on the Afghanistan–Pakistan border skirmishes, many of the skirmishes were described as incidents. Noorullah (talk) 21:28, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Being an author and historian are not mutually exclusive my friend, you can be both. Also, at Historian, under objectivity then modern, it states “However, in the 20th-century historians incorporated social science dimensions like politics, economy, and culture in their historiography, including postmodernism.” Pande has a degree in a social science, which is political science.

The fifth citation as I have already said, isn’t citing the invasion but the unpopularity of the Frontier Corps in the province of Balochistan, you even confirmed this with Buckshot06. But you know what the odd thing is, I got that same exact source from the background section of Afghanistan–Pakistan border skirmishes, the very same article that you’re desperately pushing for this incident to stay in only. So I’m not sure what the issue is, unless it’s double standards, but I’m assuming good faith from you. 👍

Also, it being an incident, doesn’t mean it wasn’t an invasion, again, it’s not mutually exclusive.

A invasion is an incident, a skirmish is an incident, a full-blown total war is an incident. Everything that happens in history is an incident my friend. That doesn’t disprove anything. VirtualVagabond (talk) 22:24, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry but having a degree in social science does not register you as an automatically reliable source, or even a historian. Citing the definition of a historian off of Wikipedia itself isn't going to help your case.

I'm not sure why you are still going over the fifth citation, or what you meant after the sentence. I already addressed it twice that it is irrelevant to this AFD now. I'm not sure what you mean "unless its double standards", obtaining it from the background section there means nothing or has any correlation to this AFD.

Again, no reliable sources have said it was an invasion,. Noorullah (talk) 00:45, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If there is no reliable sources stating it is an invasion, it does not otherwise deserve its own page. The Border skirmishes page already clearly states what the definition of these include, and it applies to this article I quote:

A series of occasional armed skirmishes and firefights have occurred along the Afghanistan–Pakistan border between the Afghan Armed Forces and the Pakistan Armed Forces since 1949. Noorullah (talk) 00:47, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It was already on the page in fact, until you added a created page for it, which it does not deserve its own page for. [101]

I fail to see how this deserves its own page per WP:Notability, and even WP:Verifiability, it has little to no notability in reliable academic sources. From a quick search on google books for "1950 Afghan invasion of pakistan", there is effectively no results. Noorullah (talk) 00:50, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

For the historian claim, I used the same link you used to claim that my citations did not meet Wikipedia guidelines, which is Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (history), as you can see, it talks about objectivity under “Who is a historian?, where it then takes you to the Historian page. All in all, I simply used your guideline link you said I didn’t abide by to prove that I did. Also, there is a source for the fact that objective historians can be people well-versed in social sciences outside Wikipedia, it’s: Georg G. Iggers, Historiography in the Twentieth Century: From Scientific Objectivity to the Postmodern Challenge, 1-4.

Also, we can always have differences in who a historian is, Pande published a book in a historical political fashion, and she has not just made it about Pakistan but various other countries, documenting on the HISTORICAL context behind current-day events.

Also, you never clearly said it was irrelevant to the AfD, you brung up the fact that it had nothing to do with the invasion a second time, even though we were past it at that stage.

Again, the sources I gave you clearly states it was an invasion, and what the Afghans did can be fully classified as an invasion, as they violated another nation’s sovereign territory.

As with Google Books, that of course would happen, there were a lot of variations, one said low-scale invasion and the other would say another. Also a lot of sources of this were present around the time of the invasion, some of which were in 1950 itself, so of course they wouldn’t say 1950 invasion. In conclusion, there were no set name for the invasion, but I used the year to make things run smoother, such as prevention from confusion with the Bajaur Campaign, if you have a more appropriate name, you can give me a appropriate name to move it to, or if you would like to.

Also, I imagine a lot of the sources for this invasion to be written in Urdu or Pashto, none of which I am fluent in, this therefore blocks me off to a large number of citations I could use. VirtualVagabond (talk) 02:08, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

My point remains: the Jamestown Foundation is reliable; there's no justification for disparaging its analysis. Buckshot06 (talk) 04:41, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Military, Afghanistan, and Pakistan. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:48, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per analysis by Noorullah. The battle fails WP:GNG. Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 09:32, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It has been documented in books, journals, newspapers from that time and probably many more, giving it significant coverage. VirtualVagabond (talk) 11:20, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I am yet to see anything substantial from reliable sources. Raymond3023 (talk) 16:07, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, could you please tell me why my sources aren’t credible? If so, I am willing to accept whatever the result of this AfD brings. VirtualVagabond (talk) 16:15, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above analysis. Toadette ^{(Happy holiday!)} 17:04, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Afghanistan–Pakistan border skirmishes. Whether or not the fighting was technically an invasion, most sources do not call it that, and it was small. Buckshot06 (talk) 19:35, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, could you please show me some sources that do not classify it as an invasion but as something else that contradicts it? Thanks. VirtualVagabond (talk) 21:00, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry but asking others for a source against it does not require them to post one. YOU are supposed to do so with a reliable source, see WP:ONUS. Noorullah (talk) 21:46, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, you’re right and I completely understand, but my points with you still stand. But we have differing views on what constitutes a historian. VirtualVagabond (talk) 22:32, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Given the scarcity of any scholarly sources, I don't see a reason for keeping the article or merging it somewhere. Azuredivay (talk) 09:16, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. At first I thought this can be merged, but even that is difficult for me to support. desmay (talk) 23:25, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was snow keep‎. (non-admin closure) Shoerack (talk) 12:56, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Satterthwaite[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Notability. While Satterthwaite may be known for his theorems, few alternative secondary sources exist about him. Non-notable topics with closely related notable articles (for this topic articles include: Gibbard–Satterthwaite theorem, Muller–Satterthwaite theorem, and Myerson–Satterthwaite theorem) or lists are often merged into those pages, while non-notable topics without such merge targets are generally deleted. I have failed to find sufficient sources to demonstrate the notability of this subject. On 13 Feb 2018, I posted on the talk page calling for good faith efforts to determine notoriety, find additional sources, to then attempt to merge any independently-verifiable content into a broader article, however no such information appears to have been found and thus this article meets the criteria for deletion. Thank you. Aeroplanepics0112 (talk) 05:18, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Economics, California, Illinois, and Wisconsin. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:19, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per criterion 5 of Notability (academics) guideline:
- "The person has held a named chair appointment or distinguished professor appointment at a major institution of higher education and research, or an equivalent position in countries where named chairs are uncommon."

Additionally, Google Scholar indicates Dr. Satterthwaite's publications have been cited 14,586 times. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 05:29, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Easy passes of WP:Prof#C1 and WP:Prof#C5. Nominator should carry out WP:Before before making further nominations. Xxanthippe (talk) 06:00, 30 November 2023 (UTC).[reply]
Keep per above, the citations for individual papers are very impressive as well, including a couple over 3000 by Google scholar's count. —siro χ o 06:08, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Snow keep. Beyond the above (and the multiple earlier named chairs listed by his faculty bio), he has a double pass of WP:PROF#C3 evident in the article at the time of nomination, through fellowship in the Econometric Society and the American Academy of Arts and Sciences (by far the better of the two AAAS's). It's not a long article. You should read it before nominating it for deletion, and understand how what you read relates to our academic notability standards. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:09, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, meets multiple NPROF criteria and in addition having his name in several notable theorems further reinforces notability. --Mvqr (talk) 12:29, 30 November 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 Uzbekistan women's international footballers. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:29, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Gulzoda Amirova[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Redirect to List of Uzbekistan women's international footballers. I am unable to find sufficient coverage of the subject to meet WP:GNG. Passing mentions such as 1, 2 and 3 was all that came up in searches. JTtheOG (talk) 04:50, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and Uzbekistan. JTtheOG (talk) 04:50, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:37, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as above. Giant Snowman 19:16, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 06:46, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yudisleivi Reyes[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The subject, a Cuban women's footballer, seemingly made a single appearance for her respective national team. I was unable to find enough coverage to meet WP:GNG, nor is there any other indication of notability. JTtheOG (talk) 04:45, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and Cuba. JTtheOG (talk) 04:45, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete or Drafify. Not good on current state
Cray04 (talk) 08:33, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Nothing found even in .cu sources. Oaktree b (talk) 15:36, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:37, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 19:14, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 06:47, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Rory J. Cutaia[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No indication of notability per WP:GNG, WP:BIO. Links are to interviews (primary sources) and promotional content such as PR copy and articles that he has written. ... discospinster _talk 03:21, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. ... discospinster _talk 03:21, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I prodded this but it was removed, The links used are primary or brief profiles. Nothing else found in RS Oaktree b (talk) 05:06, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"Sourcing currently used is either primary or trivial coverage. A Google search only brings up these links, PR items or social media. Google news only delivers PR items. Should be deleted for lack of extensive coverage in reliable sources." was the prod reason. Oaktree b (talk) 05:07, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law, Technology, and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:16, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Google doesn't show much significant, independent coverage of him. On Newspapers.com, there were various passing mentions or quotes from him in newspaper articles, especially when he worked as an attorney, but almost all were not significant. Altogether, these mainly local, passing mentions don't seem enough to combine into notability. These were the 3 best sources I saw on Newspapers.com:
- [102] - Substantial coverage, but the writer discloses an affiliation (that Cutaia was an investor in, and producer of, an independent film he wrote), making it likely not independent enough
- [103][104] - Coverage of him organizing a community effort to buy a local store that was going to close: the Middlebrook General Store. Both were written by the same local newspaper.
  - Whisperjanes (talk) 05:22, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It seems like if he founded a company that was sold for over a billion dollars, there would be more substantial coverage of this millionaire. Makes me wonder if his role in that company was exaggerated. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:47, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There was also mention of crypto in the last go-around at AfD, wondering if this is still some sort of PROMO for whatever business he's currently involved with. Oaktree b (talk) 03:50, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 03:19, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

George McGovern in popular culture[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not sure why this is a separate article from the main George McGovern page. Very few references and is mostly trivia. Suntooooth, it/he (talk/contribs) 03:07, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and United States of America. Suntooooth, it/he (talk/contribs) 03:07, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:11, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with his page Couldn't agree with you more. Add a section to his page. Doesn't need its own MaskedSinger (talk) 08:35, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
And so the same old unwanted "in popular culture" cycle progresses. Lather. Rinse. Repeat-Repeat-Repeat. Uncle G (talk) 08:51, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, don't merge. I created this spinoff many years ago because I was tired of this kind of stuff populating the main article that I was working on getting to the GA level. Hopefully there is less of that kind of editing regarding the subject now than there was then. Anything worth mentioning, such as his hosting SNL, is already included in the narrative text of the main article. In other words, there is no reason for creating an "In popular culture" section in the main article. Wasted Time R (talk) 11:31, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per Wasted Time R. This reads like a user sub page or sandbox, with the author making a list of various subjects. Scant references. — Maile (talk) 14:05, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. and Wasted Time R. A. Randomdude0000 (talk) 18:00, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I am seeing this type of article for the first time. ArvindPalaskar (talk) 08:18, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. As with the previous AfD, there is consensus not to delete, but no consensus to keep or merge. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 13:49, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Native Plants Journal[edit]

AfDs for this article:

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article was kept after a "no consensus" AfD almost 3 years ago in February 2021. Since then nothing has changed: the journal is still not indexed in any selective databases and there are no independent sources. In the previous debate several arguments were brought forward to argue in favor of notability, but none was supported by sources, making this a clear fail of WP:NJournals and WP:GNG. There does not appear to be a good merge target. Hence: Delete. Randykitty (talk) 09:50, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academic journals-related deletion discussions. Randykitty (talk) 09:50, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science, Biology, Canada, Mexico, United States of America, Idaho, Indiana, and Wisconsin. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:48, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As above, it appears not much has changed for notability since 2021. Still the same sourcing issues as back then. Oaktree b (talk) 18:01, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Gscholar results are simply articles in the Journal, I can only find one citation in Jstor for this journal. Not seeing that it's been increasing in notability since the last relist. Oaktree b (talk) 18:03, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Not my area but I think characterising the previous AfD as "no consensus" is a bit misleading; the closing summary by Sandstein was "The result was no consensus. Consensus to not delete, but no consensus whether to keep or to merge to Society for Ecological Restoration. ...". The debate centered around whether indexing in selective databases was necessary. Also, is CAB Abstracts not selective? I had thought they were to some extent at least. If I don't revisit this, then I'd suggest at very least merging to somewhere, though I agree picking a target might be the problem. Espresso Addict (talk) 00:04, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ETA. Via Newspaper.com search, there's a little coverage in The Spokesman-Review (13 Jun 2004, p. 71) relating to its fate after the close of University of Idaho Press. Also mention in Southtown Star (31 Oct 2004, Page 72) on it being included in a botanical garden collection. Espresso Addict (talk) 00:52, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Society for Ecological Restoration. No reason to delete when we can merge. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 09:33, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Headbomb, I found the arguments in the previous AfD about not merging here quite convincing. --Randykitty (talk) 12:42, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Also can't merge into University of Idaho Press as that's been turned into a redirect (though I don't think that was the best of decisions). Espresso Addict (talk) 23:44, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Three years = more than enough time to address issues raised in the previous AfD, but the article's problems remain. Doczilla _{@SUPERHEROLOGIST} 08:39, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Headbomb. Three years is indeed more than enough, but redirects are cheap, and the history will be available in case the journal becomes independently notable. Owen× ☎ 17:27, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, _signed,Rosguill ^talk 21:13, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Thriley (talk) 14:26, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I don't see the benefit of deleting a journal that is frequently cited by reliable sources. -- GreenC 15:38, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Same guy failed to delete it years ago, trying again now. The article reads: The journal was established in March 2000 as a cooperative effort between the University of Idaho and the USDA Forest Service, with assistance from the Natural Resources Conservation Service and the USDA Agricultural Research Service. A university working with three government agencies created a scientific publication that is widely used. Common sense, its notable. Dream Focus 03:52, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: 1/ consensus can change, 2/ WP:NOTINHERITED, and 3/ we're 3 years further down the road and there's still no independent sources or indexing. --Randykitty (talk) 08:57, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think Dream is making an inheritance argument (an essay concerning arguments to avoid during AfD). He is saying it's WP:COMMONSENSE (policy) due to the number of sources that cite the journal, and the journal's pedigree in the academic + government world. Also Espresso Addict gave some sources above, and I linked to a bunch that could be looked into more closely. All this combined makes me think it would be a mistake to delete. If the article is kept, I would make an effort to improve the article with these sources. I will not do so while the AfD is ongoing, because it's so late in the process and so many Merge/Delete votes already a WP:HEY would be very difficult to achieve, and I don't know what high-bar HEY standard people will demand to change their vote (and most people never change their vote regardless). -- GreenC 16:04, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Which sources??? Those listed by our coffee drinking friend don't seem to meet GNG. --Randykitty (talk) 17:17, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Spokesman-Review (13 Jun 2004, p. 71), relating to the journal's fate after the close of University of Idaho Press, looks OK to me. The gross word count is low, but the coverage is significant enough, in terms of about the journal. The other source Southtown Star is not significant coverage. A general search of the WP:Wikipedia Library finds 1,683 results, if anyone wants to dig deeper. -- GreenC 18:13, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, the second one isn't any use for the article, I just thought it showed holdings of the journal, which does speak somewhat to importance. The first does at least provide an iota of information. I suggested a possible merge above, but I'd be equally happy with keep, fwiw. Espresso Addict (talk) 00:02, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: trying for a consensus, although one doesn't appear likely. Prefer not to revisit in 2027
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 03:01, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - in the first 50 Google Scholar search results for the term "Native Plants Journal", I found 47 Native Plants Journal articles had been cited 1,886 times. There are dozens of additional Google Scholar search result pages (although their relevance declines after about 30-40 pages of results). --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 04:07, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: a single researcher with less than 2000 cites would not or only barely qualify for an article. For a journal that has been around as long as this one, 2000 cites frankly is rather pathetic. --Randykitty (talk) 12:59, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
But we are talking about native plant journals. Not comparing it to eg. Science. There is such a thing as relative size. Wikipedia has room for notable small journals, if they are important within their field. I'm not an expert on native plants journals but we can do some preliminary search engine checks and according to Randy Kyrn below, they found what appears to be evidence this journal has prominence. Your response was "not impressed", OK, well I don't know how to respond to that. Do you have evidence to suggest it is not a prominent native plants journal? -- GreenC 14:08, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You cannot prove a negative. Once notability is questioned, it has to be shown that there is notability, not the other way around. The closest one can get to "prove" that a journal is not notable is to show that there are no sources meeting GNG and no selective indexing meeting NJournals. --Randykitty (talk) 14:22, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Not sure if this helps the consensus any - but I'm going to come down on the keep side. As per A.B., NPJ does appear to be a journal with a significant quantity of citations to meet WP:NJOURNALS and therefore deserving of an article. ResonantDis_tortion 12:18, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per discussion here and at the 2021 deletion attempt discussion and the fact that the Journal is an important historical and academic source of literature on its topic. Randy Kryn (talk) 05:17, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Question: Any evidence for your assertion that the journal "is an important historical and academic source of literature on its topic"? (Except your personal opinion, of course). --Randykitty (talk) 11:10, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Several things. The Journal, carried by libraries, is published by the University of Wisconsin Press, which doesn't publish just anything. It is not a random or vanity publishing outfit. I also did a search request for "Journals about native plants" to check on other journals about native plants, and found this one continues to have prominence. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:34, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Three things: WP:NOTINHERITED (we regularly delete non-predatory journals from major publishers if they don't meet our notability requirements) and second, forgive me, but I'm not really impressed by the fact that Bing thinks that "Native Plants Journal" is a good match for a query "journals about native plants". And three: library holdings are notoriously unreliable on WorldCat and often completely out of date. Some libraries list journals, even if they don't carry them. So its very difficult to gage what are "significant holdings". --Randykitty (talk) 13:31, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Pointing out that WP:NOTINHERITED, too often used as "a given" in deletion discussions, is an essay. Essays have their place, but not as end-alls or final words. In this case I'm guessing that the inherited notability would be the University of Wisconsin Press which, as mentioned, is not a vanity publisher and, I'm guessing, picks and chooses wisely. The Wikipedia page on the Press mentions their publication of nine journals, Native Plants Journal is one of them (I know, Wikipedia is not a reliable source, but commonsense seems a rule rather than an exception in this case). Randy Kryn (talk) 13:55, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge‎ to Pasay#Geography. ✗plicit 03:19, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Barangays of Pasay[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article has been tagged for references since 2019 and might be WP:NOTDIRECTORY concern as well. Alternatively, make a collapsible table at Pasay#Geography with this article's info. --Lenticel ^(talk) 02:57, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Lenticel ^(talk) 02:57, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Lists. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:12, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Pasay#Geography as a collapsed table, as nominator's suggested ATD. This will surround it with enough context to avoid various NOT concerns. —siro χ o 03:39, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Pasay, for the same reasons as Siroxo. (Also, I shudder the thought of this setting a precedent for Manila's 897 barangays :P --- Tito Pao (talk) 12:44, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Pasay. Shankargb (talk) 02:48, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 03:13, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of Missouri's congressional districts by HDI[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I'm frankly unsure why this exists; and there doesn't seem to be any significant discussion of ranking congressional districts in the state of Missouri in any sources anywhere. Fails WP:GNG as this is a topic that seems to have garnered no attention whatsoever. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Alabama Congressional Districts by HDI which this was attempted to be bundled into in 2020 and should have been deleted then. Hog Farm _Talk 02:43, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists and Missouri. Hog Farm _Talk 02:43, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not updated since 2010; since then, MO-09 has dissolved and the remaining districts have been updated. Fails WP:NOTSTATS; only reference is dead. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 02:48, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 02:48, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete And bundling List of Arizona's congressional districts by HDI, which also should have been deleted then. Reywas92^Talk 03:40, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with LaundryPizza03. The archive hyperlink doesn't provide any such data, and even if it did, these data are 13 years out of date. I agree with Reywas92. The exact same applies to List of Arizona's congressional districts by HDI. Uncle G (talk) 04:57, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 00:45, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Africa Education and Leadership Initiative[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

~~Source 2 is dead and~~ source 3 doesn't even mention this organization. No coverage to meet WP:ORG. LibStar (talk) 00:53, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Africa, Sudan, and Tennessee. LibStar (talk) 00:53, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I'm a novice in this area, but I believe that source 2 may now be found at https://sudantribune.com/article39608/ . Larry/Traveling_Man (talk) 01:22, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. That source doesn't even mention this organization. LibStar (talk) 01:43, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not notable. I found a Guardian article that give them some coverage. Their Guidestar profile indicates this is a very small organization: $130,544 in 2014 contributions. I added archive.org links for the article's 3 refs; they talk about the problem of female educational equality in South Sudan. Here's the link to the organization itself. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 03:23, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. Greenman (talk) 07:14, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Jim Savage. If you disagree with this Redirect target, please have a discussion on the talk page. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:11, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fresno Crossing, California[edit]

AfDs for this article:

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Ineligible for PROD because it was proposed for deletion once before, closed as "keep". Site is not a recognized populated place (let alone "unincorporated community"); it's just a river crossing. No improvements to article since previous AfD. Without meaningful secondary coverage it fails WP:GNG, and without evidence this was a populated place it fails WP:GEOLAND. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 00:37, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and California. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 00:37, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
All of the external bare URLs from the prior AFD discussion are either paywalled or "no such page" for me. So I read the Fresno history books instead.
It's not an "unincorporated community". It was the site of the James D. Savage Trading Post, and near to the site of (until the area was flooded in 1971) the Savage Monument. There's very little to say about this that isn't really about the Savage Trading Post. There are perhaps a couple of sentences in some 19th century histories of Fresno that describe ownership the year after Savage died. But pretty much all else is histories of Savage.
I'm not sure whether we should have this point to Jim Savage or the Savage Trading Post article, or refactor it into Savage Monument. We do seem to have much of this actually in Jim Savage already; the problem with Savage Trading Post is that it doesn't cover that (per the Rensch+Rensch+Hoover history) he actually had four trading posts, and the one at Fresno Crossing was his fourth and last; and the Savage Monument is only near to where the fourth trading post was. The mining was not here, but at Coarse Gold Gulch in the history books. And the only "camp" here in the history books was but one of several forestry labour camps "for unemployed transients" in the 1930s.
Uncle G (talk) 02:02, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Stockton–Los Angeles Road#The route of the Stockton–Los Angeles Road. I suspect this location's historical importance is solely as a river ford on the north-south California wagon route from Fort Yuma near Mexico to Benicia on San Francisco Bay. It's mentioned briefly in the United States War Department's 1859 guidebook to overland travel, The Prairie Traveler by Captain Randolph Barnes Marcy. Later, starting in 1912, "Fresno Crossing" doesn't show up as a place name on topographic maps until 1962. There are never more than several buildings shown at this place. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 02:15, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Due to an edit conflict, I only saw Uncle G's comments after I posted my comment above. I think a redirect to one of the Savage-related articles would be better than a redirect to the old overland route. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 02:20, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I would be fine with a redirect to one of the Savage-related articles Uncle G mentioned, as long as the article in question mentions Fresno Crossing and its relevance to Savage and his business interests. I'm not opposed to keeping articles/redirects on minor locations; I'm opposed to information-less stubs created not to preserve history but because GNIS had an entry with this name, which is clearly what happened here. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 15:20, 30 November 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.