Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 November 7

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< November 06 November 08 >

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 merge‎ to Timnit Gebru. Any of the content, once merged, can be deleted if it is unreliably sourced. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 11:49, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

TESCREAL[edit]

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

Fails WP:N. The only reliable source as far I can tell is an article in the Opinion section of the Financial Times (and the best that May 2023 article can do re sourcing is "The acronym can be traced back to an unpublished paper by Timnit Gebru, the former co-lead for Google on AI ethics, and Émile Torres, a PhD student in philosophy at Leibniz University").

Personally, I think a Redirect to Timnit Gebru is the best option, but the article author prefers that a deletion discussion be opened; I'm also reluctant to put in the effort to a Merge when I expect it will just be reverted at this point. Sorry, to be clear, I'd be happy with Merge with Timnit Gebru if there's consensus for it at the end of this process. WP:PROMERGE is more involved than a Redirect, but once I feel confident that it won't just get reverted, I'd be happy to implement. I suggest we at least leave out the parts that discuss Torres' views and the Response section when merging for concision. Ideally we'd get it down to one long paragraph and retain the most reputable sources.

In general, I think we should be especially cautious about lending legitimacy to conspiracy theories by creating Wikipedia articles for ones that aren't notable, not least because of the risk of straying into WP:BLPGOSSIP territory. (The author understandably dislikes the descriptor "conspiracy theory" due to the negative connotation, but on my understanding of the term, that is literally what this is: "an explanation for an event or situation that asserts the existence of a conspiracy by powerful and sinister groups, often political in motivation, when other explanations are more probable.") Tumnal (talk) 11:40, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support Merge rather than deletion; it would be trivial to copy/paste this entire article into a section of the Timnit Gebru article. I agree completely that this is a conspiracy theory. While the sourcing for independent notability is currently weak, if the content is kept in the Gebru article (I think that every source here mentions Gebru), it can be then seen and added to by people more easily than if it were deleted and need to be recreated.---Avatar317(talk) 00:48, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is not a conspiracy theory at all, and its not because i dont 'like' the term, i think you are rather uninformed or misguided about the concept of ideology. I also cant see why this is a relevant point in the deletion process. The only real discussion is around WP:N, not caution about a supposed lending of 'legitimacy'. JoaquimCebuano (talk) 05:23, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Delete or Merge with Timnit Gebru: I also agree that the sourcing for notability is weak.
The tweet and critical Medium post are not sufficiently independent to establish notability. The journalistic sources don't qualify as reliable secondary sources for statements of fact per WP:RSEDITORIAL due to being editorial, human interest, and/or from poorly established outlets. Similarly, the Devenot paper doesn't qualify as a reliable secondary source under WP:SCHOLARSHIP because it is an isolated study with no citations, from a journal with a likely POV (pro-psychedelics) and dubious peer review for the methodology in question.
Thus, the sources are only reliable as primary sources of evidence that the term is used in some public discourse. Notability requires independent and reliable secondary sources per WP:GNG, so the subject is not notable.
Now, here's my main concern:
The groups and ideologies referred to by the acronym generally have their own Wikipedia pages, often including links to others. Their existence and overlap are already documented.
This particular term appears in a small fraction of public discourse about these groups. When it is used, discussion often references the coiners' insinuations that the groups are malevolent or dangerous. An article specific to this low-usage acronym will mostly feature primary sources repeating or discussing this narrative, whereas discussion without the acronym will be used in existing pages. A TESCREAL page effectively forms a "Compilation of Something Very Bad" coatrack WP:COATRACK for this sort of claim. If the term gains wider usage such that reliable secondary sources use it, the article could be recreated. TheDefenseProfessor (talk) 22:00, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Re: conspiracy theories, maybe just add a link to this: https://xriskology.substack.com/p/the-tescreal-conspiracy-theory-conspiracy Anonymous14159 (talk) 00:32, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I think the "conspiracy theory" terminology has become a distraction from the core issue of WP:N, as @JoaquimCebuano rightly points out.
But for what it's worth, your sharing this link to argue against the use of the term does support the worry I outlined: In this blog post, Torres says, "Gebru and I immediately recognized the conceptual—and linguistic—usefulness of this acronym, and so have many others, apparently, as the term has taken off, and now has its own Wikipedia page." Less than two weeks after the article's creation, Torres is already using its existence to lend legitimacy to accusations that the "backbone" of these seven movements is "literally a form of eugenics" and this very article platforms the accusation that promoters of these ideas are selling "psychedelic drugs" to "increase inequality". The article even names and links to some of these accused public figures. This is approaching circular reporting and WP:BLPGOSSIP. Tumnal (talk) 15:08, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It seems there's two relevant evaluations of the acronym: 1) There is a cluster of groups/ideologies, and it's reasonable to have a name for it; and 2) the coiners of the term are fond of making conspiracy-theoretic insinuations about the group.
I think both are correct (except Cosmism doesn't belong). TheDefenseProfessor (talk) 20:28, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm curious as to why you believe 1) (except for Cosmism)? As far as I can tell, it's only the coiners of the term (Gebru and Torres) claiming that this is a cluster deserving of its own name. As I quote in my reply to @Thiagovscoelho, the source for the 'Response' section of TESCREAL rejects the idea that this this a meaningful group: "the idea of a 'TESCREAL' as a coherent set of ideologies makes little sense". And I think it's telling that no one identifies as a TESCREAList—it appears to be purely a negative concept used by critics. If the term has only been used in accusatory contexts to date, then I'm doubtful that there's a need for the term outside of their use in conspiracy-theorietic insinuations. (I'm genuinely curious to hear your thoughts—the fact you say that Cosmism doesn't fit suggests that you've thought about this in a reasonable amount of depth.) Tumnal (talk) 12:46, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say there are a lot of people that fit most of these: are not strictly opposed to radical technological changes to human experience, and wish some changes were closer; have read a good chunk of the LessWrong Sequences; had some engagement with EA, and try to follow morals with consequentialist components; think the long-term outcomes of sapient life are particularly neglected; think it's likely there will be an "intelligence explosion" in the next century that will be a major determinant of those outcomes; and have low hopes that the emerging intelligence will value what humans value. Some who have engaged with these ideas for long enough were members of the "Extropian" listserv.
(As opposed to eg: a transhumanist who's only excited about anti-aging treatments or robotic body modifications; a LessWrong & EA participant who isn't interested in futurism, just personal growth and poverty reduction; or a highly optimistic singularitarian.)
I'd put myself in this cluster, but I've found it difficult to refer to the cluster due to the lack of a common name. I'm reluctant to use this term though. Among other things, the coiners lump AI decelerationists, accelerationists, and "tech elites" into the group, whereas only decelerationism seems to have overlap with EA and longtermism. TheDefenseProfessor (talk) 17:49, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I propose coining the term 'REALEST' for this group. Like the people making the most effort to stay in touch with reality.
Seriously, if Gebru and Torres are going to accuse you of arrogance either way, I say own it ;) Tumnal (talk) 09:49, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've only ever heard of this as a term for those ideologies without any conspiracy connotations, such as in the other search results for it, so without any source otherwise, I'll assume the "conspiracy theory" label was mistaken (in good faith of course). Thiagovscoelho (talk) 11:40, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Your first link is to a page with a podcast with Torres, Torres' book, and only has negative things to say about these schools of thought: "The TESCREAL ideologies are all controversial, and they have been criticized by some for being unrealistic or dangerous. However, they are also incredibly influential, and they are shaping the way that we think about the future of technology and humanity."
    Your second link says simply: "TESCREAL is an acronym labelling a belief system that crosses over traditional and contemporary transhumanist-aligned ideas. It was coined in 2023 by transhumanist critic Émile Torres and AI bias researcher Timnit Gebru and used as a pejorative framing Silicon Valley elite techno-utopianism. James Hughes and Eli Sennesh have written about how the idea of a "TESCREAL" as a coherent set of ideologies makes little sense and Gebru and Torres' analysis of the "TESCREAL bundle" amounts to a left-wing conspiracy theory. "TESCREALism" has been further critisized by M. Adelstein at Bentham's Newsletter." (and then expands the acronym).
    This sounds like "an explanation for an event or situation that asserts the existence of a conspiracy by powerful and sinister groups, often political in motivation, when other explanations are more probable" to me. Your second link even literally contains the words "conspiracy theory". Tumnal (talk) 12:22, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, to me it doesn't sound like a conspiracy, in the basic sense of "people secretly planning to do bad things", but clearly I also made a mistake here, sorry. Thiagovscoelho (talk) 12:58, 14 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. Doczilla @SUPERHEROLOGIST 08:34, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jackson Hinkle[edit]

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

All of the reliable sources about Hinkle are passing mentions and paragraphs that mention his anti-Israel and right-wing advocacy on Twitter. Very few sources actually establish his notability as a person in detail. The VICE article mostly describes Haz and his far-right movement rather than Hinkle itself.

Can potentially be kept or restored at a later date if sources adequately tackle Hinkle in being the sole subject of an article but at the moment I believe he fails to be considered notable. HadesTTW (he/him • talk) 23:59, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep 1) “All of the reliable sources about Hinkle are passing mentions and paragraphs that mention his anti-Israel and right-wing advocacy on Twitter. Very few sources actually establish his notability as a person in detail.” There are numerous reliable sources that are directly about Hinkle (not passing mentions) that establish his notability as a person. These sources are more than enough to meet the WP:N requirement that’s being called into question. Additionally, WP:BASIC states: “People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject.” Here is a list of the sources currently referenced in the article that meet the above criteria:
  1. [1] Hinkle's beliefs regarding MAGA Communism
  2. [2] Debate between Hinkle and Sam Seder (Hinkle is also referred to as a "Marxist" here.)
  3. [3] Discussion between Hinkle and Tucker Carlson on Tucker Carlson Tonight
  4. [4] Hinkle as a teenager
  5. [5] Hinkle's activism against pollution
  6. [6] Interview with Hinkle running in a local election
  7. [7] Story about Hinkle's drive to create affordable living, reduce homelessness, and a sustainable environment
  8. [8] Hinkle's receives and responds to criticism during his campaign
  9. [9] Another interview with Hinkle running in a local election
  10. [10] Reviewing just how progressive Hinkle is
  11. [11] Hinkle discusses Russia/Ukraine conflict with Piers Morgan
  12. [12] Description of Hinkle's experience in Russia, brief description of beliefs
  13. [13] Disagreements between Hinkle and Laura Loomer about the Israel/Palestine conflict
  14. [14] Description of Hinkle's relationship with Anna Linnikova, brief description of beliefs
Even if “all of the reliable sources about Hinkle are passing mentions” (which I have shown above is incorrect), WP:BASIC says “If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not usually sufficient to establish notability.” This means that even if there weren’t any sources directly about Hinkle, this article would still be notable as a result of multiple independent sources.
Out of the sources that are directly about Hinkle, only 7% (just one) of them are about his anti-Israel advocacy. And only 1 of these sources reference his advocacy as “right-wing”. To reduce the sources of this article to being “anti-Israel” and “right-wing advocacy on Twitter” is incorrect.
But even if you include the sources where Hinkle isn’t the center of the article, only 31% (11/36) of them are about his anti-Israel advocacy. This means it's inaccurate to write that “all of the reliable sources...mention his anti-Israel and right-wing advocacy”.
It’s also an oversimplification to say he is “right-wing”. There is a variety of coverage about Hinkle and he is not universally characterized as being “right-wing”. Only 1 article describes him as right-wing, 2 articles describe him as Marxist, 2 articles describe him as conservative, 1 article describes him as progressive, 1 article describes him as “MAGA”, and 2 articles avoid giving him a label.
2) “The VICE article mostly describes Haz and his far-right movement rather than Hinkle itself.” The VICE article is about what “MAGA Communism” means. It gives near equal weight to “Haz” and Hinkle and directly says that Hinkle's involvement with MAGA Communism is “alongside Haz”. Additionally, the VICE article does not say that MAGA Communism is a “far-right movement” which means that the assertion violates WP:OR. Alleycat1995 (talk) 04:22, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Just re this list of reliable sources: I don't think RealClearPolitics, crazyprogressives.com, inoSMI and RIA Novosti are RS, and Rolling Stone, Daily Dot and even Vice are a little borderline for a BLP.
The local media sources re his 2019 election bid are reliable, but I don't think they're good for showing notability beyond one single local election BobFromBrockley (talk) 15:59, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What makes these sources unreliable? Alleycat1995 (talk) 16:01, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia does not state that RCP is not a RS. Solidarityandfreedom (talk) 14:32, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You're right that Wikipedia does not say that RCP isn't reliable. However, there's not a consensus yet.
In one discussion of RCP, one editor writes: "linked items should be judged on their own credibility" and multiple users suggest RCP is right-leaning.
In another discussion, an editor writes: "RCP has a very strong editorial board, with many award-winning journalists and writers: [2], and the site has a rigours fact-checking process".
The editors who argue RCP is unreliable do it on the grounds that "the RCP Fact Check Review is a review of fact checks done by other organisations." as well as "they have in particular been publishing false material about the 2020 election" and "RealClear Media hosted (and may still host) a secret Facebook page promoting far-right memes and extremist conspiracy theories."
However, the issues these editors have brought up are not applicable to the RCP articles in question here. Alleycat1995 (talk) 14:56, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes we won’t use RCP to refer to the election. Solidarityandfreedom (talk) 22:04, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Real Clear Politics is not stated to not be a RS and can be used if it’s the best source for an event, VICE is a RS, and local news covers Hinkle’s activism from 2017 to 2020 and his electoral campaign. You can’t dismiss every source because you wanna delete a page. You dismiss local news, VICE, RCP, etc. Solidarityandfreedom (talk) 14:42, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We should assume good faith and try and understand the logic behind why they want to delete the article. @Bobfrombrockley did say they want to keep the article. I agree with them and with you. So far only two people have argued in favor of deleting the article. Alleycat1995 (talk) 15:04, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Passes WP:N as of now. 1) “All of the reliable sources about Hinkle are passing mentions and paragraphs that mention his anti-Israel and right-wing advocacy on Twitter. Very few sources actually establish his notability as a person in detail.” It’d very clear that there are numerous reliable sources that are directly about Hinkle (not passing mentions) that establish his notability as a person. These sources are more than enough to meet the WP:N requirement that’s being called into question. Additionally, WP:BASIC states: “People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject.” Hinkle is someone who didn’t just come out of nowhere as a recent political figure. No not at all. In fact he is someone with a long history of political and social activism[1], being listed as one of the 17 most inspirational kids of 2017 by Reader’s Digest,[2], similarly with Teen Vogue also giving recognition to Hinkle,[3], he took part in a highly contested and heated 2019 city council election in the city of San Clemente on,[4] later winning a third of the city, also his early life was highly reported on not leaving us with little info. If you look at this article you will see very little of it is taken up by his “anti-Israel” advocacy, he’s a independent journalist of course he has a focus on the Israel conflict, but that does not still come up as the majority of references of him.
ñWP:BASIC states “If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not usually sufficient to establish notability.” This this indicates that even if there weren’t any sources directly about Hinkle (which there are), this article would actually still be notable as a result of multiple independent sources, I mean look at the CNN, Forbes, Times of Israel articles on his Israel reporting, he has been the main center of the article (in the CNN one he is referenced as the focus right alongside Musk) Hinkle has also been referenced by Colombian President Gustavo Petro due to his reporting as reported by Infobae article which focused heavily on Hinkle and explained who he is.[5]
Out of the sources that are directly about Hinkle, only 7% (just one) of them are about his anti-Israel advocacy. And only 1 of these sources reference his advocacy as “right-wing”. To reduce the sources of this article to being “anti-Israel” and “right-wing advocacy on Twitter” is incorrect.
Hinkle is a notable figure, his early life, city council run, activism extensively covered, his show the Dive is also covered as are his debates with figures like Sam Seder, going on Tucker Carlson Tonight, being a leading figure at an rally in DC.[6]
Furthermore I also agree with Alleycat1995 that it’s an oversimplification to say Jackson Hinkle “right-wing”. This is due to the variety of coverage about Hinkle, the fact that he is not labeled by a majority of RS as “right-wing”. Again as Alleycat1995 said “1 article describes him as right-wing, 2 articles describe him as Marxist, 2 articles describe him as conservative, 1 article describes him as progressive, 1 article describes him as “MAGA”, and 2 articles avoid giving him a label.”
2) “The VICE article mostly describes Haz and his far-right movement rather than Hinkle itself.” I agree with Alleycat1995, the VICE article moves from Haz to Hinkle giving equal recognition and doesn’t describe the movement as far right but rather states that there is a possibility it could lead to the far right tendencies of MAGA coming up per se, thus describing it as far right violates WP:OR. Solidarityandfreedom (talk) 07:56, 8 November 2023 (ET)
Copy-pasting from other comments is a bit redundant. VintageVernacular (talk) 01:00, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not even what happened you low tier troll Solidarityandfreedom (talk) 14:31, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Solidarityandfreedom, no personal attacks in discussions. It can also lead to other editors taking your comments less seriously and you being blocked from further participation in the discussion. Liz Read! Talk! 04:51, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The article's self-aggrandizing tone sets off alarm bells. Moreover it is claimed that Hinkle is an ML but it is not clear what party affiliation he has, if any. As far as notoriety goes, I am skeptical that appearing on TV a couple of times and being momentarily popular on X (née Twitter) due to the present war in Palestine amounts to WP:N. The latter especially is a form of WP:RECENTISM. I also find no indications of any Marxist bona fides. KetchupSalt (talk) 15:45, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    What do you mean by "self-aggrandizing"? If there is evidence that Hinkle is not a "ML" (Marxism-Leninist), that should be discussed on the talk page. But regardless, the article not describing what political party he belongs to does not mean he isn't notable. He's notable because he has "received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject." It's also incorrect to say that Hinkle has only "appeared on TV a couple of times" and is "momentarily popular on X". See the list of sources I provided above. Additionally, using the word "momentarily popular" assumes he will no longer receive attention after the conflict settles. There has been no discussion yet on whether the current article faces WP:RECENTISM. The Israel conflict has gained Hinkle more attention, but the article isn't focused entirely on that. The current weight seems fair in my opinion. There are 2 articles that describe Hinkle as a marxist. Alleycat1995 (talk) 20:39, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    What do you mean by "self-aggrandizing"? The stuff about Haz and treating "MAGA communism" as anything but word salad. I see the Haz stuff has been removed. KetchupSalt (talk) 00:56, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    "word salad" is something only Sam Seder has described Hinkle's interview on OANN. This view is not the consensus on MAGA Communism. So, describing it as something else is not self-aggrandizing. Alleycat1995 (talk) 03:17, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    You ignore the many secondary RS articles covering his activism, his designation as one of 17 most inspirational kids by Reader’s Digest, the fact that his Israel views are only discussed briefly, the majority of articles linked are not about his twitter posts or TV appearances. Solidarityandfreedom (talk) 21:57, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Secondary sources indicate he is a Marxist. Your opinion literally doesn’t matter in regards to this. Solidarityandfreedom (talk) 21:58, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I understand the confusion with his political stance. Personally I see him as just another far-right grifter that made up a the identity "MAGA Communism" for clout and probably doesn't really know what it's supposed to mean either, hence he doesn't come across as communist, but simply MAGA. Apparently he describes himself as a "American Conservative Marxist-Leninist" though.
    I think Vice summarised it best "MAGA Communism has little ideological consistency, and can vibe with people who want to be edgy, on the political fringe.” Until last month he was all about Russia but that wasn't edgy enough, now he's all about Gaza, next he'll be 100% about whatever gives him coverage, especially if it's edgy in order to stay relevant. Now he has the following he does, I imagine he'll keep it.
    My opinion literally doesn’t matter in regards to this, but thought the context "might" help here for keep current discussion. CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 11:33, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep See this list of sources not yet used in the article. Needs a lot of work, but he's notable. BobFromBrockley (talk) 17:09, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep He's currently the most viral misinformation spreader on Twitter/X and getting coverage for it. See sources.
1. https://www.thejc.com/news/world/who-is-jackson-hinkle-twitters-most-viral-misinformation-spreader-and-anti-israel-activist-3Zi4QV3sKIShrzZ6RHff9E
2. https://www.forbes.com/sites/mattnovak/2023/10/29/elon-musk-says-x-users-spreading-lies-wont-get-paid-for-those-tweets/
3. https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-features/twitter-hate-speech-accounts-palestine-clout-1234867382/ CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 23:00, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Justanotherguy54 (talk) 13:06, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed the POV on here is horrific. The length of the article is certainly based on how notable he wants to be, not how notable he actually is. Until a month ago he was more or less unheard of, hence why he faced little to no criticism I think. By now he could have his own Criticisms section based on his misinformation on Israel-Hamas conflict, especially given the bias already provided. I'm sure there's a lot more to come as well.
This source I noticed is used to reference his DOB, but has a lot more value than that in my opinion:
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/nov/11/israel-hamas-fake-news-thrives-on-poorly-regulated-online-platforms CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 11:41, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Are you making an unfounded claim that he’s writing his own page?
”The length of the article is certainly based on how notable he wants to be, not how notable he actually is.” Solidarityandfreedom (talk) 03:53, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hinkle was well known before the Gaza conflict:
On Tucker Carlson Tonight
VICE news coverage
leading speaker at Anti-Ukraine rally in DC
and more Solidarityandfreedom (talk) 03:54, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:N.--Mhorg (talk) 14:48, 11 November 2023
  • Keep I guess I´ll just agree the with essence with the points already expressed, in short if I were to give just a sentence, I would say that Jackson Hinkle is somebody is who is fairly idiosyncratic in his idea of "MAGA Communism" and that he has a large social media following, which may not be the reasons why Wikipedia would keep an article, but I see it as fit.
StrongALPHA (talk) 08:44, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I find the other editors comments very reasonable, and my personal bias is that I've encountered his name multiple times on a wide array of different platforms. Herooow (talk) 19:19, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Keep'. Is definitely notable, but the article needs to more neutrally cover him, since it is currently massively tilted in a positive tone when many reliable sources point out the misinformation that he spreads. -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 02:53, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- seems WP:N to me Crunchydillpickle🥒 (talk) 03:56, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Keep as he had a strong presence in Google Trend last year, especially last month. Maxim Masiutin (talk) 22:40, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Ben Brazil (2018-07-19). "San Clemente teen works to decommission nuclear power plants". Daily Pilot. Retrieved 2023-11-01.
  2. ^ "The 17 Most Inspirational Kids of 2017". Reader's Digest. Archived from the original on 2020-02-15. Retrieved 2023-11-06.
  3. ^ Helaina Hovitz. "8 Young Environmentalists Who Are Working to Save the Earth". Teen Vogue. Retrieved 2023-11-05.
  4. ^ "Hinkle Responds to Criticism". San Clemente Times. Retrieved 2023-10-30.
  5. ^ Luis Benito (2023-10-22). "Gustavo Petro envió fuerte mensaje al primer ministro de Israel, Benjamín Netanyahu: "Solo lleva a la barbarie"" [Gustavo Petro sent a strong message to the Prime Minister of Israel, Benjamin Netanyahu: “It only leads to barbarism”]. Infobae (in Spanish). Retrieved 2023-11-05.
  6. ^ "What is The People's Party that launched Cornel West's presidential campaign?". The Week. June 19, 2023. Retrieved 2023-10-30.
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 Tarar, Bhagalpur. History remains under the redirect if a consensus to merge emerges Star Mississippi 02:18, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Makarpur[edit]

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

I am also nominating the following related pagefor the same reason:

Dogachchhi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

These are /not/ villages, they are Tolas, defined by reliable sources as "a cluster of households". A western equivalent would be "neighbourhood". Neither of these are census designated places.

See page 106 of the following document to confirm this: http://kspjournals.org/index.php/JSAS/article/view/1232

There is valid research here, but these should be merged into Tarar, their parent settlement.

It is disappointing to me that the author of these articles responded to AfC declines by immediately moving these articles directly to mainspace. What is the point in costing volunteer time if you plan to ignore their feedback? BrigadierG (talk) 14:13, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

BrigadierG, please go to WP:AFD and read the instructions on how to create a bundled nomination with the correct coding. Just listing a linked article in a paragraphy is insufficient. It really messes up AFD closures when they are not in the right format. Thank you. Liz Read! Talk! 08:05, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed, my apologies for the inconvenience, thank you for all the hard work you do here at AFD. BrigadierG (talk) 11:43, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Tarar, Bhagalpur. Nothing worth merging after ignoring unreliable sources and sources that do not support the content. utcursch | talk 22:26, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
yes 2409:408A:485:2C36:744F:9A91:3C35:CFFE (talk) 05:37, 5 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, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

merge with tarar as all are a part of the bigger panchayat will seperate after the new census report by bihar gov with new designated village.Thank you. Biharpro7252 (talk) 15:46, 9 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. Draft:Saindhav already exists and is in better condition. Upon request, content from this page can be undeleted and merged with Draft:Saindhav. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 11:55, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Saindhav[edit]

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

Article does not meet WP:NFF, need to show that production itself is notable. Draft already exists, need to go through AFD at this point. Ravensfire (talk) 18:38, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 19:48, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep This is a major film with a lot of notable, well-known actors and significant independent coverage in the references. Llajwa (talk) 20:35, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    There's the typical pre-release publicity, but where the significant coverage of the production? It's not in the article. This needs time in draft space to get that developed or wait for the release. Since I nominated the article to be deleted/draftified, here's the total edits made - [15]. That's not showing any development is happening. Ravensfire (talk) 14:01, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, fails GNG and NFF. Seeing a lot of pre publicity, nothing that is non-promo WP:SIGCOV from WP:IS WP:RS. Above responses are covered by WP:NOTINHERITED. Draft already exists and production itself is not notable.  // Timothy :: talk  10:07, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 16:49, 31 October 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! 22:45, 7 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! 08:06, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Elastic mechanisms in animals[edit]

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

WP:ESSAY. Orphaned for a decade. PepperBeast (talk) 17:22, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: The topic is notable, as evidenced from the reference list, and the sourcing is good. The article itself needs an awful lot of work, however. Needs to be cut down greatly and probably should have a different title, because the word "elastic" means a lot of different things in physics and the title doesn't quite capture the niche of the article. If this seems like too big a task, I could also support a selective merge to animal locomotion. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 18:10, 31 October 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, 7 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 Jill Ovens#Women's Rights Party. Liz Read! Talk! 04:57, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Women's Rights Party[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Google search gives only party website. Only RS, non-primary source coverage is this Newsroom article. Fermiboson (talk) 21:17, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, I'm not familiar with notability criteria for political parties, but this one has got almost no coverage. It certainly was registered, but I'm unsure if that counts as notable. Out of memory, it also only received about a thousand votes. There are so few sources that people are adding their own interpretation of the party (transphobia), which is unsourced. —Panamitsu (talk) 21:38, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Panamitsu, Political parties fall under WP:NORG and have no special exceptions. Curbon7 (talk) 23:29, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Panamitsu, you vote "delete" or "keep", or variations by adding "strong" and "weak", when you respond to AfDs. There are other options as well, e.g. "redirect" or "draftify". It might make it easier for others to parse your !vote by showing it as "delete"; I interpret that is what you mean by "support". Schwede66 00:03, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, delete is what I meant. I've now changed it from "support" to "delete". —Panamitsu (talk) 00:11, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete with no objection to it being draftified and/or redirected. This is a very new party and the coverage seems to be very thin. The searches are difficult because of its generic name. Most of the hits refer to other organisations, or are just descriptive, and most predate its founding. WP:TOOSOON seems to be the main thing here. --DanielRigal (talk) 21:46, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete only one source has anything vaguely approaching WP:SIGCOV; I don't believe GNG is met. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 22:03, 31 October 2023
  • Canvassing alert. Look at this.
SparklyNights 21:41, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, The media coverage of political parties during the several months leading up to the General Election in New Zealand of has been almost exclusively of the 4 largest political parties. The next down in size is New Zealand First - a populist political party that has had success in previous elections, but not the immediately prior one) that has since proven to have received sufficient support to be needed in order to form the next government. But in the months during the lead up to the election, and even during the election campaign period itself it too received little to no coverage compared with any of the bigger parties. To delete a page about a serious political party with serious intentions merely because the left-leaning mainstream media in New Zealand chose to ignore them doesn't seem to be a good reason to delete the page. Noteworthy is the fact that despite being largely ignored or negatively portrayed by the lefist mainstream media, and despite no government provided funding, and despite the relatively short amount of time between when the party was registered and when the election was held, they managed to win support from over 2,500 New Zealanders - 5 times the number needed in order to register the party, and was not the least supported party ( https://www.electionresults.govt.nz/electionresults_2023/ ).

Trust in Mainstream media in NZ is continuing to decline. (https://www.aut.ac.nz/news/stories/trust-in-the-news-slips-further ). Mainstream media organizations were being editorially controlled by the government by means of the Public Interest Journalism Fund, administered by NZonAir which was explicitly requiring compliance with government policy as a condition of receiving the funding. So any political party that did not comply with all of the criteria specified by the then majority Labour Government simply could not get traction in mainstream media because those media organizations were and are still afraid of the funding being withdrawn. ( https://www.cs.waikato.ac.nz/~kab/dd/PIJF17July23.pdf and https://d3r9t6niqlb7tz.cloudfront.net/media/documents/220221_PIJF_General_Guidelines_updated.pdf ) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2406:E001:5000:6F01:C116:BE4D:C287:A3DA (talk) 22:23, 3 November 2023 (UTC) — 2406:E001:5000:6F01:C116:BE4D:C287:A3DA (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Please be aware that the above comments are classic arguments to avoid in a deletion discussion and an appeal particularly begging for mercy for an article PicturePerfect666 (talk) 22:35, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There is a fair point made that NZ media mostly ignored smaller parties this election, and the irony that some media outlets did cover parties like this one (such as The Platform) but are not allowed to be included here because Wikipedia judges them to be not reliable enough. Kiwichris (talk) 22:57, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is the sound of conspiracy nonsense here and no way strengthens any arguments., if anything it weakens the reasons to keep. PicturePerfect666 (talk) 19:12, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Why is that ironic? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:43, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The argument that something didn't get enough coverage because of external factors but is still notable in spirit despite the lack of coverage is specifically noted as an argument to avoid. QuietCicada - Talk 23:39, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm not going to assume bad faith here, but this entire thing is WP:IDONTLIKEIT. If your claim is that reliable sources are unreliable, you can raise that at WP:RS, not here. The claim about, essentially, NZ government suppressing free press is, well. It speaks for itself. Fermiboson (talk) 06:52, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The idea that an article without reliable sources to provide notability should be kept because of a need to combat a supposed conspiracy within the New Zealand government and media violates several policies. Googleguy007 (talk) 15:21, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Whether or not the people are losing faith in the globalist reptillians who are conspiring to keep up and coming parties doesnt matter, the only references to the party are in lists of registered parties, if it isnt relevant, it isnt relevant.
Whether or not you pinky promise that the party is going to become big soon, if it isnt relevant it isnt relevant.
Whether or not they were the absolute smallest party in the country, if it isnt relevant, it isnt relevant. Googleguy007 (talk) Googleguy007 (talk) 15:16, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It is a legitimate, registered party. It got several thousand votes in the four weeks before the election. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Libran17 (talk • contribs) 11:33, 4 November 2023 (UTC) — Libran17 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
This is another argument to avoid specifically an arbitrary value must make something encyclopaedia worthy. PicturePerfect666 (talk) 15:14, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect. It lacks significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. Upon looking for any, what I found instead was what appears to be a press release that expresses they are upset about their Wikipedia page. Well, gosh, why not give them what they want if they lack notability anyhow? VintageVernacular (talk) 18:15, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, not seeing significant coverage here... We have a number of passing mentions and ABOUTSELF but overall I'm leaning towards the topic not yet being notable. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:43, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I'm relisting this discussion because the main target page suggested for a Redirect is actually being discussed at AFD at this moment (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jill Ovens) so it would be good to have a back-up suggestion if it's decided to Redirect this article, rather than Keep or Delete it.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:42, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

My view is that she is clearly more notable than the party is, so if that article gets deleted that would make this article a definite delete. No other redirect target has been proposed and I can't think of anything plausible. That said, I doubt that it will be deleted so I'd be equally satisfied with a delete or a redirect outcome here. DanielRigal (talk) 23:55, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There is always a re-direct to List of political parties in New Zealand#Registered parties outside Parliament. PicturePerfect666 (talk) 00:02, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That would be my choice for the target should Jill Ovens be deleted. Thryduulf (talk) 10:59, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Seems like a decent redirect target if so, yes. VintageVernacular (talk) 13:05, 8 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. A merger discussion can continue on the Talk, if needed. It's clear no further input is forthcoming here. Star Mississippi 02:19, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Consultative Council (Poland)[edit]

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

Consultative council was an organ created by Polish Woman's Strike it was set up as a try to create an official representation of protestors during 2020 October's abortion protest in front of the government. I have doubt if this council differs so much in comparision to Woman's Strike itself. In my opinion, this article should be merged as parto of woman's strike article. Council was strongly active during some first mounths of protests, however most of theirs demands were not fullfilled. During that time, abortion protest were so much vocal topic in polish media. That's why some polish reductions wrritten articles reffering to the council's propositions. After the three years since this protests, that informal organization turned out to be not influential in discourse of polish public debate. Consultative council still exists as far as I remember but it's activity is only limited to broadcasting at its Fb funpage. I do not see any aspect of the notability of this council The Wolak (talk) 16:48, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, News media, Sexuality and gender, and Poland. The Wolak (talk) 16:48, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:17, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Social science, Politics, and Discrimination. Boud (talk) 22:44, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with All-Poland Women's Strike per nom Marcelus (talk) 11:01, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - There are two different arguments presented for merge/deletion: (1) is the Council distinct from OSK (Women's Strike)? (2) has the Council been active and influential during 2022/2023 or has it become effectively inactive?
    (1) International researchers, at least one international NGO and a Polish newspaper see the council as having (at least for some time) included public participation way beyond Women's Strike itself: 500 people according to Kampka & Oross, not just an activist group of 5-10 key people. The researchers see this in the wider context of the evolution (or non-evolution) of constitutional and general participatory democracy in Hungary and Poland in the post-communist period. That's a different topic to an activist group. A protest group is a different sociological object than a group that aims to be something like a shadow government or constituent assembly. The key members are also clearly different. Per the sourced info in the two articles, OSK lists Marta Lempart, Klementyna Suchanow and Katarzyna Kotula; while the Council membership appears to be completely different. Moreover, the Council membership covers people individually active on a wide variety of different issues including the climate emergency, health services, education and secularism, way beyond women's rights as such.
    (2) Whether the Council continued to be influential (as an organised body) after the first few months of 2021 is not relevant to its notability. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a news guide to the current state of politics. The Council was notable in late 2020/early 2021 per the sources, and is of academic interest at least per the 2023 book chapter.
    There is plenty of WP:SIGCOV in the Polish press and from international organisations. In particular, the bomb threats of Feb/Mar 2021 in themselves tend to be evidence of notability in the case of a citizens' organisation that threatens the political status quo. The threats against the Council attracted international human rights NGO attention (Human Rights Watch, Civicus, International Planned Parenthood Federation).
    A merge wouldn't make sense, and WP:GNG is satisfied, so I don't see any justification to delete. Boud (talk) 22:26, 26 October 2023 (UTC) (clarification to point (1) Boud (talk) 22:55, 26 October 2023 (UTC))[reply]
  • Keep per comments and sources identified by Boud. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 23:04, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with Bound's arguments about being mentioned in one sceintific article and some newspapers. Fact that an inciative exists, does not judge its notability. Describing a consultative council in barerly one scientific article is not enought to claim notability. Moreover, as you writing "inactive" I meant that council was working and being vocal in polish public sphere by some weeks of protests. But now, it's not mentioned and it's activity it is not reffered by media now, which does not meet with temporality criteria to be recognised as notable The Wolak (talk) 11:56, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge to All-Poland Women's Strike. I looked at the sources and I am hard pressed to find WP:SIGCOV and independent discussion outside of the Strike. The council is mentioned in passing here and there, but I don't think it meets WP:GNG as an independent entity. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 13:26, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Hypothesis of [not an] independent entity: The sources link the Council to OSK (All-Poland Women's Strike) because OSK launched it, and they distinguish the Council from similarly named groups. The sources on the Council mostly cover the broad range of human rights/environmental rights specialist activities of the Council members and what they campaign for - they present the Council as a broad entity distinct from OSK. I don't see anything in the sources claiming that the Council is controlled by OSK.
    We have no sources stating that senior Polish activists on the Council whose political record goes back to the 1980s period of fighting against the Communist government - such as Beata Chmiel and Danuta Kuroń - are controlled by the OSK activists, who are clearly of a younger, post-communist generation (the named OSK members were aged around 10, 15 and 12 in 1989 per their Wikipedia articles). Nor do we have sources stating that the very young Polish activists on the Council - such as Dominika Lasota and Nadia Oleszczuk - likely too young and idealistic to be controlled by established activists - are controlled by OSK. The hypothesis that the Council is controlled by OSK despite the Council's wide demographic (and political) diversity is not supported by any sources. OSK was involved in creating the Council, but no sources establish dependence beyond the initial creation. [Analogy: the president of Poland formally creates the government of Poland, but the prime minister + ministers exist as a body (the "Council of Ministers") distinct from the president.] Boud (talk) 22:00, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Even split between keep and merge
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Guerillero Parlez Moi 21:31, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:39, 7 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! 08:09, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Divi Theme[edit]

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

Came across this during WP:NPP and observed it's twice been redirected to WordPress and reverted, citing lack of WP:SIGCOV. The citations offered are merely the recommended opinions of individuals and do not constitute significant coverage of the subject. Consensus would be helpful here, with a suggested redirect back to WordPress as an appropriate WP:ATD. Bungle (talk • contribs) 21:33, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:39, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete due to lack of notability/coverage. I don't think redirect is an option unless WordPress#Page builders section mentioning Divi is created. --PaulT2022 (talk) 20:48, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: An article on a Wordpress theme by Elegant Themes. The marketplace reviews provided as references provide basic verification but don't demonstrate notability (WP:NWEB / WP:NSOFT) and searches are not finding better. There is no article on the vendor company which could provide a redirect target and I think the WordPress article is too remote - and adding mention of this tool there would be WP:UNDUE. AllyD (talk) 08:29, 9 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! 23:32, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mount Carmel Christian School[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NORG. A search for sources only turned up primary sources or unreliable sources such as databases etc. or sources for other schools of the same name such as ones in Nigeria, Virginia, etc. Lavalizard101 (talk) 11:13, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I believe your edit here [16] added the wrong url. Lavalizard101 (talk) 18:04, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I must respectfully disagree with your assessment that this article fails Wikipedia's general notability guideline (WP:GNG) and constitutes original research (WP:NORG). Without more specifics on which aspects you feel fail to meet guidelines or constitute original research, it is difficult to address your concerns. High schools are generally considered notable per WP:GNG, as explained in the Wikipedia:Notability (high schools) page. Independent sources that meet WP:GNG can usually be found for government-run and even the smallest private schools.
In addition to the current sourcing that includes references to establish notability, additional sources, dating back five decades to 1974, can readily be gathered from regional newspapers online. Emperorian125 (talk) 21:17, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 10:05, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

•Weak Keep- due to the school starting in 1974 we will find more offline coverage for this school than online coverage. But there is just enough references from reliable sources to keep the article. 😎😎PaulGamerBoy360😎😎 (talk) 00:29, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Guerillero Parlez Moi 21:37, 31 October 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! 22:38, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Sources in the article plus those available at newspapers.com are sufficient SIGCOV to pass GNG. Jacona (talk) 20:43, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I have revert a close by a IP due to failing WP:NAC's experience criteria and being blocked for vandalism -- Sohom (talk) 08:37, 14 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. Star Mississippi 02:20, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Rung Suriya[edit]

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

Okay, there is a few reasons why I am nominating this article for deletion.

  1. The singer in question does not seem to be notable enough for an article. He fails WP:NMUSIC, and as seen here the article has only gotten 29 pageviews over the past 30 days, in other words 1 view per day - that's really not much, considering an average article on the English Wikipedia gets about 2 000 pageviews per month.
  2. He is also not found on Spotify anymore, but when this article was nominated for deletion on Swedish Wikipedia, it was found that this user gets very low streams, with only 133 monthly streams in Bangkok. Searching his name up on YouTube also gives the impression that the amount of streams he gets is low.
  3. By doing some digging, I found that the creator of this article, User:Boonyatham, has used machine translation in order to create this exact article on eight (!) out of eleven language versions of Wikipedia, and they all seem to have poor language. This just seems like an attempt by the author to make him seem notable.

In conclusion, the reader interest seems to be very low in this case, which is why I am starting this AfD discussion. EPIC (talk) 19:40, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Thailand. Shellwood (talk) 19:51, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep He is among top male Luk Thung singers. Here is google news search for him [17] (some of the hits belong to a weightlifter with a first name Rungsuriya) --Lerdsuwa (talk) 05:26, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. No proper reasoning provided for deletion. Article is sourced to reliable news sources. Page views have no bearing on notability, nor does being on Spotify. --Paul_012 (talk) 10:38, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Also, EPIC, it's very misguided to think the mean article view count (if that's indeed where you got the 2,000 number from—I haven't actually found it anywhere) is in any way representative of the majority of articles on Wikipedia, as the data will naturally be extremely right-skewed. Try Checking view counts for the first ten articles you find on Special:Random; the results may surprise you. --Paul_012 (talk) 11:15, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      • I have no idea what you mean by "No proper reasoning provided for deletion". The reasons are already listed above. This article has been up for deletion on the Swedish Wikipedia, and the result was to delete. I will cite what was said in that discussion, translated into English.
"Here you can see that this artist has 133 Spotify listens a month in Bangkok, and 3 Spotify listens a month in Stockholm. The artist is missing from Discogs and Musicbrainz. This article has had 21 views in the last 3 months, which is a view every 4 days, which in turn is 4 times less than the average article that has 1 view per day (including all Lsjbot articles!). On English Wikipedia, the article has had 167 views in the last 3 months, or about 2 a day. Considering that enwp has about 5 million articles and about 9 billion views per month, this means that the average article on enwp has about 2000 views per month, or about 70 views per day, and the English article thus has 30 times fewer views than the average article. With the stubbornness of a cuckoo clock, I would like to again refer to "reader interest" and emphasize that in this case it is completely nanoscopic, and the fact that the exact same user has machine-translated this article in so many other language versions of Wikipedia is IMO an improper way to get attention. I accept that reader interest alone should not guide our judgments, and that "high" readership numbers can be whimsically achieved by "click-baits" or sheer manipulation, but how do you "tweak" low numbers? The extremely low number of views reported above, combined with the lack of notability as well as the other absence of sources and demonstrated attention, I believe are clear arguments for the article to be deleted." (I did not write this, this is cited from another user, but I along with nine other users see these as proper arguments for deletion, and they also apply for the English Wikipedia.)

I don't see that these arguments have become invalid, except for the Musicbrainz thing. So there is my reasoning for deletion. EPIC (talk) 12:04, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As WP:PAGEVIEW quite clearly explains, "Page stats can help determine how popular a page is, but are not an indication of a topic's notability. Wikipedia's inclusion guidelines are based on coverage found in reliable sources. If a page's stats are low, it is not a reason to consider it for deletion, and if high it is not a reason to save it from deletion." You haven't advanced any reasoning to support the argument that the subject fails WP:NMUSIC and WP:GNG. --Paul_012 (talk) 18:30, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
For WP:NMUSIC, I think this song from him https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m13eiUoOR1Q reached number 1 nationwide back then which was 25 years ago. --Lerdsuwa (talk) 07:42, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 21:40, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:37, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Keep From what I understand, Rung Suriya is a renowned Thai Luk Thung singer who has made significant contributions to the genre and Thai music culture. His appearances in TV dramas could further enhance his notability. --BoraVoro (talk) 16:58, 10 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! 23:33, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Andrés Useche[edit]

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

Subject is quoted in a couple of reliable sources (CBS, Miami Herald), but there is insufficient depth-of-coverage for WP:BIO notability. OhNoitsJamie Talk 18:30, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Andres Useche is a well known and well established notable political consultant, hollywood film writer, songwriter and director. Demscaster (talk) 18:36, 24 October 2023 (UTC) — Demscaster (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:17, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:36, 7 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. Doczilla @SUPERHEROLOGIST 08:35, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hamas beheading incidents[edit]

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

This is an inferior WP:CFORK of Kfar Aza massacre#Allegations of beheadings with a poorly referenced WP:SYNTH background, involving an unrelated beheading of a gay man in Palestine, not attributed to Hamas. The topic of beheadings done by Hamas is not notable independently of the Kfar Aza massacre. —Alalch E. 21:29, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Terrorism, Israel, and Palestine. —Alalch E. 21:29, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's a plausible search term, though. What this page title ought to contain is a disambiguation page pointing to Hamas#Violence, Criticism of Hamas (which doesn't mention beheadings yet but it should) and Kfar Aza massacre#Allegations of beheadings.—S Marshall T/C 22:47, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Good idea, I agree. —Alalch E. 23:22, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The thing is though that decapitations occurred on multiple sites systematically. Kfar Aza came into focus due to decapitation of babies (how many decapitated babies became a contoversy). Soldiers however were beheaded in most battle sites, including bases of Re'im and Sufa. The beheadings of soldiers were videoed and photographed.GreyShark (dibra) 08:20, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • On a further note, this article mirrors Islamic State beheading incidents; this is obviously where the title format comes from. That article is predominantly a list of such incidents with some limited prose about the phenomenon, and this article tries to do the same but fails: Namely the oddly titled "Implementation" section consists (while I'm writing this) of two subsections, "Beheading of infants in Israeli villages" dealing with one village, Kfar Aza, and "Decapitations during the October 7 attack on Israel"... which also deals with Kfar Aza. This could be an attempt to artificially increase the appearance of the number of such incidents in order to justify the existence of the article. When these things are considered together (the article strains to justify it's existence, and the subject mirrors an article about ISIS), one should probably look in the direction of this being not just a content fork, but an anti-Hamas POV fork, referencing the Israeli official line of saying 'Hamas is ISIS' (The refrain became a hashtag, and has been echoed by Israeli officials and politicians across the spectrum).—Alalch E. 01:14, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    In addition to the Kfar Aza events, the article now also mentions the killing of Shani Louk, but she was not beheaded. Herzog, the president of Israel, incorrectly stated, not having complete information, that she was beheaded, but that is not what happened. She suffered a head injury during the massacre, probably by being shot in the head, and a small bone fragment (petrous part of the temporal bone) separated from her skull; she was killed. His spokesperson subsequently corrected the statement. Her body her not has been recovered, while the skull fragment has been found at the scene. We have a whole article about that topic at Killing of Shani Louk, with excellent sourcing. @Greyshark09: Pinging you to see this.—Alalch E. 14:00, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I have corrected this to say that it is a false report. Still, a a false report of a beheading is not a "Hamas beheading incident". —Alalch E. 17:15, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am assuming WP:AGF as the name is similar to the ISIS one. Another issue is skimming decapitation it doesn't mention Hamas or ISIS. So why not combine into an article on modern summary public execution or beheadings? That would exclude the current or proposed judicial ones in countries such as Saudi Arabia and Indonesia. Wakelamp d[@-@]b (talk) 07:48, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Are you proposing merger of both articles into decapitation then?GreyShark (dibra) 08:18, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:Notability is the only guideline determining if a topic deserves a standalone article; significant coverage of a phenomenon of beheadings is not present in the sources. What is present are references about the 40 decapitated babies rumors and statements by Netanyahu.Makeandtoss (talk) 14:49, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to Beheading in the State of Palestine - a less narrow topic, and add other notable cases such as Ahmad Abu Murkhiyeh. Note - we have similar articles such as Islamic State beheading incidents. Incidents of beheading have received significant interest by reliable sources, and the suggested renamed article would be also a geographical sub-article of Beheading in Islam. Marokwitz (talk) 15:20, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Note that 2011 Itamar attack was not perpetrated by Hamas (if I'm not mistaken), this is another reason to rename. Marokwitz (talk) 15:25, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Likely the major impetus for creation of this article was the accusation during the current Hamas-Israeli War, and that is the major part of the article. Problem is, Dr. Chen Kugel, head of the Israeli National Center of Forensic Medicine, said: “We also have bodies coming in without heads, but we can’t definitely say it was from beheadings. Heads can also be blown off due to explosive devices, missiles, and the like,” [18] Snopes also casts doubt in this area.[19] The other problem is that this article feeds on a Islamic trope related to ISIS. Atrocities occurred. But, this article uses unconfirmed claims that, accidentally or not, tie Hamas to ISIS. The article comes across as designed to inflame rather than inform. O3000, Ret. (talk) 15:54, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: This material is tenuous at best. A combination of rumour, tropes and inconclusive evidence. The claims, allegations and tentative evidence should be hosted on the relevant event pages, not here, sandwiched between some barely related background information and events that were simply miscommunicated. Iskandar323 (talk) 18:29, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I'm afraid I don't have any new arguments to add to the discussion, as what I would have said has already been written by other users who have explained it far more eloquently than I could. Thus, all I will say is that I agree with others that the page violates Wikipedia's standards of notability, and that the page's existence also provides undue attention to what essentially amounts to a fringe conspiracy theory. Iamextremelygayokay (talk) 06:21, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete on lack of significant coverage in secondary reliable sources (per Makeandtoss). Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:19, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not notable. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 11:18, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete due to lack of notability, reliance on unverified claims and potential for the article to be more propagandistic. StarkReport (talk) 19:49, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There's still no clear unambigious evidence that hamas deliberately beheaded people ala IS. See this story in The Media Line [20], could have been the result of explosions or other causes. Not really worthy of a standalone article, as already covered at Kfar Aza massacre. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:03, 12 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. Consensus is that sourcing is insufficient. Star Mississippi 02:23, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

OneFriends[edit]

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

This references from Vents Magazine brought me to the page. It is an unreliable source due to them selling articles placements through Upwork and Fiverr. Looking closer at the WP:REFBOMB on the page, the references are mainly blogs which fall under the same category. A search online found nothing that meets WP:ORGCRIT. Looks like a recent PR campaign but nothing in what we would consider reliable sources for establishing WP:NCORP. CNMall41 (talk) 21:24, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@WikiOriginal-9 Would you be able to kindly help correct what CNMall41 user is seeking to do?
That user CNMall41 had a while ago previously declined a draft submission for this article but the article has been significantly improved since then per the edit history (mainly using more neutral tone, with detailed referencing to almost each statement made, and further facts added). @WikiOriginal-9 as a Master Editor III, given your experience and contributions, and good judgment in having approved this article after reviewing it more than once, are you able to have this frivolous and biased deletion attempt removed? (It feels a bit like that user is looking for a way to justify their previous action taken, and can't accept that there are others with differing or wiser opinions on the article's quality and value for Wikipedia, and is now looking to find another way to disrupt a decent article). Thank you.
To address CNMall41's concerns anyway, that "Vents Magazine" source was used specifically to only reference one particular sentence about the year the company was founded, 2018, which is essentially self-evident based on the other sources and reporting (it can be worked out through a simple mental arithmetic calculation or inference). But more for completeness, this source was found nonetheless to support that fact since it explicitly stated that 2023 was the company's 5 year anniversary, but this in itself is not some key or arguable fact being made. The identity and name of the founder of the company is clearly established I think from the other more reputable sources already. The source in question was not used to support any other substantive or value statements made in the article. So in light of the above explanation, I don't think it even matters if that particular source on a deeper investigation is not the most reliable (since it was used to reference a minor point, that can be inferred by any intelligent reader of the other more reliable articles anyway). Finally, the accuracy of the entire article itself should definitely not be impacted, let alone potentially deleted (?!) due to this seemingly petty argument raised by CNNMall41 around a very minor point.
And to further clarify, the article as I read it, contains a wide variety of sources, ranging from well-known media like Bloomberg and Yahoo Finance to other online news publishers, magazines and commentators that cover a more particular topic (e.g. TV programming, film, art etc.). The higher volume of sources used was to address a previous improvement comment made by @WikiOriginal-9 which suggested some further independent sources to be added. Also the content of the article in some places specifically state that it is some "technology and social commentators" who have written about the nature of the app, and therefore in referencing the source of such statements it is only natural to reference the actual articles written by such commentators on the various publications online (magazines pieces, news pieces, explanation articles). Doing so was done to ensure a more neutral tone in the article, as opposed to making those value statements directly (and therefore not needing to incorporate such references/sources and a large number of them). Angelswithwings (talk) 23:42, 7 November 2023 (UTC)— Angelswithwings (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Also took the time to read through some articles on that Vents Magazine site. The magazine looks just like any other commercial for-profit magazine that covers news content and supports ads. I don't think there's enough evidence anyway to support your opinion that the source is clearly not reliable, especially without a better understanding of their editorial standards. Circumstantial pieces of information you've gathered on Google by itself, and then projecting that, is not enough to make such a bold definite statement about that publication I think (e.g. Wall Street Journal, Time Magazine, AP all have paid content too alongside their central reporting and writing). But anyway, as per above, whether Vents is used as a source or not, is really irrelevant to the overall quality and accuracy and notability of the article, which has been established through a variety of reputable sources already. Thanks. Angelswithwings (talk) 01:08, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Ivanvector wanted to include you in this discussion since you're another Master Editor who had previously declined a 'speedy deletion' request for this article. That was back when the article was still in its very early rudimentary stages - since then the article has been improved significantly with many reliable sources and was earlier approved after a round reviews and improvements suggested by another Master Editor III, WikiOriginal-9. Yet still there's been a new disruptive deletion request as above. I'm sure if you take the time to read the sources and article and above details, along with your good judgment and strong insights, you'll see why this deletion request is groundless. Angelswithwings (talk) 01:43, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A final point for now, after investigating the article Revision History page and corresponding timestamps for when actions were taken by CNMall41, there was only 6 minutes ( 21:18, 7 November 2023‎ to 21:24, 7 November 2023) ‎between the time this user deemed the single Vents source was not reliable, to then deciding to nominate the entire article for deletion. During that 6 minute time window, it is clearly impossible that the user actually properly read all the 15/16 sources articles each (500+ words average per article approximately), did sufficient research and analysis on the subject of the article, and then came to an informed and fair view on the notability, reliability, details of the specific sources and article as a whole. It seems to have been a complete off-the-cuff, impulsive or prejudiced decision to cause disruption or validate their own previous actions which have been superseded by a more experienced Master Editor. It is also disrespectful of the efforts of other contributors to the article who have actually taken the time to properly research, analyze and write the article over a period of months - all that disregarded on the whim in 6 minutes. Angelswithwings (talk) 02:24, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I understand that you are new and that having a page recommended for deletion can be frustrating. Let me point out that you need to make policy based arguments on why the page should be kept as opposed to making accusations against editors. As far as the WP:ASPERSIONS, see your talk page. --CNMall41 (talk) 05:33, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the points above are focused on policy - that a review of the article in its current form (less the edits you made) had been satisfied and approved by a very experienced Master Editor less than 24 hours ago. The notability of the subject of the article had been established in multiple sources (as mentioned above, Bloomberg, Yahoo Finance, many news publications which all speak in depth with significant coverage on the specific topic of the article, and not just passing mentions). The article is written with neutral tone and rigorously referenced to improve its quality. The rationale for the use of a larger number of sources has also been patiently explained above, please refer to paragraph 3. The initial catalyst it seems for your actions related to the Vents site has also been explained in some detail - that it is not conclusive that that source is not reliable, and that it could still be reliable, yet nonetheless it was only used to reference a almost self-evident minor point in the article anyway. I'm happy to accept your deletion of that particular reference if you so insist (good faith), but definitely oppose any attempt to delete the article.
Thank you for understanding the frustration felt - since quite a lot of effort has gone into researching and making this a good quality Wikipedia article that covers a worthwhile topic (one that's probably going to be even more so over time). If you have time I'd suggest simply clicking "news" or "Google" at the top of the page in the Find Sources section and having a thorough read of those many sources which appear in addition to those already cited in the article that have been found. Please respect the work of others and refrain from actions which irreversibly and immoderately erase that, especially without having first become very well informed - this should prevent acting with prejudice and achieving a fair outcome :)
I am new to making edits but have read Wikipedia for decades and have also supported the project when requested to. Thank you. Angelswithwings (talk) 06:08, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No independent reliable sources to satisfy WP:GNG or WP:CORPDEPTH - they're all press releases, unreliable sources, or obvious sponsored content. - MrOllie (talk) 14:06, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi, thanks for joining the discussion. I'd have to disagree with your blanket statements there. If we take just for example the first source, Bloomberg via Bloomberg Terminal article, did you actually access Bloomberg Terminal through a subscription and read the news article there?
    Also many of the articles are clearly reporting news, albeit in a positive light (since the story usually revolves around some success the company has had) - this does not mean it is immediately unreliable or obvious sponsored content. Many of the articles are written by journalists or reputable commentators within that space (e.g. Programming Insider). Certainly, the sources provide an in-depth and significant coverage of the subject as per Wikipedia notability guidelines.
    There may be a couple of sources that could be labelled as a "press release" or more likely a news story written by a publisher that is based off a primary press release. These sources are used to support non-contentious facts within the article anyway.
    (Finally I mention that earlier as per another editor GMH Melbourne's suggestions to improve the page by adding links from other Wikipedia pages so this article is no longer an orphan. Some attempts were made by me to improve this by trying to add in a couple of short sentences in the articles on "Friendship" and "BFF" with links. This seems to have been reverted by you and triggered also the above response. ) Angelswithwings (talk) 17:08, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes. It is a press release which has been reposted on Bloomberg. The original source is EINPRESSWIRE: as you can see here. Adding promotional mentions of this app on other articles is not appropriate, and it will not assist in preventing a deletion due to this AFD. MrOllie (talk) 17:20, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for that, I think I'll keep the Bloomberg source as it is - it is used to support the first sentence on simply what the purpose of the platform is for - essentially self-evident and basic fact. I appreciate your note on not adding promotional mentions, never had that intention, simply wanted to add 2 links so this article is no longer an orphan (I didn't actually care about this until the other editor suggested it on top of the page). Angelswithwings (talk) 17:40, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • I firmly stand by the other points I've already made in this discussion.* Angelswithwings (talk) 17:53, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I was pinged above regarding a G11 speedy deletion request on this page when it was an early draft, which I declined. The speedy deletion criteria are meant to be applied very narrowly; G11 is for pages that are blatant advertisements, and I did not feel the page met the criterion. That action was not an assessment of the topic's notability nor suitability for Wikipedia, and it should not be interpreted as though it was. I have not reviewed the current article but I may comment later. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 19:11, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the comment. I am going to ping the previous reviewers (@WikiOriginal-9:, @GMH Melbourne:, @Fancy Refrigerator:) as well. Maybe they see something I missed in my evaluation of the sourcing.--CNMall41 (talk) 20:32, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the comment boss. Yes that makes complete sense. I think if you were to have a proper review and make your further comments that would help a lot. Angelswithwings (talk) 23:43, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Angelswithwings, do you have a connection with Onefriends? LibStar (talk) 08:32, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I support what the company is trying to do. Creating a wikipedia page was a thing I decided to do since had some free time, and now that I've put in fair bit of effort into the article, don't want to see it go to waste or be unreasonably deleted you know. Like to finish what I started. Not paid to write or anything like that. Was planning on starting a couple other articles in business or technology until this approved article got unnecessarily put up for deletion Angelswithwings (talk) 09:50, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
WP:EFFORT is not a reason for keeping. LibStar (talk) 23:05, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Of course, the article should be kept because it meets Wikipedia:Notability guidelines - significant in-depth coverage, many secondary independent sources, many different reliable sources. That's why the article was approved to begin with. Angelswithwings (talk) 23:19, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
(and with that Bloomberg Terminal article, I'm no expert on Bloomberg Terminal editorial practices, but I assume not just any business can have an article published on there behind the expensive Bloomberg Terminal paywall/subscription - probably implied notability and importance). This is in addition to the other news articles and explanatory pieces that focus squarely and deeply on the article subject. Angelswithwings (talk) 23:27, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As in Bloomberg likely doesn't charge its professional Bloomberg Terminal subscribers $25,000-$30,000/year just to provide them news that is not important. It's a high standard. According to its website https://www.bloomberg.com/professional/solution/bloomberg-terminal/ "deliver award-winning coverage of companies, industries, markets and economies. We break news that moves markets - and you'll see it first on the Bloomberg Terminal." Angelswithwings (talk) 02:38, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Bloomberg terminal subscribers are paying for detailed financial data and a software interface to make stock trades faster, not the news aggregation feed that is mostly press releases. Press releases do not support notability - and nor do the sponcon and churnalism that make up the rest of the article's sources. Literally anyone can pay a couple hundred bucks and post a press release that will end up on all sorts of news aggregation services. MrOllie (talk) 02:58, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete article created by a single purpose editor that seems a WP:PROMO and using PR type sources and am concerned of WP:COI editing. I'm not convinced it meets the bar for WP:CORP. LibStar (talk) 03:02, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep popularity is a factor behind Wikipedia:Notability. Ranking 3rd on the Apple Store charts is an indicator of this. International scope. Significant coverage exists. 49.180.16.201 (talk) 03:13, 10 November 2023 (UTC)— 49.180.16.201 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Thanks for your contribution, Mr IP editor who happens to geolocate nearby to OneFriends's corporate HQ. Unfortunately 'popularity' and store rankings don't have much to do with notability as Wikipedia defines it. MrOllie (talk) 03:16, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
'notability does not necessarily depend on things such as fame, importance, or popularity—although those may enhance the acceptability of a subject' quoted from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability
Australian here, been following the app's progress for a while. Won't be monitoring further replies, my two cents there 49.180.16.201 (talk) 03:25, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You chopped off part of the sentence there. I'll fix it for you: "although those may enhance the acceptability of a subject that meets the guidelines explained below." MrOllie (talk) 03:34, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Firstly. wow. OK, in attempt to be constructive and reduce the volume of content here into something manageable for editors to find accessible, could Angelswithwings please help us by identifying below here the WP:THREE best sources that establish notability of the subject? As other reviewers have noted, the page needs to meet (at least) WP:GNG and WP:NCORP. Thanks. Cabrils (talk) 04:42, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
● Keep: For reasons above.@Cabrils yes sure, I think it's clearest if we categorize the sources into a few groups.
A) Journalism and News Reporting (usually favorable coverage of some positive event, e.g. top charts)
1. https://www.chiangraitimes.com/tech/onefriends-app-making-friendships-better-internationally-in-2023/
3. https://programminginsider.com/onefriends-app-for-true-friends-trending-top-3-on-apple-charts/
2. https://marketbusinessnews.com/
4. https://nybreaking.com/onefriends-app-rising-in-popularity-and-what-it-means-to-add-a-friend-on-onefriends/
10. https://www.bignewsnetwork.com/news/273665563/onefriends-trending-on-app-store
7. https://artdaily.com/news/154615/ (founder interview only)
15. https://virtual-strategy.com/2022/10/13/
B) Tech and Social Trends Writers/Commentators
5. https://filmdaily.co/lifestyle/how-the-high-end-onefriends-app-is-improving-friendships/
6. https://s3.amazonaws.com/colunm/four-factors-behind-onefriends-growing-popularity/index.html
12. https://thetechrim.com/5-reasons-why-onefriends-is-so-private-and-valuable/
13. https://www.globaldatinginsights.com/social-discovery/going-one-step-further-with-onefriends/
14. https://newsuptotime.com/three-of-the-best-apps-to-use-with-your-close-friends-in-2023/
C) Explanatory Articles and How-To-Guides
11. https://womenfitnessmag.com/
D) Stories based off Republished Press Release or Press Release
1.https://www.bloomberg.com/professional/solution/bloomberg-terminal/
8. https://finance.yahoo.com/news/onefriends-friendship-app-growing-since-220400681.html
9. https://www.globaltechreporter.com/article/
For notability, @Cabrils I think the first 3 articles under Journalism and News category above should work - shows notable event(s) in ranking high no.3 on the app store charts, global appeal with more than 100 countries with users, addresses the topic directly and in detail (significant coverage). All independent reliable sources. Angelswithwings (talk) 05:50, 10 November 2023 (UTC) — Angelswithwings (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Respectfully, I repeat: please help us by identifying below here the 3 best sources that establish notability of the subject? Cabrils (talk) 05:54, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes that was written in the final paragraph above. More concisely worded:
1. https://www.chiangraitimes.com/tech/onefriends-app-making-friendships-better-internationally-in-2023/
3. https://programminginsider.com/onefriends-app-for-true-friends-trending-top-3-on-apple-charts/
2. https://marketbusinessnews.com/
Angelswithwings (talk) 05:56, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Thank you. OK, having absorbed most of the lengthy discussion above, and perused those 3 sources, I think this is (at best) WP:TOOSOON to meet WP:NCORP. My vote is to delete. Possibly it could be moved to draftspace to develop over time... Cabrils (talk) 05:59, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Cool, want to add that the article can be notable if said to meet WP:Notability (software) since it's about an app, and doesn't necessarily have to meet the WP:NCORP. Angelswithwings (talk) 08:37, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The WP:Notability (software) has: "A computer program can usually be presumed to be notable if it meets any one of these criteria:
    • It is discussed in reliable sources as significant in its particular field. References that cite trivia do not fulfill this requirement. See following section for more information."
    All the specific sources that focus on a particular field (apps, app tech, app store, social relations in field of mobile apps) discuss the app as being important/significant and so could in totality come to satisfy the above. Angelswithwings (talk) 08:50, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It is not 'discussed in reliable sources as significant in its particular field.' You still need independent, reliable sources to meet that bar and there are none. MrOllie (talk) 13:41, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Chiangraitimes and Marketbusinessnewsare blatant fake news sites set up to push advertising. Chiangraitimes is ads mixed with repostings from the AP, and Marketbusinessnews is nothing but paid content and/or listicles with embedded spam links. Programminginsider is a single person's blog set up to look like a news site, and contains a mixture of posts about TV programming and obvious paid advertisements. These are not reliable sources. MrOllie (talk) 13:40, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That is all incorrect. All online new sites contain ads nowadays, from the biggest to the smallest. That's how news publishers and companies generate revenue in the current world, they aren't not-for-profits. As I'd mentioned above, simply because a site has paid content along with its central reporting does not mean it is unreliable - WSJ, Time Magazine, Economist, AP all have paid content alongside their central reporting. You cannot make blanket uninformed statements like that. M. Berman, editor of Programming Insider is a respected editor, journalist and expert in his field. Angelswithwings (talk) 14:09, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
All online news sites emphatically do not contain ads dressed up to look like articles, which is what we have here. MrOllie (talk) 14:15, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Was just flicking through the Market Business News Glossary of business terms, looks very accurate, quite comprehensive too. Again, the above websites all have news articles together with ads which is typical of online news distributors. (I looked up your username online though and it seems like a lot of people think very differently from you.) I have to go, better things to do. Angelswithwings (talk) 14:28, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Angelswithwings, please do not spend time doing opposition research on editors who disagree with you. Conversation should be on whether the article subject is notable as based on reliable, secondary independent sources. MrOllie is a very experienced editor, knows how to spot paid editing better than a new editor. If you wanted to make a career out of editing here, it would be wise to take his advice and remove references that he states are reflective of paid editing/advertising and work on improving the sourcing rather than seeking to attack him in this discussion. That reflects poorly on you, not him.
You are also bludgeoning this discussion. You've made your opinions known, you don't need to counter every editor who has an opinion that you disagree with. This is a collaborative editing platform and we all end up working alongside editors whom we disagree with on some points. It's not easy but it's necessary. Liz Read! Talk! 05:21, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You seem like a reasonable person Liz, so appreciate what you're trying to do. I only reply every time MrOllie in a troll-like way makes another blatantly false/exaggerated statement after already having voiced his initial opinion, to bring some balance. User Cabrils above tagged me first asking for assistance since he/she wanted a short-cut way of thinking, so after helping out, I think I could fairly add WP:Notability (software) as the criteria to use. Other user like Libstar's opinion I don't agree with, but I can see he's coming from a good place (haven't commented further). Thanks. Angelswithwings (talk) 07:12, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
(https://www.forbes.com/sites/marc journalist/editor profile for the Programming Insider source found too. Well respected senior journalist) Angelswithwings (talk) 07:23, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, I've removed obvious and known seo sinks. Paid placement and press releases are not acceptable as indicators of notability, and many of the ones I removed are fairly unethical. The rest seem to be exactly what Mr. Mall and Mr. Ollie are indicating: more inorganic mentions on blogs at best. I understand you like the organization, but we need to have better sourcing, please. I also understand that our reviewers are overworked and that sources like this can easily be overlooked. Sam Kuru (talk) 16:43, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not really here to second guess the AfC review, even if it is a little weird looking at the decline 10 hours earlier from the same person. AfC reviews are, nominally, supposed to accept anything "more likely than not" to make it through a AfD, which is unfortunate for the ones in the "than not", but not really much we can do about that unless we want those to take even longer than they currently do normally. I do want to point out that WP:NSOFT, if we're accepting it (far from a given since it's not actually a subject specific notability guideline), defers to WP:NCORP / PRODUCT for commercial software, defined as "distributed commercially or supported by businesses". NCORP is thus the controlling SNG in this instance. Alpha3031 (t • c) 13:42, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete; the sources are very far from meeting WP:NCORP, which is the relevant SNG. These are press releases, and WP:ORGIND (independence) doesn't seem to be met by any source. DFlhb (talk) 22:25, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Just had a read of the new opinions. It's very convenient and easy and not requiring much deeper intelligence to keep making the same group-think point of saying 'aha press releases!!', therefore not satisfying the criteria for notability. Very easy. When in fact press release sources have already been removed by another user above Kuru and even well before then, for the approximately 2/3 PR-related out of 16 sources, they were never meant to be used to establish notability. They're used to support basic self-evident facts (e.g. purpose of the app/platform). Many other pages on businesses also have press-releases, e.g. Uber source no.3. Press releases are used by businesses as a way of making an official announcement but in many wiki editor mindset seem to be some smoking gun for unreliability of ALL OTHER sources. (I seriously doubt companies care at all about what Wikipedia will be thinking when they issue a press release.)
Once that initial prejudice is made in this discussion, then further thinking is simply finding ways wherever possible to support that bias. Another alternative explanation for the OTHER news sources is that when journalists and commentators and employees of news publishers/sites see that an app is doing really well (e.g. topping charts, since main charts are a big deal and thing to monitor in the app market) they want some of that attention or want to draw traffic to their sites, so they come up with articles or write articles that they think people supporting that main app/business/trend want to read, and so they get some reflected importance/popularity/SEO etc. Source independence should be assessed individually looking at it in a silo almost since that's how the news publisher initially created it - not just making a blanket statement like, 'look, the articles are all favorable and supporting the app/company so clearly not independent'. In another sense and hypothetical, if we take 10 journalists and pack them into a single room and then another person in that room raises a Blue Colored piece of paper, obviously all 10 journalists reporting honestly on that event/entity/subject will write 'there was a blue colored paper being raised in the room' with almost uniformity - despite this seeming adherence to a single truth, this does not then mean that all the journalists reporting are non-independent. Have a nice day fellow humans. Angelswithwings (talk) 04:58, 13 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. Daniel (talk) 22:43, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Leonard Glasser[edit]

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

The current sources don't show sufficient notability, the new york times article doesn't mention him and the other two links are dead. A WP:BEFORE search didn't bring up sufficient sources to pass WP:GNG or WP:ARTIST. Suonii180 (talk) 20:55, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists and United States of America. Suonii180 (talk) 20:55, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, realised the archived link I checked for NY Times ref is not the same archived link which appears with the main link. That one just lists the same 4 films in his article and is still not enough to show enough notability. Suonii180 (talk) 21:01, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 21:15, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Stub article that does not contain biographic material aside from a few resumé-like claims. No indication that he meets WP:GNG nor WP:NARTIST, a BEFORE search reveals user-submitted content (Saachi Art - which is not the same as Saachi Gallery, it's a website any artist can submit their work to be displayed online), and name checks in in databases. I did find a book, Art in Motion, Revised Edition: Animation Aesthetics, that has two sentences about him. At this time it seems that he does not meet the bar for Wiki-notability. Netherzone (talk) 21:27, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not notable and fails every guideline for justifying an article. Delete. Go4thProsper (talk) 23:57, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The only additional sources I have been able to find are just single sentence mentions, crediting for screenwriting or animation on a film. No significant coverage. Elspea756 (talk) 06:53, 10 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. Complex/Rational 20:51, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Danny Leary[edit]

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

Longstanding poor quality and lack of WP:NBIO. The page was created in 2008 with a request for speedy deletion made on the same day, thus rendering it unusable here. Since 2008, there have not been any significant changes in quality or content of the article BlueWhale89 (talk) 20:37, 7 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 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. Daniel (talk) 22:42, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Richmond Shock Lacrosse[edit]

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

Little indication of notability. PepperBeast (talk) 20:38, 7 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. Complex/Rational 20:47, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Alena Afanaseva[edit]

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

Promotional page. No evidence of independent third-party coverage in WP:RSes, just in crypto media and promotional placements. Was previously sourced with a WP:REFBOMB of crypto sites, Forbes contributor blogs, passing mentions in media punditry, press releases and non-RSes; a PROD was removed and the original author simply replaced the REFBOMB. Needs substantial biographical coverage in RSes to have an article about a living person - and that doesn't seem to exist for Afanaseva. David Gerard (talk) 20:28, 7 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 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. Daniel (talk) 22:41, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Aïcha Hamidèche[edit]

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

The subject, an Algerian women's footballer, has played for her respective national team since at least 2017. I am unable to find enough in-depth coverage to meet WP:GNG, only passing mentions both in Arabic (1, 2, 3, etc.) and French (1, 2, 3, etc.). JTtheOG (talk) 19:54, 7 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. There is clear consensus below that this article shouldn't be retained. Normally I default to redirect here as an ATD but given the objection is BLP-related, I'm not comfortable doing so. I'd encourage a discussion to occur somewhere whether a redirect should happen or not while factoring in the BLP concerns, and should consensus be to establish a redirect, please feel free to undelete the history of this article behind the redirect to achieve the ATD. Daniel (talk) 22:40, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Billal Al Kedra[edit]

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

Article based entirely on Israeli allegations and claims that he was killed, no independent secondary sources for any aspect of this besides reporting on those Israeli claims. We have an article in which a person that no secondary source says exists, lived, or died, and for claims that this person engaged in criminal acts (WP:BLPCRIME which still applies given no independent confirmation that he is dead). Fails WP:BLP1E, WP:BLPGOSSIP and WP:NPF. Nableezy 17:50, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete or redirect to Nukhba (Hamas), per the above. No standalone notability. Iskandar323 (talk) 05:19, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Nukhba (Hamas), I probably jumped the gun making this one, but since he's at least mentioned in multiple sources, a redirect seems to make the most sense here. Thief-River-Faller (talk) 13:07, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect. I think the reasoning provided so far by other editors has convinced me. Not notable for an independent article but still worthy of mention. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 19:21, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think a redirect fails WP:BLPCRIME, we have no independent sourcing for the claim that this person was at all involved in any of the things Israel has claimed. nableezy - 19:23, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Huh? In what instance is there an arbitrary standard for any crime? That's not what WP:BLP says. Authorities investigate and charge crimes. How would someone independently confirm that XX committed a crime, without relying on authorities? The Israeli claim is widely reported in RS across the spectrum, so RS find the claim credible, which is the standard we should use here. Longhornsg (talk) 20:52, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Youre accusing a potentially living person of being an arch-terrorist. The Israeli claim is reported by RS as an Israeli claim, not as a credible or not credible one. We require convictions to claim a crime was committed. nableezy - 21:07, 8 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. Complex/Rational 20:49, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Vera Clinic[edit]

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

Notability. "the official hair transplant partner of England's Premier League team, Everton FC."... someone is surely having a giraffe. TheLongTone (talk) 17:09, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Health and fitness, Companies, and Turkey. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 17:50, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete 100% promotional, and no independent or in-depth coverage found. Listed sources are all WP:ROUTINE passing coverage, likely press releases, or obvious COI. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 01:14, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep some independent sources may be found; potentailly notable as a niche clinic. --BoraVoro (talk) 11:06, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, removed a lot of the clearly-identified paid placement advertorials. Most of it was pure adcopy and obviously unacceptable. The rest seems to be niche junk, tabloids, and brief mentions of a sports sponsorship. Looking for other sources is challenging, given the amount of SEO and PR the company employs. I did not immediately find anything useful, but I now know what "having a giraffe" means, so there's that. Sam Kuru (talk) 13:21, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • User:Kuru, the article was much funnier before you started cleaning it up. I always love the Hindustan Times. Drmies (talk) 13:23, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Always glad to be of service!TheLongTone (talk) 15:35, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. As written, this is spam. The current sources don't satisfy WP:NCORP, and even if new sources were to be uncovered, it would need entirely re-writing from the ground up, so WP:TNT applies. Girth Summit (blether) 16:50, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete — I couldn't find any additional sourcing in my search that was noteworthy: just the same paid-for PR articles, thus failing NCORP. I wouldn't have minded if this was speedied with G11 pre-cleanup (tbf, still wouldn't mind). Also interesting to note the weird editing pattern of the creator. Styyx (talk) 21:29, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with the others. I came to the same conclusion as Kuru about the paid advertorials, after finding quite a few of them that weren't even in the article, some actually marked as such in their bylines. The stuff about the football club is misrepresentation, as the small print of the press releases tells us that this is about the clinic paying for advertising at the football club, just like a whole load of other companies (named as examples in the PR fluff) do. There is no independent in-depth sourcing to be had. The article didn't have any before or now, and I cannot find any. Uncle G (talk) 05:54, 9 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. Daniel (talk) 22:37, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bingo Wholesale[edit]

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

Unremarkable business. None of the refs are substantial enough to confer notability. TheLongTone (talk) 16:59, 7 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. Daniel (talk) 22:37, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Capaware[edit]

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

Defunct project with almost no references, not notable. Finxx (talk) 16:58, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: It seems to have been an abandoned work-in-progress since 2011. However, it was used in a few scientific articles, so it's not entirely unnotable.[22][23][24] SPA5CE! talk about it 15:52, 14 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. Daniel (talk) 22:36, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

IEEE Transactions on Green Communications and Networking[edit]

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

Unilateral move by an editor to bypass AFC. The references are inadequate, and are both scarce and not significant coverage. Not ready for mainspace. Draftify. The underlying topic is likely to have notability. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 16:01, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: That does indeed look quite damning for Krakhesh. Concerning this article, before !voting here I gave it a thorough makeover and I hope that nothing POV/promotional remains. --Randykitty (talk) 19:01, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've had another look, and agree that Randykitty has thoroughly cleaned it. Further, not to condone socking, but when articles are moved to draftspace for reasons that could easily be fixed in mainspace (here non-independent sourcing for IF), I can understand editors' frustration. Espresso Addict (talk) 22:04, 8 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. Consensus of editors here, especially following the relist, is that SIGCOV is not met. My reading of the discussion is these concerns were not adequately addressed, hence closing as delete. Daniel (talk) 22:35, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ace Pijper[edit]

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

Non-notable athlete, a WP:BEFORE check reveals almost entirely primary sources or routine coverage, and very little or no significant coverage. This is reflected in the article which cites only one non-primary source, which is routine coverage of an event the subject participated in. 5225C (talk • contributions) 00:49, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Not sure how good the check was! Typed in the name and the first five internet results are five different sources from British Speedway, Workington Speedway, Berwick Bandits, FIM and Glasgow Tigers. Other sources on the page are from the Speedway Star. None of these are Primary sources, they are some of the main Speedway websites etc. A primary source would be his own rider page like some riders have. Pyeongchang (talk) 14:07, 20 October 2023 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: Pyeongchang (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this AfD. [reply]
  • Keep. Articles from British Speedway, his clubs, etc. are fine for fact-checking, but are not really independent third-party coverage, and while there's not a great deal of third-party coverage around, there's enough in the Speedway Star and Polish and Netherlands media to scrape through. As a young rider who has just completed his first season of professional speedway, coverage is bound to increase over time. --Michig (talk) 14:23, 20 October 2023 (UTC) — Note: An editor has expressed a concern that Michig (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. (diff)[reply]
    • Articles from British Speedway, his clubs, etc. are fine for fact-checking, but are not really independent third-party coverage Agreed, that is not significant coverage and should not be relied on to establish notability 5225C (talk • contributions) 07:37, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Ace Pijper is a speedway rider who has just helped Glasgow Tigers to the 2023 SGB Championship title, so not sure how he can be classed as a non-notable athlete. A quick Google search shows his name appear in multiple news outlets and he has biographies on numerous speedway sites. His coverage is sure to increase as he progresses through the speedway ranks. He's also the son of Theo Pijper, another famous speedway rider. Johnny2hats2 (talk) 16:00, 20 October 2023 (UTC) — Note: An editor has expressed a concern that Johnny2hats2 (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. (diff)[reply]
  • Keep. Not only is the rider in question a regular team member in a notable division, whilst still not even an adult, he has also been part of a championship winning team Rcclh (talk) 15:39, 20 October 2023 (UTC) — Note: An editor has expressed a concern that Rcclh (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. (diff)[reply]
    • This !vote is a textbook example of WP:NOTINHERITED. That the subject is part of a notable team or has competed in a notable series does not mean they are equally notable. 5225C (talk • contributions) 07:37, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – There has been some CANVASSing here by the article creator (all three !voters so far). I remain unconvinced that the subject meets standards for inclusion and will not withdraw the nomination. 5225C (talk • contributions) 16:57, 20 October 2023 (UTC), amended 16:59, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - Quote from Canvassing article page = "In general, it is perfectly acceptable to notify other editors of ongoing discussions", That is all that was done so please don't take offence at the fact that other editors disagree with the nomination for deletion. Motorcycle speedway is a major world sport and these editors are probably some of the best informed on the subject. Pyeongchang (talk) 17:23, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      • I didn't say what sort of canvassing it was, I merely noted it for the closing administrator. Odd assumption to make. 5225C (talk • contributions) 17:46, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      • Another quote from WP:CANVASS: Vote-stacking: Posting messages to users selected based on their known opinions (which may be made known by a userbox, user category, or prior statement). One of the four users you messaged about this discussion has a userbox identifying themselves as a fan of speedway, another two you have had prior interactions with about the topic confirming you had at least a strong idea of their opinion, and the fourth literally has "SpeedwayInfo" as a username. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  07:09, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Netherlands and Poland. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  07:18, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hoping our Polish- and Dutch-speaking friends can help us verify coverage in publications in these languages, which has been asserted above. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  07:29, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: A "keep" closure was overturned at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2023 October 30 * Pppery * it has begun... 15:42, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, * Pppery * it has begun... 15:42, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - appears to fail WP:BASIC and WP:SIGCOV. estar8806 (talk) ★ 15:46, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete until Polish- and Dutch-language coverage can be demonstrated and verified. Lack of SIGCOV otherwise. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  15:50, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Sportspeople, Motorsport, Netherlands, Poland, United Kingdom, and Scotland. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  16:01, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Gsearch goes straight to social media sites, Gnews only has hyper-local coverage in this newspaper [25]. TOOSOON perhaps. No sourcing we can use to meet GNG Oaktree b (talk) 16:26, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't know where these Polish and Dutch sources are, I'm about 6 pages into the Gnews and all I find is this, which is paywalled [26]. You'll need a bunch more than that if you want to have the article kept. Oaktree b (talk) 16:31, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • He competes in the second division of racing, which seems to be a minor league... Even more sourcing is needed if this is kept for a minor league athlete. Oaktree b (talk) 16:32, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      • It isn't a minor league. It's the second of two professional leagues in Great Britain. --Michig (talk) 17:59, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Here's some examples of coverage: [27], [28], [29], [30]. There's more in-depth coverage in Speedway Star but it's all paywalled. --Michig (talk) 18:11, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for these. The second is talking about the ups and downs of becoming professional, and seems to reinforce TOOSOON. The other coverage suggests that he is someone to watch, but Wikipedia is a lagging indicator of notability, and the race reports and information he won a bronze helmet in a race is not sufficient for notability under WP:NMOTORSPORT except for specific races, which this one is not. So this looks like a fail on the subject specific NMOTORSPORT. We are left with GNG, for which we need multiple independent reliable secondary sources. race reports are not secondary. I don't see any evidence that GNG is met either. Notability is not inherited, so I am leaning delete here, unless there is any argument that the subject meets NMOTORSPORT under any of the criteria. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 20:20, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Brief few sentences in a list of competitors in the final source, others are only a paragraph or two (except for the first one, which I mentioned in my !vote above). We're just not a notability. Oaktree b (talk) 21:27, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Draftify - the sources present in the article and those provided by Michig appear to be a start but does not meet GNG. As a young athlete, it is possible the subject may become notable at a later time, largely per WP:TOOSOON. Frank Anchor 20:36, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. A search shows very little reliable sources, which are not enough to warrant an article. At this juncture in the subject's career, there is not enough independent coverage. It therefore does not meet WP:BASIC and WP:SIGCOV and fails WP:GNG. -AuthorAuthor (talk) 06:46, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - My reasoning is in my comment above. This could well just be WP:TOOSOON but notability is not yet established. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:24, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. I'm not into sports, so I wouldn't normally opine on this AFD, but since I voted to reopen at DRV I figure extra eyes are helpful. No opinion regarding NMOTORSPORT but I looked at from the point of view of GNG. Thanks to Michig for the foreign-language sources; I know some Polish and translated the Dutch. I think while it's close (hence the "Weak" part of my delete), the mentions are just too brief and limited (either "going to run a race" or "ran a race" or "someone to watch") to write at article at this time. Would suggest draftifying with no prejudice to updating and submitting the draft for approval once there are more sources. Martinp (talk) 15:18, 13 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 14:29, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Moussa Nassourou[edit]

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

Another BLP with unacceptable sourcing and no evidence of WP:GNG or WP:SPORTBASIC. The best that I could find was a passing mention in BBC Sport and some brief coverage in a Wordpress blog, which is not WP:RS. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 14:29, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: Lady with the same name working for Oxfam in the country, not sure if this is her or not [31]. Oaktree b (talk) 16:34, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The LinkedIn profile for the Oxfam manager seems to suggest a career entirely in Chad, Burkina Faso and Niger. No mention of being a Cameroonian footballer, that I can see. I also can't see any WP:SIGCOV for them. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:33, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. GiantSnowman 19:45, 7 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 14:24, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Golopo Nemba[edit]

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

Found nothing decent under "Golopo Nemba", "Golopo Bambara" or "Golopo Ba Mbara". The only reason I tried the last one was because of Football Database. I found a squad list mention in Camfoot but this is not enough for WP:GNG or WP:SPORTBASIC. I also found a Wordpress blog that mentions him but it has the wrong DOB for him, or at least not one that matches what we have in the article. In any case, Wordpress is not WP:RS and the coverage is trivial. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 14:14, 7 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 14:24, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Eric Christian Ndjie[edit]

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

Another very poorly sourced BLP that is barely even an 'article' with no sign of passing WP:GNG or WP:SPORTBASIC. The best sources that I can find are Grioo, Cam Lions 1 and Cam Lions 2, all of which are trivial mentions of Ndjie. If this is kept, the article should be moved to Eric Ndjie as the above sources omit the middle name, which only seems to be used in database sources. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 14:05, 7 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! 05:26, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

United Nations General Assembly Resolution 58/292[edit]

United Nations General Assembly Resolution 58/292 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable UN resolution that is unlikely to be WP:ENDURING. Twenty years after the fact, limited to no secondary or tertiary coverage, per WP:BEFORE. There are a number of UN resolutions concerning the Israel-Palestine conflict that are lasting and impactful, such as 67, 194, 242, etc.

A more appropriate place for this is a bullet or two on List of United Nations resolutions concerning Palestine. Longhornsg (talk) 15:39, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As @User:Mzajac said elsewhere: "UNGA Resolutions become part of the permanent record, affect UN policy, are an indicator of international consensus, and influence international law, so [they have] lasting significance". --Omnipaedista (talk) 22:02, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: UN resolutions are of the public record. Stop wasting community time. Iskandar323 (talk) 13:06, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Dude. Chill and WP:AGF. And stop hounding me with disrespectful comments, it's getting tiresome. Longhornsg (talk) 19:03, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe go easy on the AfDs and I will. You are starting a whole load. Iskandar323 (talk) 19:42, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There have been 2,700+ UN resolutions. Not every routine, non-enduring resolution is inherently notable or meets WP:GNG. This is a wholly appropriate AfD, now we see whether or not the community agrees with me on this. Please lower the temperature and stop attacking my perceived motives. Longhornsg (talk) 20:08, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 14:00, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - whilst I have some sympathy for the nom, I don't think we could really come up with a coherent !delete consensus. For one thing the history of these resolutions has been picked over in multiple books and it seems highly unlikely that there were no newspaper reports in the region. The only !delete argument might be that these are passing mentions - but I think it is going to be really difficult to sort through the whole of List of United Nations resolutions concerning Palestine and establish which are and which are not notable enough to have a page. JMWt (talk) 16:49, 7 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! 07:39, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Navayuga Group[edit]

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

Fails to meet the Wikipedia's notability guidelines for corporations, as explained in WP:NCORP and WP:ORGCRIT. Charlie (talk) 16:50, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep To my eye, the independent coverage cited here does meet the criteria in WP:NCORP. Llajwa (talk) 20:28, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - clearly a huge company just based on two recent news bits: (a big dam project and a $380 million highway project). That said, almost none of the reference links work. Looks notable but need good refs to prove it.
--A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 23:56, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - References I find do mention it but only briefly or are part of routine announcements of projects. Some of its affiliated companies are mentioned in other references but not enough in-depth coverage about the main holding company to meet WP:NCORP. --CNMall41 (talk) 06:35, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 17:37, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 13:57, 7 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++ 12:33, 11 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 14:25, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Valery Noufor[edit]

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

Poorly sourced BLP. No evidence of WP:GNG or even WP:SPORTBASIC #5. Best source found was Cam Lions, which mentions him in passing only. The only other sources turning up for me are the usual junk database sources like Transfermarkt and BeSoccer and Wikipedia mirrors. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 13:55, 7 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 14:25, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Edward Polo[edit]

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

I can't find anything outside of the usual database sources and Wikipedia mirrors about this footballer. I have searched both "Eddie Polo" and "Edward Polo" in conjunction with "Nigeria" and "Bayelsa" separately and found no acceptable sources for WP:SPORTBASIC #5 let alone WP:GNG. The best sources found were Intikalat and Todo Por El Fútbol, both database sources. Other than that, I can only find stuff about the more notable Eddie Polo and a bunch of stuff about people playing polo and websites selling polo shirts. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 13:52, 7 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 13:32, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thug Life (2024 film)[edit]

Thug Life (2024 film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NFF as it hasn't yet begun filming. We have a draft that can be moved to the mainspace once filming begins. Kailash29792 (talk) 12:58, 7 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. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 14:58, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Pasay City North High School[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG / WP:NSCHOOL. Most of it is unsourced, the only source included is a presidential decree. A search for sources turned up nothing to meet the criteria just unreliable sources etc. Lavalizard101 (talk) 10:59, 7 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. As mentioned in the discussion, when the subject becomes notable the history is available in draft space as voted below. A request also can be made at WP:Refund. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 15:06, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

2023–24 Women's Volleyball Thailand League[edit]

2023–24 Women's Volleyball Thailand League (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Draftify. Unilaterally moved to mainspace (or duplicate of a draft created simultaneously) and not ready for mainspace. This is incomplete in a big way, full of redlinks, and lacking sources. WP:TOOSOON 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 10:24, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Neither of those sources are reliable or independent per WP:RS and WP:IS respectively Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 13:19, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
what i can do for everyone not delete my page Pmaxh (talk) 13:39, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
tell me pls Pmaxh (talk) 13:54, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Add some WP:RS and WP:IS to the article (typically, news sources covering the subject), if any exist Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 14:09, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Pmaxh WP:TOOSOON means you wait untik circumstances render it to be notable. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 14:17, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The creating editor has twice removed the AfD notice from the article. I have replaced it and warned them. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 11:46, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
They have done it twice more since. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 13:37, 7 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! 08:10, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mid-Atlantic Soft Matter Workshop[edit]

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

This page is an out of date list of non-notable academic meetings with no citations. The workshop hasn't been discussed in any news articles, is of a niche topic that doesn't have widespread interest, and the article doesn't actually say anything interesting or notable. This article should be deleted. TimeEngineer (talk) 09:50, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, per nom. No indication of notability. Nsk92 (talk) 14:32, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Agreed, not notable, no independent sources found. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 14:48, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fine by me, not notable; dates and information taken from personal websites as opposed to organizations. ThunderPumpkin (talk) 10:44, 8 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! 08:09, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

2023 Cricket World Cup background[edit]

2023 Cricket World Cup background (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Irrelevant WP:CONTENTFORK from 2023 Cricket World Cup, which doesn't add any encyclopedic value about the event itself. The section on COVID is mentioned in the 2023 CWC article, the Asia Cup stuff is mentioned there and is not directly relevant to the CWC itself, the teamwise backgrounds are irrelevant and the ICC Tournaments aren't crucial to a reader's understanding of this CWC either. All in all, not needed. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:25, 7 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 soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 08:08, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Selçuk Keskin[edit]

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

I am unable to find any proper coverage. Does not meet WP:ANYBIO or WP:GNG. Justinjaxon (talk) 09:25, 7 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 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 00:33, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jong-su Kim[edit]

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

fails notability, unreliable source microbiologyMarcus (petri dish•growths) 15:04, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:42, 7 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! 08:19, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

George Parker (actor)[edit]

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

WP:BLP of an actor, not properly sourced as passing WP:NACTOR. As always, actors are not automatically entitled to have articles just because they've had roles -- having roles is literally an actor's job description, so every actor who has ever existed at all would be "inherently" notable if listing roles were all it took -- and instead, an actor has to be able to pass WP:GNG on reliable source coverage about him.
But the "notable" role here is a recurring supporting role in a Netflix series, where NACTOR requires multiple significant roles, not just one -- and otherwise the only other things listed in his filmography are short films and minor guest characters, which are not "significant" roles for the purposes of NACTOR, and the only sources are a brief blurb in a listicle about the entire cast of the Netflix series on an unreliable entertainment blog, and the cast listing of a play he was once in on the self-published website of the theatre that staged it, neither of which are reliable or GNG-supporting sources at all. Bearcat (talk) 13:23, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:41, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If having roles is "literally an actor's job" then I think the criteria listed under WP:NACTOR must be updated so we can all know that supporting/recurring roles does not pass criterion #1 as it does not say anything about acting is their job but that subject may be notable if they had significant roles in multiple notable motion pictures. dxneo (talk) 11:43, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It clearly says "significant" roles, and "may be" notable, none of which guarantees anything. Oaktree b (talk) 16:42, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not against the nom, I'm actually leaning torwards delete as the subject fails WP:GNG (per nom), just that I've noticed that some of these guidelines go against each other as they somewhat lack clarity, take WP:AfD/Dan Fable for an example, one admin was confused by the guidelines listed under WP:NSONG and WP:MUSICBIO. dxneo (talk) 17:07, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: This is the extent of coverage I can find [32]. Trivial coverage, does not appear notable. Oaktree b (talk) 16:43, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    His best known role in "Bodies" is a supporting character, which I wouldn't call "significant"; the rest are trivial. Just another working actor. Oaktree b (talk) 16:45, 7 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 soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 08:20, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Vistara News[edit]

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

A satellite news channel that went live less than 1 year ago. Google searches provide little to no information about this company other than their own social media presence. Searches are confounded by the existence of an airline (Vistara Air) that dominates the results of searches for "Vistara News". The one independent report I was able to find (this story in Bar & Bench) notes this name similarity as the basis of a trademark infringement suit against the media company, but that one item is not sufficient for notability. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 11:39, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:40, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as a GNG failure, though I wonder if there may be more sources in Kannada. In India, TV news channels are a dime a dozen, and not all of them are notable. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 17:49, 7 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 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 00:34, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Railways handball team[edit]

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

Fails WP:N, the article does not cite any sources. — Hemant Dabral (📞 • ✒) 09:01, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:40, 7 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 soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 08:25, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sal Sol-jan[edit]

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

Has no references and only notability is that they are an 4x great grandmother of Kim-il-Sung. This isn't enough for a wikipedia page. Marleeashton (talk) 04:43, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

So Sorry about this I added citations I forgot, do not worry I will remind myself in the future to cite I already had my sources, so I added them now, I hope this can allow the page to stay up thank you. Yuri Iluliaq (talk) 04:45, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Yuri Iluliaq neither of the sources you used are up to verifiable standards Please see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources#FamilySearch & https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources#Findagrave Marleeashton (talk) 04:49, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:34, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: If nothing is known about her personal life, I don't know what we expect to find in a BEFORE search... Of course, nothing turns up. Oaktree b (talk) 16:58, 7 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 07:04, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of eldest sons of earls in the peerages of Britain and Ireland[edit]

List of eldest sons of earls in the peerages of Britain and Ireland (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article definetly needs to be rewritten however I think that even if it was, it still wouldn't be suitable for Wikipedia so I am nominating it per WP:NOTCATALOG. GoldenBootWizard276 (talk) 05:56, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Unsoured, my searches found no evidence that it meets Wikipedia:Stand-alone_lists#Notability (t · c) buidhe 06:12, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Notability is not inherited, so they can of sourse have their own article but this list fails as mentioned by others. ww2censor (talk) 12:00, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - qualifies as notable per WP:NLIST (notable topic, most list members have blue links). However, as the article stands -- with no context for anything -- it fails WP:NOT. This is just a catalog of long-dead, lucky rich guys that didn't have phone numbers but got into some sort of historical white pages directory anyways. Give it some context or more information and it might be worth keeping.
--A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 15:57, 7 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 Foreign relations of Australia#Asia. Liz Read! Talk! 05:11, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Australia–Kazakhstan relations[edit]

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

I don't see this bilateral relations the subject of significant third party coverage. All the sources are primary (and same for other language articles). Fails GNG. LibStar (talk) 04:37, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - neither country has an embassy in the other's country. Here are Australia Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade notes:trade stats, relationship
--A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 05:15, 7 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 Solicitor General of Ohio#List of Solicitors General. Liz Read! Talk! 03:56, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ben Flowers (lawyer)[edit]

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

After a thorough examination, it does not appear that the subject has the GNG level coverage needed for a standalone article, and the subject doesn't pass NPOL either. Perhaps this can be redirected to Solicitor General of Ohio#List of Solicitors General. Let'srun (talk) 03:51, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law and Ohio. Let'srun (talk) 03:51, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per nom. I think we have established at this point that a state solicitor general who is agency-appointed (not elected, and not appointed by the governor of the state or subject to state legislative confirmation) is not a WP:NPOL office. As the Solicitor General of Ohio article notes, "Most states' attorneys general offices have had separate divisions with chiefs specializing in state and federal appellate works". Calling the head of this office a "solicitor general" rather than a division chief is a matter of titling, not notability. BD2412 T 19:09, 10 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! 03:51, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Chance Glenn Sr.[edit]

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

Likely doesnt meet WP:NPROF, the subject has had various academic position from dean to provost but no position that would qualify him under NPROF#6. Looking at his Google Scholar Profile I dont see a good argument for NPROF#1. He has an h-index of 8 with a couple of academic papers but not enough to pass NPROF#1. Overall, the article is poorly sourced with puff pieces from academic communication offices "Meet the Dean" articles about him and an article in an alumni magazine (not independent either) and I dont see a pass of GNG or enough coverage through WP:RS. hroest 03:09, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Delete Tricky because provost could be considered as meeting academic notability criterium 6. As pointed above though it is only a satellite campus for a minor institution.
JamesKH76 (talk) 11:52, 12 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. Eddie891 Talk Work 02:06, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of Spotify streaming records[edit]

AfDs for this article:
List of Spotify streaming records (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
List of most-streamed artists on Spotify (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Hello everybody. I'm not adept enough at spotting compliant articles from verifiable sources, but, despite the fact that the first list that I am nominating has already gone through an AfD where different arguments were presented and whose result was keep and the second list has more independent sources than the first, I notice that these two lists (List of Spotify streaming records and List of most-streamed artists on Spotify) are not comply with WP:CHARTS, because it clearly mentions that Spotify is not a reliable source, since it is a list belonging to a single retailer specific. Likewise, the source used for the most interesting tables (Spotify itself) is an excuse to "make more reliable" where the information came from (ChartMasters and kworb.net), sources that are unreliable because the first falls under WP:SPS, and there's no indication of where the figures are from; while the second mostly compiles airplay data from Mediabase along with normalized popularity values for tracks in the iTunes Store; in particular, the sales estimates page should not be cited under any circumstance, as the provided figures on the page are merely estimated and are not based on official data. So far I remain neutral regarding Spotify Charts, as they could be used in specific circumstances. Due to the abusive strategies to support the existence of these lists, I am opening this consultation to reach a consensus that I hope will result in deleting these two lists. Thanks. Santi (talk) 02:29, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The fact that the list is specific to one company is not a reason for deletion, as other similar lists such as Most Viewed Youtube Videos, etc. would have no grounds for deletion either. The general guidelines in WP:Charts are being defied in this instance, but the reason for these specific guidelines in the first place is questionable, and perhaps should have exceptions when information is made publicly available, like with YouTube and Spotify. Certain guidelines in WP:Charts, like a chart being static, should honestly be abolished as that defeats the point of an online encyclopedia in the first place. You are also correct in that there are aspects of kworb.net that are completely unreliable, and it should never be used as a cited source. However, whether or not its compilation features are used for a timely update is a moot point, as it can be easily fact-checked by going to the application itself. Spotify's desktop application has the streaming counts for every song over 1000 streams, updated daily, simply by going to the album or single for the song, and is very reliable. This article must be kept for its historical importance as well, as any user can view the history and see what some of the most aggregate streamed songs were in past years. The only part I can agree with (which User:Pollosito didn't mention) is that the subtopics for this article are excessive, and simply keeping the most important ones like "Most Streamed Songs", "Historical Most Streamed Songs" (very essential), or "Most Streamed Songs in a Single Day/Week" would suffice. Other categories, like the album-related ones are more dubious in their accuracy and ability to be updated appropriately, and perhaps should be deleted. I would also advocate that the article title be changed from "List of Spotify streaming records" back to "List of Most Streamed Songs on Spotify", as that should be the focal point of the article. OnlyEditSpotify (talk) 08:24, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. 100% agree to what has been said before. We have been through the same discussion two years ago and it was decided to keep the article, nothing has really changed since then. This information on this page are unique and relevant. I also agree to change the name back to "List of Most Streamed Songs on Spotify" and streamline the content to besser fit the topic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stenella (talk • contribs) 11:54, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: SINGLEVENDOR is a problem for sourcing as Serge said. In this case, both of these lists are sourced reliably to places like Billboard and Variety, so it gets a pass on these grounds. If it were only sourced to Spotify themself and no other publications had discussed the matter, then there'd be a problem. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 12:16, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: agree wiith OnlyEditSpotify's reasoning and I also support a rename back to List of most-streamed songs on Spotify — more descriptive, matches the existing List of most-streamed artists on Spotify. Crunchydillpickle🥒 (talk) 15:31, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as per QuietHere. ℛonherry☘ 16:58, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as above; further I don't think this is the right venue for a name change. microbiologyMarcus (petri dish•growths) 19:32, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: I retract my statement for a name change. This may not be the appropriate place for that. Thank you to QuietHere for giving succinct reasoning.
    OnlyEditSpotify (talk) 02:50, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: thank you all for your comments. I specifically nominated this to AfD because, from my perspective, the tables of these lists (especially 100 most-streaming songs and Most-monthly listeners) should only be supported by verifiable sources (e.g. official news or some trusted organization and quality, like Billboard and IFPI) as I saw on WP:CHARTS, but, due to arguments by users with professional experience on this Wikipedia and have GAs and FAs (specially Ronherry), I retract and recognize the arguments that are totally valid; I just want to be a little more professional and constructive with what I do, so I apologize. Thank you very much for taking the time; good luck on the Wiki. Santi (talk) 20:42, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Bluesatellite (talk · contribs). Caleb Stanford (talk) 00:38, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Bluesatellite. LeviEdits (talk) 04:09, 11 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 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 02:29, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Meet Me[edit]

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

Non-notable defunct game based on pre-release coverage. Seems to be a sanitized Second Life MMO that failed to find any coverage from Western media. A WP:BEFORE of coverage from surviving extant sources seem only to be pre-release in nature: [40] [41] There might be WP:NONENG but even the Japanese version of the page is incorrectly linked to a song of the same name. Thanks in advance for your help on this one. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 01:46, 7 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. Eddie891 Talk Work 02:04, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

2024 Call of Duty League season[edit]

2024 Call of Duty League season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG and is almost certainly WP:TOOSOON. This is a contested draftification since the article was created by a cut-and-paste move from Draft:2024 Call of Duty League season. Since the draft still exists, I'd recommend deletion for the mainspace page. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 01:39, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 01:39, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Canada and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:48, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep on the basis that it is supposed to start in a month, so this would be an AFD based on TOOSOON with no real practical effect since recreation would be allowed in 4 weeks. If we were talking the 2025 season, absolutely TOOSOON applies. --Masem (t) 05:15, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    There's also the notability issue, as the article currently only cites one primary source. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 13:31, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, what's the encyclopedic value of keeping an article comprised almost entirely of empty tables? I'm not seeing how this would be beneficial to readers until the event begins or there's addition content added. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 14:26, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Strictly speaking, the nominator has a point, but per WP:NOTBURO, there is no point in re-draftifying an article that is 100% guaranteed to be notable in just a week or two after this discussion closes. Even in the unlikely event of something weird happening and the season is surprise canceled, then that just means that the article will be merged or moved. This kind of slightly eager un-draftification is perfectly defensible WP:BOLD editing. (I have no objection to an administrator doing some sort of page history merge or round-robin move to deal with the cut & paste page history issue.) SnowFire (talk) 16:54, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reluctant keep given the timing of everything about to play out here. IIRC, I think we have articles for the next 3 Super Bowls. AfD discussion was probably TOOSOON. I want to commend SnowFire for their analysis of WP:NOTBURO, that's a better summary of my intuition than I could've given. microbiologyMarcus (petri dish•growths) 19:36, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: per SnowFire. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:05, 9 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 soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 08:27, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ebenezer International School Bangalore[edit]

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

Article is very poorly written, fails WP:NSCHOOL and some sections appear to be written like an advertisement. Article has been maintenance tagged for over a decade. Aydoh8 (talk) 03:57, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:42, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 01:25, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: Only RS is #4, school getting a bomb-threat isn't enough to build an article. All I can find are a list of summer camps [42] and results of athletic competitions [43] Neither of which helps notability. Oaktree b (talk) 02:39, 7 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 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 00:30, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kanpur Civil Aerodrome[edit]

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

Subject fails GNG. There was an L-410 crash there years ago and that's most of the coverage my BEFORE search found. There is ROUTINE and LOCAL coverage about the aerodrome but nothing significant. This page had been a redirect but someone doesn't think that this aerodrome is the same as the airport in the nearby town. Chris Troutman (talk) 03:37, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:42, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 01:25, 7 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 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 00:30, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Raptors Knoll Disc Golf Course[edit]

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

The current sources are UGC or lists without significant coverage. A quick BEFORE didn't show much. LittlePuppers (talk) 00:13, 7 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2023_November_7&oldid=1185221905"