Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 October 31

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< October 30	November 01 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was Draftify‎ which allows for improvement "once these state elections are over" .New draft is at Draft:(November AfD) List of Indian National Developmental Inclusive Alliance candidates in the 2024 Indian general election. October draft is at: Draft:List of Indian National Developmental Inclusive Alliance candidates in the 2024 Indian general election . Protecting mainspace to avoid a 3rd. Star Mississippi 01:49, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of Indian National Developmental Inclusive Alliance candidates in the 2024 Indian general election[edit]

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

This is going to be a weird one. I have no doubt in my mind that this topic is going to be notable. However, there have been no announcements/new coverage/reports of which candidates are contesting what making it WP:TOOSOON and potentially falling afoul of WP:CRYSTAL to have a article. Having empty tables helps nobody, we should only be having this article once multiple candidates have decided to contest specific seats under the coalitions banner (and there has been significant coverage of the said declarations). Sohom (talk) 23:07, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and India. Sohom (talk) 23:09, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I will note that this article has been drafitified and un-draftified already. Sohom (talk) 23:18, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:34, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Sohom (talk) 23:48, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep General elections are approaching. Once these state elections are over in a month or two this will be most talked about across the country. Shaan Sengupta^Talk 19:04, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have no doubt it will, but "in a month" is pure speculation. What I am proposing here, is that we delete it from main-space until said coverage exists. Sohom (talk) 23:25, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify Per WP:ATD. If this does gain notability then we should keep the draft until the elections are done and notability is established. Nagol0929 (talk) 15:56, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify: An unpopulated table, no sources, not ready for mainspace. // Timothy :: talk 08:46, 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 delete‎. Sourcing is insufficient Star Mississippi 01:55, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sumit Kadel[edit]

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

A review of ~~all of~~ the sources listed in the article don't establish notability. Instead, they link to one-off mentions of his reviews of other popular work. microbiologyMarcus ^{(petri dish)} 17:03, 23 October 2023 (UTC) Correction: one of the sources address the subject directly, but I question it's reliability. The other one is a collection of information that doesn't even contain the information it is cited to in the article. I have already removed the birthdate as per WP:BLP. microbiologyMarcus ^{(petri dish)} 17:04, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Film, and West Bengal. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:33, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Made some changes and added relevant references, feel free to guide me to improve the article further more

Thank You MdShahFahad786 (talk) 06:33, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The two centered articles and the various references to his work in reliable newspapers (like this one) seem to attest a certain notability. Rather Keep.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 09:04, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Added articles for references , please review and guide me further MdShahFahad786 (talk) 14:32, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As for reviews of the article by other users (not sure what you mean), it is not technically needed. If you have other sources about him (this one may be considered disputable, perhaps) even in other languages, feel free to add them to the page or here, that's all I can say. The future of the article depends on what consensus emerges from this discussion. I for one, think he should rather be considered notable as meeting the criteria for creative professionals (which includes journalists, Sumit Kadel being presented as a film critic among other things)) "The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors" (I think you can reasonably argue that he is widely cited by his peers) but I can only speak for myself. MicrobiologyMarcus was not, I think, satisfied with the current sourcing, so I guess you can only wait. I won't have time to comment here any further, I'm afraid. Best, -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 16:02, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sumit Kadel is well known film critic and trade analyst and he is considered in top critic in indian cinema now a days. He has been quoted in many newspapers and news channels for his criticism and analysis of films. He has got 180k followers on Twitter(X), 197K followers on Instagram, 193K followers on Facebook and 39.6k subsribers on Youtube Channel.

I hope this will prove his presence and notability. Feel free to suggest further on this.

Thank You MdShahFahad786 (talk) 16:31, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Info - Note to closer for soft deletion: This nomination has had limited participation and falls within the standards set for lack of quorum. There are no previous AfD discussions, undeletions, or current redirects and no previous PRODs have been located. This nomination may be eligible for soft deletion at the end of its 7-day listing.

Logs: 2023-10 ✗ deleted

--Cewbot (talk) 00:02, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP, added some reliable references for his notability and provided social media followers data for his authority in his field. Don't delete this article.

Thank You MdShahFahad786 (talk) 08:22, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails BLP sourcing. Fails GNG and NBIO. Sources in the article and BEFORE are not WP:IS WP:RS with WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth. BEFORE showed name mentions, and an interview, nothing that meets WP:SIGCOV with indepth independent coverage of the subject. // Timothy :: talk 13:16, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L Faraone 23:06, 31 October 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 05:07, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

LiveProfile[edit]

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

Nothing much on the page appears to show notability - it was a company acquired by Blackberry more than a decade ago which has re-emerged as a company without a product. It wasn't notable before, it isn't notable now. JMWt (talk) 10:22, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Computing and Software. JMWt (talk) 10:22, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Internet and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:42, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Reference 1 might be okay, but I can't access it. Everything else is either not about the product or routine listings. And the "features" section runs afoul of WP:PROMO so I think we're better off without the article. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 14:00, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This article has sufficient notability to meet Wikipedia’s standards. LiveProfile's historical and business significance is well-documented by authoritative, reliable and independent sources such as Bloomberg, The Verge, GigaOM, CNET, The Globe and Mail, Etc. Funding by top tier venture capitalists as well as acquisition by BlackBerry Ltd, a major publicly traded company, further underscores its notability. This strategic move by a prominent company highlights LiveProfile's value and relevance. LiveProfile also released a new app this year which further contributes to it’s continuing notability. Pjk12 (talk) 03:46, 24 October 2023 (UTC) — Pjk12 (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, ✗plicit 13:51, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I reverted an edit by User:Trackbot6578 of Pjk12's post above. I have no idea what is going on, but we don't edit other people's AfD comments in that way. JMWt (talk) 13:51, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Deletion isn’t warranted here. I personally don’t consider an app with millions of users to not be notable but there’s also plenty of independent and scholarly sources which reference LiveProfile’s notabilityTrackbot6578 (talk) 18:52, 26 October 2023 (UTC)— Trackbot6578 (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!} 22:29, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I also cannot access ref 1, but agree with WeirdNAnnoyed that there appears to be no non-routine coverage of the product. I can't find any additional RS. !keep arguments appear to misunderstand notability – notability on Wikipedia is not synonymous with "worthy of note". While it is true that there are reliable sources with coverage of the product I see none of it that passes WP:CORPDEPTH. Tollens (talk) 08:49, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. Some of the content should be merged into BlackBerry Limited or BlackBerry Messenger. Crunchydillpickle🥒 (talk) 21:37, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Article fails to meet WP:GNG, WP:NSOFT, or WP:PRODUCT. Assuming the Bloomberg reference (which I can only partially access) isn't just the series of quotes from an interview as it appears, it would perhaps contribute to notability if it were not the only source of its kind I could find, especially if there were sources that shows that this App Store metric wasn't just a blip in coverage. Articles require multiple reliable sources showing notability, and a single (possible) reliable source isn't sufficient. - Aoidh (talk) 00:28, 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 keep‎. (non-admin closure) – DreamRimmer (talk) 12:16, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

MinIO[edit]

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

Failed WP:GNG and WP:SIRS. The article is primarily written based on GitHub's readme description and MinIO's documentation page. --WikiLinuz (talk) 16:15, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Computing and Software. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:19, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Citations added. Flurrious (talk) 17:34, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It seems notable to me, but perhaps I'm too close to the technical niche MinIO targets. The coverage given to it by TechCrunch, Forbes, Blocks & Files, Diamanti, and The Register (all cited in the article -- maybe Flurrious just added those?) seem like significant coverage in some depth to me. I'm going to nab a copy of the article in case you decide to delete it, but I hope you decide to keep it. TTK (talk) 22:41, 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!} 22:27, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~. Source by source (of the ones not clearly non-independent), the TechCrunch piece is an interview with one of the founders of the company (and therefore not independent), the Forbes article is written by a non-staff 'contributor' and therefore not considered reliable per WP:FORBESCON, the Diamanti piece is essentially just a how-to article that happens to use MinIO (and so not significant coverage), and The Register only mentions MinIO in passing as an example of open-source object storage (and so not significant coverage). The Blocks and Files article looks OK to me, but we need more than one source to meet WP:NCORP. Tollens (talk) 07:29, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Tollens for the feedback on sources. Added another reference from Computer Weekly. Flurrious (talk) 20:34, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, didn't see that one when I did my search. Looks good to me – since there are two sources appearing to meet WP:SIRS, changing to keep. Tollens (talk) 10:51, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. More than enough coverage to support notability. Owen× ☎ 09:42, 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!} 22:35, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ACRD Acicatena[edit]

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

Team in the 8th tier of Italian football that isn't notable for any particular reason and fails WP:GNG. WP:BEFORE also doesn't produce anything of note except for the usual websites for statistics and data. Sgubaldo (talk) 22:24, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports, Football, and Italy. Sgubaldo (talk) 22:24, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:49, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:41, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 19:17, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete empty article without citations, I can't believe this went so long without being draftified.

microbiologyMarcus ^{(petri dish•growths)} 17:16, 6 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.

This discussion was subject to a deletion review on 2023 November 22.
For an explanation of the process, see Wikipedia:Deletion review.

</noinclude>

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. Ignoring the canvassed, explanation-free votes, consensus is for deletion.‎ Owen× ☎ 20:55, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Blood Red Throne[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails the general and band-specific notability policies. - UtherSRG (talk) 13:43, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Norway. UtherSRG (talk) 13:43, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Wasn't gonna renominate so soon since I'm told that's inappropriate, but as I said in the last AfD which I started, I found much too little evidence of notability to be convinced this should stay. Why it was even restored after soft deletion I'm unsure; no new coverage was presented that would've given it any more hope. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 18:50, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This band has not only been around since 1998, but has featured at least two (former) members of notable bands (Emperor's ex-Tchort and ex-Satyricon's Daniel "Død" Olaisen). UndergroundMan3000 (talk) 23:11, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural Comment - This nomination was made just three days after a soft deletion due to minimal participation, and the article's creator apparently requested its reinstatement. I question the strategy of such a fast re-nomination as if something different will happen if you keep pounding away at it. I once did something similar and got yelled at by two different Admins for a procedural violation, with one actually threatening to ban me from AfD discussions. I have observed the current nominator practicing this same process several times in the past few weeks. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 01:57, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge - Keep, or merge to Tchort, Bernt Moen or Erlend Caspersen. --Jax 0677 (talk) 11:25, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Jax 0677 haven't you been told before not to vote like this? Keeping and merging are two different outcomes and you need to pick just one. You offered three different targets and you need to pick just one. It's clear you do this just because you don't want deletion or redirection to be the outcome of any AfD, but you never offer anything useful to any specific AfD when you do that. It's a waste of a comment and you really need to stop doing it. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 01:46, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

From personal experience, I concur with the above comment. Also, merging a band article to one of the members, over the others, violates policy when those members are of equal notability themselves. Being an inclusionist at the high level is okay but it still needs to be adequately justified in each specific discussion. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 15:54, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - I don't think that it is a big deal if I vote "Keep or merge". It is similar to voting "Keep", but saying that "If the article cannot be kept, that it should be merged". The article should be merged to the most notable member of the band. If they are all equally notable, then as BrownHairedGirl once said, flip a coin to determine to which member the band name should be redirected. --Jax 0677 (talk) 21:50, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Now that I think about it, Ronny Thorsen is probably the best redirect target. None of the current members have Wikipedia pages, and Thorsen is the lead singer. I think we should vote on who is the best redirect target. --Jax 0677 (talk) 11:11, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (without prejudice) - My comments above are about procedural violations in the nomination and previous votes, though I have not yet voted myself. The band's situation is not quite as dire as the nominators in the two AfDs have implied. They have a brief biography at AllMusic ([1]) though it doesn't really tell us much, and they have a few occasional album reviews and genre mag interviews (e.g [2], [3]). Overall, they're kind of close to notability but I will have to cite the significant coverage rule in concluding that the coverage just doesn't add up to encyclopedic standards. However, if someone finds anything useful I would not oppose reviving the article in the future. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 16:21, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Another Procedural Comment - I fear that this AfD is destined for an unsatisfactory "no consensus" - if an Admin simply counts votes. Instead, I implore the closing Admin to inspect the quality of the votes, because the "keep" votes above (edit: and below) violate various provisions of WP:ATA. I also recommend that someone with authority discuss re-nomination procedures with this AfD's nominator. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 16:25, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per User:UndergroundMan3000 174.193.134.31 (talk) 20:58, 15 October 2023 (UTC) — Note: An editor has expressed a concern that 174.193.134.31 (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. [reply]
Keep even if there is not evidence of notability for this band. Austin Snake Boy (talk) 00:32, 16 October 2023 (UTC) — Note: An editor has expressed a concern that Austin Snake Boy (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. [reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Less meta, more sourcing and notability discussion please
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 11:46, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I can only echo Star Mississippi's comment. Also, Keep even if there is not evidence of notability for this band is one of the most inexplicable comments I've seen at an AFD. Notability is generally the basis of a Keep argument. It doesn't help that only an editor advocating Delete is discussing the available sources which are typically the territory for those arguing Keep. Finally, closer's don't like to decide Merge/Redirect target articles by flipping a coin. That just increases the possibility of a Deletion review and being accused of casting a "supervote".
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:53, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Vote for redirect/merge target[edit]

Comment - I propose voting for the best redirect target. --Jax 0677 (talk) 11:17, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There has been no viable argument presented for redirecting at all, much less to whom. That is not automatically the decision when there is disagreement over keeping or deleting. Meanwhile, recall that this whole mess started because the nominator disagreed with a WP:REFUND after a previous soft deletion. Everything going on here is the result of conflicting policies. Good luck to the Admins who get stuck with this dog; consider discussing conflicting policies among yourselves instead of complaining about the resulting messy votes. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 16:42, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - I disagree that "There has been no viable argument presented for redirecting". Thorsen is the lead singer, therefore, unless a good argument is made for a different band member, the history should be kept in tact by redirecting to him, or some other member of the band. --Jax 0677 (talk) 23:05, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is no consensus above to redirect. In fact, not one single vote above is to redirect, not even your vote which was a nonsensical "keep or merge". This voting scheme of yours assumes by fiat that the Admins will decide to redirect, making the vote bogus by design. There are two policy based votes to delete above, plus the nomination, and all other votes at least partially violate WP:ATA. The Admins will probably give up and declare "no consensus" anyway. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 17:49, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - To be perfectly clear, I am open to either merge or redirect. --Jax 0677 (talk) 11:53, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Erlend Caspersen[edit]

Bernt Moen[edit]

Tchort[edit]

Ronny Thorsen[edit]

Y Approve --Jax 0677 (talk) 11:17, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. Tes, that was my fault to say Merge/Redirect because they often get combined in opinions but there was only some support for a Merge, not Redirect.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:24, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I am also open to a redirect. --Jax 0677 (talk) 11:35, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per Doomsdayer520, they are kind of almost notable, but I don't think they cross the line under WP:NBAND under any criterion. Looking particularly at criterion 1, there is a book referenced on the page (McIver, 2005) which mentiones them on pages 41, 50 and 87. The mentions are brief and the main mention is on page 41, a short bio amounting to one good paragraph. The Allmusic bio is similarly short, and per WP:ALLMUSIC, there is no consensus on the source reliability, although past discussions tend to suggest SIGCOV may be supported by staff writer reviews there. However, this is not a review. Other sources are similarly problematic and self published sources shouldn't really be on the page. I don't believe this crosses the line, and although singers may be independently notable, notability is not inherited. Thus, I think this one is a delete. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 16:35, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply - Why does this preclude a redirect or merge? --Jax 0677 (talk) 19:35, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  Because no appropriate merge target or redirect target has been identified. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 20:19, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jax0677 has not identified a policy that supports merging or redirecting, and any such policy must also come with a viable argument about how it overcomes other policies that the rest of us (legitimate) voters have discussed specifically, such as WP:SIGCOV or WP:NBAND. This is a common pattern with that editor, which itself violates yet another policy at WP:JUSTVOTE. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 13:18, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - WP:POFR says "Sub-topics or other topics which are described or listed within a wider article (Such redirects are often targeted to a particular section of the article). --Jax 0677 (talk) 15:51, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - WP:IAR might also apply. --Jax 0677 (talk) 16:05, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  WP:IAR almost never applies in deletion discussions. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 16:20, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Still waiting for a viable discussion on how WP:POFR is more important than the other policies already discussed, especially since that policy is almost entirely about pages with tricky titles and this AfD is about the completely different matter of whether a band is notable. Meanwhile, resorting to WP:IAR is disrespectful of the WP:CONSENSUS process. See also WP:JUSTAPOLICY. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:34, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Protection note, tired of playing whack a sock so I have semi'ed for a week. I did relist but don't think this is controversial as any autoconfirmed editor remains eligible to participate, and the Talk is available to any legit newbies. Admins, feel free to revert if needed. Star Mississippi 14:13, 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 keep‎. Hey man im josh (talk) 23:57, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Torrent file[edit]

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

Severe lack of references to back up the information, and those that exist are all primary. Take away all the unsourced info and you'd be left with an article that doesn't really have a purpose to be its own - the content could really easily just be a part of BitTorrent instead of separate here.

Even if sources are added right now in this article, I still think it's wiser to have this info about torrent files just be a part of BitTorrent. Chifonr (talk) 14:42, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Computing and Internet. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:49, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
'unsourced info' seems verifiable and, frankly, much better written than BitTorrent#Design (which doesn't have references either). Would've been preferable to incorporate the content from the article into BitTorrent before considering deleting. PaulT2022 (talk) 02:30, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'd prefer that too. I wouldn't want to see content lost if it is verifiable. In either case though this article would be deleted/redirected anyway right? A contributor can attempt to source the info here and publish in BitTorrent. Chifonr (talk) 10:39, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have a strong opinion on that, I mostly commented to note that there are no obvious issues with the unreferenced portion of it in terms of WP:V.

BitTorrent seems a little too big to merge Torrent file into it as of now, making Torrent file a viable content split per Wikipedia:Summary style. It's not like there are not enough reliable sources that discuss how torrent files are organised and work in depth, even if they aren't referenced currently. My impression on a cursory reading of BitTorrent, however, was that it's excessively bloated, especially BitTorrent#Design, and it might be possible to incorporate Torrent file content into it without making it too large, but it'd require cleaning up BitTorrent first and probably easier done through a regular editing process than an AfD-mandated merge.

I wonder what other editors think. I also pinged a second major contributor to Torrent file, who wrote most of its content, although they don't seem to be active very often nowadays. PaulT2022 (talk) 13:49, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely agree, I too noticed it the other day when looking at BitTorrent: very bloated and lack of sources in places (which led to me reporting it). In my view the Torrent file article goes hand in hand with it in terms of cleaning up and restructuring. I still support the deletion of this article, assuming some of the good info here would make its way to a cleaned up BitTorrent. Chifonr (talk) 21:05, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Poor sourcing is a problem but that is probably fixable. If content is moved to BitTorrent, this should become a redirect not a red link. So keep without prejudice to reworking of content which might leave this a redirect. Eluchil404 (talk) 21:11, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: From discussion so far it seems like merge or redirect might be appropriate, but more input would be helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 22:23, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There are 17 articles currently present in the Template:BitTorrent "technology" subsection, all dealing with technical aspects of the BitTorrent protocol. The nominator hasn't advanced an argument for why this particular article should be merged into the BitTorrent article - which would imply the topic has some sort of general interest above all the other technical aspects of the protocol, which I don't think is true. And if the argument is that all 17 articles should be merged (after significant condensations), that's something I really think should be done only after consulting related WikiProjects. I also don't see a sourcing issue. Technical articles on recent software often rely on primary source documentation. Ceconhistorian (talk) 01:38, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Ceconhistorian. Occidental𓍝Phantasmagoria [ User ] [ Talk ] [ Contributions ] 17:52, 2 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!} 22:36, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Deborah Mackenzie[edit]

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

Fails the GNG/WP:BASIC. I performed a WP:BEFORE and did not find any in-depth coverage of Mackenzie in independent reliable sources; no other notability guidelines are met, and no alternatives to deletion are apparent. DePRODder stated "may be notable" but provided no explanation or evidence in support of that conclusion. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 17:28, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Journalism, and United Kingdom. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 17:28, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:16, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Not eligible for Soft Deletion. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:16, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I can't find any sources on google. Only websites that seem to auto generate data (like those net worth sites).

ForksForks (talk) 18:35, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Not eligible for Soft Deletion
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:19, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lacks indepth coverage fails WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 21:36, 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:19, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of Israir destinations[edit]

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

This 2018 RfC discussion established that standalone lists of airline destinations violate WP:NOTDIRECTORY and should categorically be deleted. Many airline destination lists have already been deleted, and this list should be as well. Carguychris (talk) 18:26, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Aviation, Lists, and Israel. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:46, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Longhornsg (talk) 03:06, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, already has been tagged for an AFD discussion so can't be Soft Deleted.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:18, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Subject is not any different from a directory, which wikipedia is not. User:Let'srun 00:47, 6 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 speedy keep‎ per WP:CSK (withdrawn nomination, no delete !votes). (non-admin closure) Goldsztajn (talk) 00:30, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Vasil Terziev[edit]

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

Promo campaign BLP. Fails GNG and NBIO. Two sources in article are promo. BEFORE showed no WP:IS WP:RS with WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and in-depth. BLPs require strong sourcing. No objection to a redirect to Telerik, sources found in BEFORE with mentions arece about this subject. // Timothy :: talk 22:13, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:04, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bulgaria-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:04, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:05, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: As mentioned, WP:ATDs could be redirects to Telerik or 2023 Sofia mayoral election. The results of the run-off election will be known in less than a week (i.e. sooner than the end of the AfD runtime) so I'm not sure there's a whole lot to assess until then. n.b. Sources likely to be in Bulgarian, which is in Cyrillic-script so searching just in Latin-script may not reveal the full results. Curbon7 (talk) 23:40, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: There is a Bulgarian Wikipedia page for the article subject that may have additional relevant sources. It would be good if someone can conduct a BEFORE search in Bulgarian to see if notability can be established. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:45, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Happy to withdraw if someone can find BLP quality sources, but this definitely needs proper sourcing. Right now all the content in an article for an active candidate is unsourced except for two general refs and fails V and BLP. I don't see any better sourcing (but there is some) on bg.wikipedia

I searched again for Васил Терзиев and Васил Александров Терзиев and again found interviews, but nothing otherwise. Google Bard has found things for me in the past, it only found interviews. // Timothy :: talk 01:59, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I would recommend googling for "Vassil Terziev" (double S), more sources show up this way. The person is nationally prominent in Bulgaria as one of the leaders of the country's tech sector. The outcome of the runoff on Sunday could also have a great effect on his notability, so I would not take any action until then. — Toдor Boжinov — 07:56, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawn: The spelling "Vassil Terziev" found SIGCOV from IS RS, I have withdrawn the nom, but will leave closing to a uninvolved. // Timothy :: talk 21:31, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Propose to move to this spelling leaving a redirect. // Timothy :: talk 21:26, 1 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!} 22:36, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Airy (software)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This article was clearly written by the company who created the software. The software itself is also most likely malicious, the possibility of which is mentioned nowhere on the page. It's also not significant enough to have a Wikipedia article, which is made apparent by the lack of real references (note: looking back, it also seems to cite a lot of fake reviews that I noticed while checking out the product for myself). This is clearly just a company trying to sell its sketchy PUP to people looking it up on Wikipedia to tell if it's legitimate or not. After looking through the article, it's most likely that the latter is the case. -A Fluffy Kitteh | FluffyKittehz User Profile Page 22:11, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -A Fluffy Kitteh | FluffyKittehz User Profile Page 22:11, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as expressed by the nominator, this article is clearly an ad for the software creator. Not many reputable sources either. 22:18, 31 October 2023 (UTC) Frigyes06 (talk) 22:18, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:06, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:07, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:07, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I don't see any non-trivial/non-routine coverage from solid sources aside from this article brought up in the previous AFD, which isn't enough on its own to keep. Tollens (talk) 08:49, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No significant, independent coverage. Mooonswimmer 00:43, 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!} 08:20, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

GrillGrill[edit]

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

Prod removed for no reason. Sources 1 and 3 are dead. Source 4 is a blog. Fails WP:MUSICBIO. LibStar (talk) 19:04, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Denmark. LibStar (talk) 19:04, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Pitchfork (website) isn't a blog, it's a reliable website source for music as per Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Sources, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 23:17, 19 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!} 20:03, 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!} 21:38, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A bot repaired the sources, but 1 doesn't even mention the band, just the witch house music genre, and the others are passing mentions with no WP:SIGCOV so fails WP:GNG. Searches on Newspapers Extended only turn up cooking and barbecuing results, although that's music to my ears. BBQboffin^{grill me} 00:22, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The sources appear to be a combination of blogs and passing mentions, and a couple quick searches didn't bring up anything significant. LittlePuppers (talk) 19:15, 4 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. Hey man im josh (talk) 23:58, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Peruvian Universities (MUN)[edit]

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

Previously speedily deleted by User:Liz as unambiguous promotion and lacking indicia of notability. Restoration was requested at WP:RFU. On the face of the article, I see no reason to disagree with Liz's assessment, but a full discussion will yield a more definitive determination on that point. BD2412 T 01:47, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Education. BD2412 T 01:47, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Peru-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 01:49, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Rename. I have no great objection to retaining this page if other editors consider it notable, but I do object to the name, which suggests to people who don't know what "(MUN)" means (like me, until a few minutes ago), that it leads to info about universities in Peru. It needs to be renamed to something like "Peruvian Universities (student society). Athel cb (talk) 07:54, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 12:13, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Since I previously deleted this article, I won't be closing this discussion but I think it's okay to relist it. We need more opinions here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:54, 16 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!} 04:24, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

●Keep & Rename - per Athel cb PaulGamerBoy360 (talk) 18:54, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails GNG and NORG, sources in the article and BEFORE failed WP:IS WP:RS with WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth, only indepth coverage is from sources that fail WP:IS. Keep votes listed no sources to eval. Agree this is a promo piece. // Timothy :: talk 20:08, 31 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} 21:36, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – I see no reason to conclude the speedy was inappropriate. There is almost no content in the article not focusing on awards the club has received, and I agree with Timothy that there do not appear to be independent sources to support notability. Tollens (talk) 11:22, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If the result ends up as no consensus I would support a rename as described by Athel cb. Tollens (talk) 11:23, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per Tollens. 2001:1970:5ACA:E000:0:0:0:A186 (talk) 11:24, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per arguments above, no reliabe sources, no notability, etc. NiftyyyNofteeeee (talk) 14:00, 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. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:09, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Campbell (diplomat)[edit]

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

Ambassadors are not inherently notable. I believe the fairly routine coverage fails WP:GNG. Uhooep (talk) 20:22, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Bilateral relations, United Kingdom, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, and Nicaragua. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:42, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I've updated and added some references just now. I'd say that the spread of sources is enough to show significant coverage, and are non-trivial enough to show notability. Additionally, on a non-policy point I personally don't think it serves Wikipedia to delete the article of a three-time ambassador. Gazamp (talk) 17:08, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets WP:GNG. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:50, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: BLP, fails GNG and NBIO. Article sources are not WP:IS WP:RS with WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth, BEFORE showed mentions, but nothing SIGCOV about the subject that is from an WP:IS.

Source eval:

Comments	Source
Interview, not WP:IS	1. "Departing British ambassadors reflect on four-year tenure in Costa Rica". The Tico Times. 23 May 2015. Retrieved 4 January 2020.
from employer, not WP:IS	2. ^ "Change of Ambassador to the Republic of Ecuador - November 2020". GOV.UK. Retrieved 2 January 2020.
Named in list, no SIGCOV	3. ^ Jump up to:a b "El Gobierno Nacional pagó USD 285 millones a proveedores del Estado – Secretaría General de Comunicación de la Presidencia". www.comunicacion.gob.ec. Retrieved 14 October 2020.
from employer, not WP:IS	4. ^ "Change of Her Majesty's Ambassador to the Dominican Republic". WiredGov. 21 April 2015. Retrieved 4 January 2020.
from employer, not WP:IS	5. ^ Jump up to:a b "Chris Campbell - GOV.UK". www.gov.uk. Retrieved 2 January 2020.
Interview, not WP:IS	6. ^ Jump up to:a b c Adewunmi, Bim (3 July 2011). "A very diplomatic marriage". The Guardian. ISSN 0261-3077. Retrieved 2 January 2020.
Government notice about his spouse, name drop for subject, not SIGCOV	7. ^ "Appointment: Ambassador to Costa Rica and Non Resident Ambassador to Nicaragua". The Times. 25 June 2011. ISSN 0140-0460. Retrieved 2 January 2020.
Interview, not WP:IS	8. ^ Dolores Vicioso (4 February 2020). "Ambassador Chris Campbell says Brexit opens opportunities for UK and DR". DR1.com. Retrieved 28 October 2023.
Interview, not WP:IS	9. ^ "Interview with Chris Campbell, HM Ambassador to Ecuador". LatAm Investor. 7 January 2021. Retrieved 28 October 2023.
Interview, not WP:IS	10. ^ "Special report: Ecuador is back on the map" (PDF). British Ecuadorian Society. LatAm Investor. pp. 32–33. Retrieved 28 October 2023.
Namedrop, no SIGCOV	11. ^ "UK Foreign Office Eases Travel Warnings for Ecuador". Northern Ireland Travel News. 11 July 2022. Retrieved 28 October 2023.
Namedrop, no SIGCOV	12. ^ Chris Moss (22 September 2021). "It is beginning to feel like we may never visit Latin America again". The Telegraph. Retrieved 28 October 2023.
Namedrop, no SIGCOV	13. ^ "Live updates: Charles back in London as king; queen mourned". The San Diego Union-Tribune. 9 September 2022. Retrieved 28 October 2023.

Nothing meets WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth from an independent source. // Timothy :: talk 09:44, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Referenced, notable, no reason to delete it. it should not have been nominated for deletion. Bookworm857158367 (talk) 13:18, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Notable under which notability criteria exactly? Uhooep (talk) 14:36, 31 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} 21:27, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, as it has good sources and he is notable as well. Davidgoodheart (talk) 19:59, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There are 13+ sources and they are reliable. बिनोद थारू (talk) 02:58, 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 keep‎. There has been minimal participation, but the most convincing arguments are for retention and clean up of the article. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 09:32, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sangramsingh Thakur[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:NACTOR. Non-notable roles including an "electrician" in a web series. Other references are just credits, mentions, or fail WP:NEWSORGINDIA. CNMall41 (talk) 20:06, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and India. CNMall41 (talk) 20:07, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:52, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maharashtra-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:52, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not done any lead role in films ... all roles are supporting/recurring roles , not passing WP:NACTOR Criteria till now . thank you Worldiswide (talk) 03:42, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Just a note that the page was moved to draft space for just over 3 days. I've restored it to main space, as articles should not be draftified during a deletion discussion. I'm quite surprised nobody noticed. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:38, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Hey man im josh:, Thanks for moving back. I did notice and notified the admin who was involved in the discussion on the talk page of the article but looks like they have not been editing in a few days. Appreciate you taking care of this as I wasn't sure if a simple move would have restored everything. --CNMall41 (talk) 19:50, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, @CNMall41 & @Hey man im josh, I'm travelling, forgot to put up a notification! Valereee (talk) 11:02, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Valereee:, no big deal. I didn't ping anyone else as I figured it wasn't life or death. Cheers!--CNMall41 (talk) 17:40, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:29, 17 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!} 23:15, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. More participation would be welcome here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:19, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Notable. The Nagpur Today refs look like reliable, significant coverage. The xpresstimes.in ref is pay-to-play. Others refs seem independent and reliable but are either too short to establish notability or just passing mentions. Nagpur is a city the size of Brussels but Sangramsingh Thakur is still a Nagpur "hometown boy". It's reasonable that Nagpur Today would cover him in-depth when out-of-town media give more limited attention. This gives us enough to write a reliable article about Thakur and reliability is the ultimate motivation behind our notability guidelines.

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 16:57, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Notability cannot be established by articles in one publication. The references in The Nagpur Today also fall under the same principles as WP:RSNOI as they do not appear to be written by staff writers. --CNMall41 (talk) 19:30, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

CNMall41, here's what the notability guideline says:

"…a series of publications by the same author or in the same periodical is normally counted as one source."^{(Notability#Notes, footnote 4)}

My interpretation is that "a series of publications" does not refer to 2 or more unconnected articles. I think footnote 4 refers to serialized content (for example, a 3-day, 3-part series on a given topic). In that case, that footnote does not apply to this subject.

Over the course of 100s of AfDs^[4][5], I've never seen this footnote invoked before until this and another AfD today. That makes me think this is a narrow rule, otherwise, we'd be tossing out articles just because a subject's multiple references are only to New York Times articles or only to Economist articles.

As for WP:RSNOI, that guidance does not rule out using articles without bylines; it suggests that lack of a byline may be an indication of paid, promotional content. When I read the Nagpur Today articles, they did not appear to be paid content.

It'll be interesting to read how others view these 2 issues.

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 00:32, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reply. What I am saying is if a single publication is the only one running stories that would count towards notability, we shouldn't just keep a page based on that. If the person is worthy of notice, they would receive coverage elsewhere as well. As far as RSNOI, you are correct that it does not rule out articles without bylines. It does however state "exercise caution in using such sources for factual claims or to establish notability." We have to look at each reference individually. Outside of The Nagpur Today, the references that talk in-depth about the subject are Outlook India with a byline of IANS which is a "guest post" and has no editorial oversight (I would consider this akin to WP:FORBESCON) and Xpress Times which is clearly marked as "brandspot" at the top with the byline of "Express Times Team" indicating churnalism. The others are mentions and bios. --CNMall41 (talk) 03:08, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I agree with A.B.'s comments above and, given the coverage the actor has received, think the page could be retained.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 11:06, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Just using one example, would agree that this source counts towards notability? --CNMall41 (talk) 20:45, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not notable per WP:NACTOR and WP:NEWSORGINDIA.

बिनोद थारू (talk) 00:30, 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:23, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

World (co-ed group)[edit]

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

Non notable group fails WP:NMUSIC. Lightoil (talk) 23:22, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Korea, and South Korea. Lightoil (talk) 23:22, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The Naver Library source is an archived magazine issue from August 1995 that has an article about World, that was written and reported by Kyunghyang Shinmun, which is a daily newspaper. Minusta5 (talk) 01:12, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. No SIGCOV when searching on Google/Bing (English) and Naver/Daum (Korean). — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 13:37, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what this means. World doesn't have many profiles, except for on Maniadb, Korean music streaming sites(Vibe, Bugs), a brief article on NamuWiki, and an article archive within Naver Library. They were a bit popular in 1995, but unknown by many Korean music fans now due to the group disappearing (disbanding) after a singular album. I've done a lot of research after becoming a fan of this group and created the Wiki page so English information about them is more accessible, as the only information about them is on Korean based blogs, websites, and archives. Minusta5 (talk) 00:41, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Read WP:GNG, WP:NMUSIC, and WP:RS. And also fyi, the various profiles are unreliable sources, we are not interested in that, what we are more interested in here is what WP:SECONDARY WP:INDEPENDENT reliable sources are reporting. Being on a music streaming services doesn't equal having WP:SIGCOV coverage. Neither is Namuwiki (also used on the article) considered a reliable source, in fact the WP:KO community doesn't considered it as such per WP:KO/RS#UR, and it also falls under WP:UCG. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 00:28, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm mainly talking about the music magazine article reported by Kyunghyang Shinmun newspaper from the Naver Library archive in which I also stated above in a previous reply. I tried to be careful in my choosing sources, especially when doing a lot of research about them from many other different sources. Is the source from the magazine/newspaper not reliable? Minusta5 (talk) 01:00, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

One source is not SIGCOV period. I'm not sure if you have read WP:GNG and WP:NMUSIC before creating the article, if you haven't done so, please do. Thanks! — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 12:20, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: A source analysis would be helpful. Can't close this as a Soft Deletion due to the unstated Keep response.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:18, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What would you recommend for more reliable sourcing? I believed that the source of the magazine X, with an article about World reported by a daily newspaper was reliable, but I'm not sure anymore. I agree that the other sources can be questionable. Minusta5 (talk) 01:03, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I searched a little bit and I could not find much coverage in news. That Kyunghyang Shinmun article you have there is basically the only reliable, significant coverage about the group I could find. There is a chance that there's more stuff about them somewhere, but I feel you'd have to go really hard researching to make a case. Look, I mean, I have my own token obscure K-pop groups too (Kkaebi Kkaebi, anyone?), but I'm not convinced they have a snowballs chance in hell of getting a Wikipedia page. (If you wanna know what I've seen for Kkaebi Kkaebi, it's about one article from a semi-reliable source, a now-dead profile page from when they debuted, and an incomplete magazine article posted on a blog.)

But if you're like me and desperately want to get your favorite obscure group a profile somewhere, there are alternative outlets! You could try the K-pop Fandom Wiki, where there aren't any standards for notability (and slightly weaker standards for referencing - for example, Allkpop and Soompi are allowed there but not advised here). Wuju Daisuki (talk) 13:42, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ha, I love Kkaebi Kkaebi! But compared to them, World was just one of the many early to mid 90s groups that disappeared after one album and left with no legacy besides those who suddenly remember 엄마들의 예감 from their childhood. So it was honestly very hard to gather info, which I managed to collect quite a lot! But I understand where you're coming from, I haven't thought about possibly making a profile in Fandom. My first thought was Wikipedia since this is more "mainstream" and I'm more familiar with it, But I will definitely check that out! I've used Fandom before in the past many years ago, but haven't created a profile. Minusta5 (talk) 16:35, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I just want to let you know that Wikipedia has way higher standards than your average fan profile or wiki, and you do need to get acquainted with those before you contribute. The reasons you're citing for why you created the page are the exact reasons it's not up to par for Wikipedia. You can't make a non-notable thing notable by putting up a Wikipedia article (as proven by the tons of businesses who've paid for an article and subsequently had it deleted for its lack of notability). But I understand your mindset. It's just that Wikipedia's not the right place. But If you really want something about World on here, there's a good amount of coverage (at least in Korean) on Kim Tae Hyung, one of the ex-Sobangcha members behind World - he doesn't even have a page yet, that would be a good one to make. World probably wouldn't be more than a light mention, but since it's a project he was behind I'd mention it. Wuju Daisuki (talk) 21:27, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for not meeting notability guidelines. First off, I can read Korean. The Kyunghyang Shinmun source, I must say, is a pretty good source! Though it's not exclusively focused on World (the second half details another group called Boom), but it gives info on the members, their song, and the behind-the-scenes of their forming. But! That's the only reliable, significant coverage I could find. The other sources are very shaky - NamuWiki is a user-generated wiki with very low referencing standards (most of the time), ManiaDB is a database, though it's not a user-generated one (the Korean Wikipedia says the albums are recorded through "talent donations from music collectors"). Still, I don't think it establishes notability, seeing as all sorts of stuff is in there and it doesn't serve as much coverage other than saying "this exists." Discogs is much of the same case, but it's also user-generated and already under the perennial sources list as unreliable. So, the Kyunghyang source is basically the only thing holding it up, and as Paper9oll said, "one source is not SIGCOV period." (Apology in advance if I'm tripping over myself a little bit. This is my first venture into such a place.)

Oh, and also, I don't think this is definitive evidence, but the group World don't have a page on the Korean Wikipedia nor on NamuWiki. (For NamuWiki, the most they have on the group is a miniscule summary on a disambig. They do have an article on their song 엄마들의 예감, as seen on the page up for debate here.) I notice both of those have slightly lower inclusion standards than Enwiki, and plus they're from the country World originated from. So take that how you wish. Wuju Daisuki (talk) 14:06, 3 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!} 22:43, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Theory of decreasing responsibility[edit]

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

I've already culled a significant amount of unsourced content from here (before my removal), but this just seems to be an idea promoted by a MLM (Primerica) with little to no actual coverage outside of crappy websites online. Seems to have been similar to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Buy term and invest the difference. – Isochrone (T) 21:10, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. – Isochrone (T) 21:10, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The page is very small and unsourced. 2001:1970:5ACA:E000:0:0:0:A186 (talk) 21:14, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Doesn't seem to have much coverage online. Most sources are from Primerica, so they don't count towards WP:GNG — Preceding unsigned comment added by ARandomName123 (talk • contribs) 20:17, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: surprised to see it was unsourced even before the culling. Independently couldn't find any demonstration of notability. microbiologyMarcus ^{(petri dish•growths)} 17:36, 6 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 05:08, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Daniil Yerofeyev[edit]

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

PROD by User:TartarTorte Upon WP:BEFORE, I could not find anything that would put this athlete over WP:GNG. Endorsed by me. This was then removed by the original creator, who added some sources. I am not satisfied that any of the new sources meet the requirements of GNG and WP:SPORTBASIC, both of which require significant coverage from sources that are independent of the subject. A source analysis will follow and this will analyse the 6 sources used in the article as well as the best 3 found in my own BEFORE search. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:04, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Russia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:04, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source	Independent?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Source assessment table:
https://torpedo.ru/news/45288/	This is his employer	? Can't comment as this is 403 Forbidden	✘ No
https://int.soccerway.com/matches/2020/08/09/russia/2-division/fc-tver/fk-zenit-radian-irkutsk/3322840/		Database source	✘ No
https://torpedo.ru/news/45288/	This is his employer	? Can't comment as this is 403 Forbidden	✘ No
https://1fnl.ru/champioship/results/896/921/924/6009/	Organisation that runs the league	Mentioned once	✘ No
https://torpedo.ru/news/45207/	This is his employer	? Can't comment as this is 403 Forbidden	✘ No
https://int.soccerway.com/players/daniil-erofeev/662652/		Database source	✘ No
https://ufa.aif.ru/sport/details/vospitannik_dinamo_daniil_erofeev_stal_igrokom_fk_ufa		Basic transfer announcement. Confirms previous clubs, number of appearances last season and estimated value of player. A database site like Transfermarkt contains this info so it's hardly significant.	✘ No
https://ufaved.info/articles/sport/daniil_erofeev_pokinul_ryady_fk_ufa/		Departure announcement with only 4 sentences of prose. One of which being the sentence Fans are unlikely to remember this football player. which is quite damning and confirms that he has barely made an impact on the game.	✘ No
https://sport24.ru/news/football/2023-01-24-ufa-zabila-12-myachey-turetskomu-klubu-v-zaklyuchitelnom-matche-na-pervom-sbore		Mentioned once in the prose and once in the squad list	✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:16, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 20:54, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already PROD'd so not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:26, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BeanieFan11 (talk) 20:26, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - has anyone got any independent and reliable sources addressing Yerofeyev directly and in depth? Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:39, 1 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. (non-admin closure) Maliner (talk) 19:59, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hiragana and katakana place names[edit]

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

Unsourced since it was created 18 years ago. On its face it looks like a textbook case of WP:INDISCRIMINATE, and I can't find anything which talks about this at all. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 19:38, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language, Geography, Lists, and Japan. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:21, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - see the Japanese Wikipedia version of this article: ja:ひらがな・カタカナ地名 ^{(Google Translate version)} This is not an indiscriminate list.

The Japanese article discusses this topic in greater depth. There have been municipal summits about this topic. There have been political disputes over the use of hiragana or katakana writing for place names (instead of the more traditional kanji).

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 22:11, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Care to add any of those sources? The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 03:50, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

From the Japanese Wikipedia article:

村山研一 (12 2009). “市町村合併と市町村名称の選択”. 地域ブランド研究(5): 19.
- Discusses this phenomenon in the case of 3 cities: Sakura, Midori, and Tsukubamirai
日本の特別地域特別編集58 これでいいのか山梨県p29,鈴木士郎, 佐藤圭亮 - 2014
- Discusses municipal mergers and resulting renaming issues. See our own article also: Municipal mergers and dissolutions in Japan#Naming of new municipalities

Regards,

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 04:43, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Here's another one:

Hosokawa, Naoko (5 February 2021). "Katakana and Japanese National Identity. The Use of Katakana for Japanese Names and Expressions" (PDF). Silva Iaponicarum (56–59): 119. doi:10.12775/sijp.2020.56-59.7. Retrieved 1 November 2023.

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 05:05, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy close per A. B.. Cavarrone 07:32, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per new sources. FOARP (talk) 11:10, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
comment It's clear that there should be an article with this name, but I have my doubts about whether this will become an adequate article on the subject. Mangoe (talk) 13:21, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep surprisingly enough, seems to pass GNG. AryKun (talk) 13:17, 4 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. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 19:47, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Tommy McCafferty[edit]

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

Doesn't meet notability for kickboxer (as ISKA isn't a major belt) or GNG. Nswix (talk) 19:10, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Martial arts, and Ireland. Nswix (talk) 19:10, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as fails WP:GNG. MartyTheArty (talk) 14:37, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete My search found no evidence that he meets WP:NKICK or WP:NMMA. I didn't find any evidence of a top 10 world kickboxing rank and his highest MMA ranking was #306. I also didn't find significant independent coverage to show WP:GNG is met. I found fight results and listings in databases, but nothing to show GNG is met. Papaursa (talk) 00:21, 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!} 22:43, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Rajasthan bus crash[edit]

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

News story in violation of WP:NOTNEWS. Only a brief burst of coverage without any sustained secondary coverage, failing WP:N. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 19:07, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Transportation, and Rajasthan. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 19:07, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Clear violation of WP:NOTNEWS, and a perusal of the available sources turns up little WP:SUSTAINED coverage beyond the date of the accident. Fails WP:NEVENT due to a lack of enduring significance and coverage. The Night Watch (talk) 19:35, 31 October 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!} 22:44, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Crystal Garrett[edit]

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

Subject does not meet the WP:GNG. Let'srun (talk) 19:07, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Women, Beauty pageants, and South Carolina. Let'srun (talk) 19:07, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Nothing found for this person, there's a reporter in Canada with a similar name. Oaktree b (talk) 20:14, 31 October 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. Hey man im josh (talk) 20:14, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Quigley[edit]

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

Doesn't meet notability for kickboxer (as ISKA isn't a major belt) or GNG Nswix (talk) 19:06, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Martial arts, and Ireland. Nswix (talk) 19:06, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as failing WP:GNG. After my own WP:BEFORE (incl news and books and other searches for "Daniel Quigley" + "ISKA" / "Daniel Quigley" + "kickboxing" / etc), I can find insufficient sources to reliably support the text in the article. And, even if we could scramble a few sources together to do so, we'd still be some way short of WP:SIGCOV. Can't support a "keep"... Guliolopez (talk) 20:56, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as fails WP:GNG. MartyTheArty (talk) 14:36, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete My search efforts could find no evidence that he meets WP:NKICK. Like Guliolopez, I was unable to find significant coverage that I believe shows he meets WP:GNG. Papaursa (talk) 00:47, 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. Hey man im josh (talk) 20:16, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Johnnie Walker RV[edit]

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

Doesn't appear to be notable. Only claim to fame appears to be having once been featured in a tv episode. PepperBeast (talk) 17:09, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Business, and United States of America. PepperBeast (talk) 17:09, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nevada-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:05, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:48, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: This is all I can find [6]. Non-notable car/RV dealership. Oaktree b (talk) 20:16, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Subject does not meet the WP:GNG due to a lack of WP:SIGCOV as it stands. User:Let'srun 16:40, 1 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. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:52, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Paddy Toland[edit]

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

Lack of coverage. Questions? four OLIfanofmrtennant (she/her) 16:46, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Martial arts, and Ireland. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:10, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete doesn't meet notability or GNG. (Also note ISKA isn't a major title, they give them out to hundreds of people.) Nswix (talk) 19:05, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Issues with tone or inline refs are WP:SURMOUNTABLE. Deletion isn't cleanup. As part of my own WP:BEFORE (undertaken before any AfD contribution) I found and added a number of refs. And addressed the main tonal issues. While I'm personally unsure (even after those BEFORE efforts) if SIGCOV is definitively met, I don't think that tone (or the number of ISKA titles awarded to other people) is especially relevant to AfD... Guliolopez (talk) 20:19, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Guliolopez: The article read like a puff piece which is unecyclopedic and I could have phrased that better.Questions? four OLIfanofmrtennant (she/her) 04:36, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as fails WP:GNG. MartyTheArty (talk) 14:37, 3 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!} 22:46, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Monika Grikšaitė[edit]

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

The subject has appeared for the Lithuania women's national football team. I am unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage from third-party sources, failing WP:GNG. JTtheOG (talk) 16:38, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and Lithuania. JTtheOG (talk) 16:38, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:54, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 20:56, 31 October 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. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:56, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of 20th-century outdoor proponents and outdoor educators[edit]

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

This list is almost infinitely expandable. The definition of "outdoor proponents" and "outdoor educators" is very vaguely defined and not a good subject for a list, especially when arbitrarily limited to a specific century. SilverStar54 (talk) 16:15, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. SilverStar54 (talk) 16:15, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education and Environment. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 16:39, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Way, way, way too vague for a proper list with the variety of people listed here. Reywas92^Talk 17:21, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Uselessly overbroad topic. Like having a list about "food proponents" containing chefs, nutrition scientists, competitive eaters, food scientists, restaurant chain CEOs, cookbook authors, and farmers. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 18:15, 31 October 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!} 22:46, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

TD Thomas (wrestler)[edit]

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

Recreation of salted TaDarius Thomas (wrestler) (deleted per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/TaDarius Thomas (wrestler) as non-notable) by sock of blocked editor. I would tag this as WP:G5 if not for the edits by other users. (Are those edits "substantial"?) And I can't see the deleted article to say whether this is WP:G4. SilverLocust 💬 15:48, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. SilverLocust 💬 15:48, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Wrestling and Michigan. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:10, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, but a speedy deletion would work better. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 10:10, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Please watch for any new editors commenting on this deletion request. We've already caught one sockpuppet of the banned user. --Yamla (talk) 10:19, 6 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. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:53, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

2023 Kerala bombing[edit]

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

Created too early based on WP:RECENTISM before the event has attained a lasting historical significance to justify an article, WP:LASTING. Additionally, it violates WP:NOTNEWS as Wikipedia is not intended to function as a newspaper for breaking news. The Doom Patrol (talk) 15:19, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. The Doom Patrol (talk) 15:19, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - has more than enough coverage and sources to establish WP:GNG, the claim of WP:NOTNEWS could be leveled against any article concerning a relatively recent event. Inter&anthro (talk) 16:51, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Terrorism, Religion, and Kerala. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:08, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the article has received WP:DIVERSE coverage. | Pirate of the High Seas (talk) 01:54, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - clearly meets GNG. Would support a speedy keep here. estar8806 (talk) ★ 03:26, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Notable event. Gianluigi02 (talk), 1 November 2023
Speedy Keep - Per Ester8806. This nomination seems to have acted mainly as a spoiler on the event's ITN nomination, so a speedy keep will allow that discussion to be resumed. GenevieveDEon (talk) 12:50, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or draftify. It is inappropriate to claim GNG when only primary sources exist. Please do not create articles for events before sustained coverage is demonstrated through retrospective analysis. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 15:47, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Reuters and The Independent are primary sources? News to me. estar8806 (talk) ★ 20:25, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Estar8806, per WP:RSBREAKING: All breaking news stories, without exception, are primary sources, and must be treated with caution. This is in line with how historiography treats new information coming from news reports. Secondary sources are those that synthesise primary sources. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 21:43, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Fair. Then again, I haven't seen anyone raise that in regards to the January 6 United States Capitol attack or the Death and state funeral of Elizabeth II, both articles created pretty immediately after the relevant event as well. estar8806 (talk) ★ 22:04, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The coverage of this is extensive across mainstream national and regional media outlets, as well as Reuters and AP. Clearly meets notability guidelines. We don't apply WP:LASTING or WP:NOTNEWS to articles that are immediately created after school shootings in the US - not sure why this would be any different. Schwinnspeed (talk) 16:01, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I really don’t think the policies cited by the nom really apply here, there is plenty of sig cov microbiologyMarcus ^{(petri dish•growths)} 23:22, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The news of this bombing flashed across the media whether mainstream or youtube based. Also had significant coverage in 6 P.M. to 10 P.M. what we say Prime Time. Passes WP:NOTABILITY. Shaan Sengupta^Talk 03:40, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:RAPID passes WP:GNG.The Question whether it meets WP:LASTING cannot be ascertained as this point.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 09:58, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:GNG. Notability is clear. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 13:21, 5 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 procedural close‎. Accidental duplication of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jong-su Kim (non-admin closure) Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:06, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jong-su Kim[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

fails notability, unreliable source

microbiologyMarcus ^{(petri dish•growths)} 15:05, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 October 31. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 15:18, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was procedural close‎. Accidental duplication of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jong-su Kim (non-admin closure) Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:05, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jong-su Kim[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

fails notability, unreliable source microbiologyMarcus ^{(petri dish•growths)} 15:05, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 October 31. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 15:18, 31 October 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!} 22:47, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In-sok Kim[edit]

(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]

Speedy delete, WP:A7 applies. Tails Wx 16:36, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Korea-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:01, 31 October 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. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:07, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Colette Baron-Reid[edit]

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

Advertorialized WP:BLP of a spiritualist and writer, not properly sourced as passing Wikipedia inclusion criteria. This is based almost entirely on primary source content self-published by people or organizations directly affiliated with the claims (her own website about herself, her book sourced to its own publisher, events sourced to the self-published websites of their own organizers, etc.) with very little evidence of reliable source coverage about her in real WP:GNG-worthy media.
As always, people are not automatically notable enough for Wikipedia just because it's possible to verify that they exist -- the significance of their work has to be externally validated by GNG-worthy third-party coverage about them. And furthermore, the advertorialism here has been flagged since 2012 without being noticeably toned down in the entire decade since then.
Nothing stated here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt her from having to pass GNG on her sourcing — but this, as written, is such a poorly sourced (self?)-promotional mess that even if legitimate GNG-worthy sourcing can be found to salvage it with, it would still need to be blown up and restarted from scratch regardless. Bearcat (talk) 14:56, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Radio, and Canada. Bearcat (talk) 14:56, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: She's notable [7], [8], [9]. The Jam showbiz one already present in the article is also a RS. Oaktree b (talk) 15:34, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Which I acknowledged in my nomination statement was possible, but I was also 100 per cent accurate when I assessed the existing article as such a highly advertorialized mess that the WP:TNT (blow it up and start over from scratch) treatment would be necessary even if better sourcing could be found. As I noted, the article has been tagged for neutrality and advertorialism issues since 2012 without ever being deadvertorialized at all, and we shouldn't be keeping articles in that state for a decade — even for a notable topic, if the existing article is this bad we have to delete it and restart a new article from scratch, and cannot just leave the advertorialism to rot for another decade because nobody's fixing it. Bearcat (talk) 14:00, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bearcat, this happens more often, sources tend to appear only when the article has been AfD'd, that's when they decide to take the tag(s) more serious and work on the article, and to be honest it sucks, however with the presented sources I am leaning towards keep per Bridget. dxneo (talk) 17:31, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:02, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Oaktree b Bookworm857158367 (talk) 18:48, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Television, and Spirituality. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:51, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ none of the articles found by Oaktree b are in-depth coverage of the subject, they are 2-3 paragraph articles about an appearance of the subject and no in-depth research or coverage. The Guardian article is the only article with any depth but its not an actual Guardian article but rather a book extract and thus does not count towards WP:SIGCOV. --hroest 21:16, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

keep based on the article rewrite and the new sources that include at least two in-depth articles. --hroest 20:45, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets WP:BIO with sources presented by Oaktree B. They're reliable and in-depth enough IMV. SBKSPP (talk) 01:22, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak~~ keep. I've found some articles from the early 2000s that could be used to rewrite the article (in addition to any already mentioned RSes): "Singer sees into the future". Calgary Herald. 2001-05-12. p. 100.; "Hand of fate helped clairvoyant cross the gulf to pop-star newbie". Edmonton Journal. 2001-05-16. p. 29.; "Spinning chakras make meditation easy". The Toronto Star. 1999-02-07. p. 95.; "Bringing the future to the present". Red Deer Advocate. 2006-09-14. p. 36. Bridget (talk) 05:38, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Article has been rewritten with better sourcing. Also found these articles from Fortune and Elle but I'm not too sure how they can be used. Bridget (talk) 03:59, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Changing my vote based on recent changes to the article. Bridget (talk) 14:02, 5 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 14:36, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dawn Best[edit]

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

Non-notable illustrator. No independent sigcov to establish notability. Jdcooper (talk) 13:47, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists, Authors, Women, Comics and animation, and Pennsylvania. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:00, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - It appears it was created as a COI entry several years ago after the first attempt at an article was deleted. Has been edited by SPA's. An online BEFORE reveals, social media, user-submitted content, an interview (primary) but nothing in the way of SIGCOV in Reliable Sources. Fails WP:NARTIST and WP:GNG, seems to be a run-of-the-mill illustrator that does not meet WP's criteria for notability. Netherzone (talk) 19:04, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lacks significant coverage in independent reliable sources. Elspea756 (talk) 14:18, 4 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 14:37, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kim Ugu-io[edit]

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

Fails GNG. Tails Wx 13:45, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Korea-related deletion discussions. Tails Wx 13:45, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Notability is WP:NOTINHERITED, ergo this violates WP:NOTGENEALOGY, ergo WP:A7 applies. BrigadierG (talk) 14:24, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I won't be opposed to an A7-criteria speedy delete here. Tails Wx 16:37, 31 October 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 14:37, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yana Berlin[edit]

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

Woman with a web site. Non-notable entrepreneur. PepperBeast (talk) 13:41, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Women, and Russia. PepperBeast (talk) 13:41, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - New account skirting AfC by making 10 edits and then moving directly to main? Check. All coverage in author's voice? Check. Promotional tone throughout? Check! WP:PROMO verging on WP:G11 BrigadierG (talk) 14:29, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Very PROMO. Several hits in Turkish language media, none for this individual though. Sourcing used in the article now isn't RS or is a primary source. Oaktree b (talk) 15:41, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was draftify‎. ✗plicit 14:39, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Monica Zoltanski[edit]

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

Mayor of Sandy, Utah, a city with a population of about 96,000 people. Their claim to notability appears to be that they are the city's first female mayor. However, I don't think in of itself is enough to pass WP:GNG and is not enough to pass WP:NPOL. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:28, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Women, and Utah. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:28, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify - There's a good chance this person will eventually have enough coverage to warrant an article, but as she was only just elected, I think it is WP:TOOSOON BrigadierG (talk) 14:30, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I have re-opened this AfD after @PaulGamerBoy360 speedy closed the AfD discussion and draftified the article. @PaulGamerBoy360: Non-admins should not speedy close an AfD discussion except in the case of a very clear WP:SNOW close. Hey man im josh (talk) 20:48, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The subject does not meet either GNG or NPOL.--Mpen320 (talk) 01:25, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify It looks like PaulGamerBoy360 draftified this article twice. I think the article creator should be given a chance to work on this article as a draft if all of these page moves can ended. I'm sure it's been disruptive for them to have this article moved around 4 or 5 times in the past few days. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:19, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Liz: Thank you for this comment. I completed agree that users should have a chance to work on things in draft space over article space. With that said, I like to give AfDs a chance to play out and for people to have the opportunity to bring additional sources to "save" the article. The only issue I had with PaulGamerBoy360's moves was that they speedy closed this AfD and draftified the article before giving others a chance to chime in and possibly improve it to avoid draftification altogether. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:22, 3 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 14:38, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Armit[edit]

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

Fails GNG with a lack of significant coverage. A search on Google newspaper archive found several mentions in the Evening Times but nothing approaching sigcov. A search on www-newspapers-com. found more mentions but it was just routine coverage such as transfers/injuries/match reports. Dougal18 (talk) 12:23, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Scotland. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:58, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 19:07, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 19:09, 31 October 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 14:45, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Colin Street[edit]

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

A street which is verifiable, and mentioned as the location of other things, but which hasn't received significant attention (the street names articles are very passing mentions). Notability is not inherited, a street doesn't get notable because some building on it gets some attention, or an activity happens in a building on the street. Fram (talk) 09:28, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Australia. Fram (talk) 09:28, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
List of streets in West Perth is gasping for proper sourcing, better writing, and pictures. Uncle G (talk) 18:17, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because being simply the location of notable things is an WP:INHERITED issue BrigadierG (talk) 14:31, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previous WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:04, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

delete The only thing bordering on a claim to notability is in the location section, none of which is cited. It may be a long street, but it's just a street that has things on it. There's no reference to coverage of the street in its own right. Mangoe (talk) 12:57, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. (non-admin closure) Maliner (talk) 19:56, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

World on the Move[edit]

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

No refs on the page. Nothing to show that this radio programme (no longer running) was particularly notable JMWt (talk) 09:51, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio and United Kingdom. JMWt (talk) 09:51, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:50, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Added some citations. Flurrious (talk) 22:32, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:02, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Flurrious Bookworm857158367 (talk) 18:51, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets WP:GNG with sources added to the article by Flurrious. They're reliable and in-depth enough IMV. SBKSPP (talk) 01:20, 4 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. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:14, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Western tulku[edit]

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

We should not split articles by ethnicity. This is a non-neutral POV fork of tulku intended as an attack page against Western tulkus. Tulkus are tulkus. The entire system is criticized, and there are non-western examples of misidentification. Skyerise (talk) 11:23, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

~~Merge to Tulku~~~~. No reason to have a separate article, even ignoring the obvious POV issues. AndyTheGrump (talk) 11:28, 31 October 2023 (UTC)~~[reply]

Given the significant expansion of the article since the above, I am now less certain that merging is appropriate. I would however suggest that POV issues remain, and also that any article on Western tulku's needs to make clear that this is not the sole cause of controversy regarding tulku lineages. It might possibly be better to have a subtopic article on tulku lineage controversies generally, though that isn't without its POV problems too. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:44, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Allow me to finish the page. To reiterate what I have said on User:Skyerise's talk page, and on mine:

I am currently in the process of creating the page. Whether or not it should be merged cannot be surmised as I am currently, actively creating the page.
It is not a POV fork as the entire page is (as it stands) original, and there was no debate on the tulku page which I forked this off from.
As I explained already to User:Skyerise once, I am a Shingon Buddhist and have no problem with Western tulkus. I am working from reliable sources which can, and clearly do, contain criticism from some Western academics (which I do not necessarily agree with.)
This AfD request is the result of a threat by the nominator, after he "suggested" I merged the (unfinished, work-in-progess) page into Tulku, he said that if I did not merge it, he would tag it as an AfD. He has taken it in his own hands and has now created a copy of the (unfinished!) page there.

I recommend an admin immediately close this AfD and allow me to at least finish the page before a merge or deletion discussion begins. MY CHEMICAL ROMANCE IS REAL EMO!_{(talk or whatever)} 11:33, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Why should we "let you finish" a completely misguided page that violates multiple guidelines? Skyerise (talk) 11:36, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What guidelines does it violate? How is it misguided? You don't even know what the page will look like. I'm literally in the process of creating the page and filling out sections. Holy shit. I'm trying to assume good faith here, but it really seems like something in the page has struck a chord and you're trying to censor it. MY CHEMICAL ROMANCE IS REAL EMO!_{(talk or whatever)} 11:38, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Draft space exists for a reason. Once a main-space article is created, it is subject to possible deletion. AndyTheGrump (talk) 11:45, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You know, I generally have no trouble creating main-space articles and filling them out that way (I did this with Long gu), I think I'll just move this to draft space so that someone can let me work and not drive-by tag things and revert half-done edits. MY CHEMICAL ROMANCE IS REAL EMO!_{(talk or whatever)} 11:48, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@AndyTheGrump: I'm afraid to close the AfD so if you know any relevant policy that would allow me to move it into draft space, I'd much appreciate it. MY CHEMICAL ROMANCE IS REAL EMO!_{(talk or whatever)} 11:49, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Read WP:AFDTODRAFT. AndyTheGrump (talk) 11:52, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunate. I'll just keep editing. MY CHEMICAL ROMANCE IS REAL EMO!_{(talk or whatever)} 11:58, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Frankly, I think you would do better to work on improving the section in the main Tulku article. It provides all the broader context that a separate article lacks. AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:05, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The section did not previously exist (it was created when the nominator decided to boldly merge the unfinished page) and based on the sources I have, it may double the size of the page (or dwarf the rest of the page) and I do not want the more general tulku page to be dominated by discussions of non-Tibetan tulkus. MY CHEMICAL ROMANCE IS REAL EMO!_{(talk or whatever)} 12:08, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There are estimated to be as many as 500 Tibetan tulku lineages. Only 1 of these is detailed in the history section. If the history were properly written, there is no way the 3 Western tulkus you've identified would dominate the article. The fact that that history is missing is no reason to fork the article. Skyerise (talk) 22:16, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

And why should I care? I'm not editing the tulku page. I'm not forking anything because what I'm writing is entirely original. I'm not interested in re-writing the tulku page (yet). Merging the pages would immediately dominate the tulku page. MY CHEMICAL ROMANCE IS REAL EMO!_{(talk or whatever)} 04:57, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

How about listing here a few of the major sources you intend to cite, to give an indication that this subtopic merits the depth of coverage you propose? AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:14, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If you check the Bibliography section on the page, you'll find some of my sources -- I usually add them before I start working so I don't forget them and I have them "on hand" instead of having to go and add new sources in between editing stints. Again, none of those were on the original Tulku page, they are only there because of someone's unilateral decision to merge the page. MY CHEMICAL ROMANCE IS REAL EMO!_{(talk or whatever)} 12:19, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Also, note that the page is already half the size of the original tulku page (6,774 bytes vs. 14,912 bytes) and I'm not even done with the meat-and-potatoes of the page yet. MY CHEMICAL ROMANCE IS REAL EMO!_{(talk or whatever)} 12:21, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Buddhism-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:17, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If the page creator wants to draft, we can send it there. Seems to have some coverage above, I'd let it incubate there. Oaktree b (talk) 15:43, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, draft-ifying (or moving it to a new userpage of mine) is currently my preferred outcome. I've never had a problem with creating pages outside of the draft space; but it is incredibly frustrating to try and fill out a page when someone is actively trying to disrupt you with drive-by tags and edit reversion. MY CHEMICAL ROMANCE IS REAL EMO!_{(talk or whatever)} 17:58, 31 October 2023 (UTC) I no longer prefer draftifying.--MY CHEMICAL ROMANCE IS REAL EMO!_{(talk or whatever)} 06:27, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify on creator's wishes. Seems like the least harmful solution for now. Not seeing any reason this doesn't have a chance to be notable. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 18:49, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I just want to note that Skyerise has been merging the pages as I work on Western tulku; and incorporating the prose I write on the more general tulku page. Normally this would be fine as there should be a section on Western tulku, but since Skyerise has been calling for a merge or deletion and claiming the Western tulku page is a POV fork and an attack page, I thought I should point this out: there was no section or coverage on Western tulku when I began writing the page. It is incredibly deceptive as someone who isn't diligent in looking at page histories won't be aware that I didn't fork the page and that the prose is original to Western tulku.

Notably, there is no mention of social analysis or criticism of Western tulku holders, which is prominent in the sources listed on both pages. This seems to be in line with Skyereise's version of neutrality: a NPOV is when you include positive material about Western tulkus along with listing Western tulkus who have NOT been criticized, as they told me to do on my talk page.

In fact, this entire debacle was prompted by Skyerise considering an embryonic version of the page to be offensive because of its inclusion of critical analysis of the Western tulku phenomena (despite this analysis being well-sourced and properly attributed.) That the unilaterally-merged version of the page at Tulku#Western tulku contains no mention of the social or political ramifications of Westerners being recognized as tulku should be telling.

There is some of this now; but the tulku page is fast being drowned out by discussion of Western tulku, which is exactly what I did not want to do and hence why I intended it as a separate page. Anyway, I stand by the claim that the clandestine merge is willfully deceptive. The claim is that I forked Western tulku out of Tulku as an attack page, and to substantiate this, Skyerise has been merging the pages without following WP:MERGEPROP (which is contradictory to the AfD proposal since clearly he thinks the page has useful content.) The AfD, anyway, is the result of a threat that if I did not merge the page as per his suggestion, he would mark it for deletion. I know I'm beating a dead horse here, but this has been incredibly frustrating to try and create a page in good faith and be disrupted by redundant drive-by tagging, clandestine merges, AfD threats, among other things.

--MY CHEMICAL ROMANCE IS REAL EMO!_{(talk or whatever)} 05:20, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The primary reason not to separate Western tulkus from the tulku page is that Western tulkus are an integral part of the tulku system. They are part of the continuation of Tibetan tulku lineage into which they were recognized. The tulku article will be providing a summary of the history of each tulku lineage. These Westerners will be covered at part of their respective tulku lineages. To split the article is to take the Western tulkus out of the historical context of their lineages.

The second reason not to split the article is that Western tulkus are not like Plastic shamans. Western tulkus are made by high Tibetan lamas. While there is criticism about these Western tulkus, the Westerners are not at fault. The fault is in the system itself and the criticism, at least from the Tibetan side, is not about the shortcomings of the Western tulkus, but rather accrues to the high lamas who made them. Splitting the article seems to be an attempt to isolate these lamas from any criticism of their actions by making the article solely about the perceived faults of the Westerners themselves, out of context of the system and individual decisions of lamas to recognize them.

Western lamas and their faults simply reflect the faults of the system and the lamas who made them. This is best presented in a unified article. Skyerise (talk) 12:29, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

They aren't an integral part of the tulku system. They're a marginal part of it and there are only a handful of Western tulku while there are literally hundreds of Tibetan tulku. Western tulku, on the other hand, have generated a disproportionate amount of (English-language) literature regarding the globalization of Tibet Buddhism, which threatens to overtake the original tulku article as the Western tulku article is now over half the length of the older one...although it's now hard to gage since someone has been copying prose and references. That is why I created a separate article instead of adding to the older one.

Anyway, none of your other points are relevant, especially not to a deletion discussion. At best your argument is for merging, which you've already attempted (and your clandestine merge I still find to be incredibly deceptive.) You abandoned the merge proposal when you opened this AfD, following through on a threat after I declined to merge the article I was working on because you were offended. You keep referring to splitting the article and how this has something to do with "criticizing Western tulku", as if I've forked an article out to dunk on them -- which I haven't -- everything is entirely original and reflects the sources I have on hand. I'm sorry the sources offend you but that's what they say. A significant amount of the literature published is critical and I've done my best to attribute those opinions to their respective authors. If you don't like that, go publish your own research responding to them. MY CHEMICAL ROMANCE IS REAL EMO!_{(talk or whatever)} 16:40, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The subject is notable, and has received its own coverage independent of the main tulku tradition. If it were merged most of it would probably be WP:UNDUE there. Johnbod (talk) 03:30, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The coverage is not independent. All coverage describes the tulku system and also involves the Tibetan lamas who created the Western tulkus. The Western tulkus themselves are the current lineage holders of the Tibetan traditions which they hold. They are not distinguished as inferior within Tibetan Buddhism itself. They are not only Tibetan Buddhists, they are recognized functionaries of the religion, members of specific schools, and typically have been students and practitioners within the system for decades before being recognized (unless recognized shortly after birth). Article singles out and attacks "white people". Skyerise (talk) 10:38, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Most of the coverage is independent; indeed rather more so than most coverage of Tibetan religious subjects in English, which tends to be "in universe". The rest of your points don't bear on this Afd. This article has obviously got under your skin, for reasons I don't really understand. Your behaviour around this article has been disgraceful, and I'd strongly advise you to show some restraint. Johnbod (talk) 17:43, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The whole basis for this article is racist. That's what's disgraceful. Skyerise (talk) 18:31, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A self-described master-comment. If you want to discuss conduct, take it to the WP:AN thread. This is not the place. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 10:33, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I have struck some of my earlier comments here and I am going to refrain from discussing this outside of this page (since it has flowered out into numerous other pages) but I would like to make a sort of master-comment. I no longer want this page draftified because I fear that when I do finish the page, most of what I have written will have been merged into the older Tulku page. First, in regards to particular arguments:

"We should not split articles by ethnicity." There is no policy on this and indeed for certain topics splitting by "ethnicity" is necessary for a topic such as this one...where a religious, feudal concept is transposed on to the modern west.
"This is a non-notable topic." This is not original research and there are a number of studies dealing with this phenomena, in particular:
- Ary, Elijah (2012-11-19). "The Westernization of Tulkus". Little Buddhas. Oxford University Press New York. pp. 398–427. doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199860265.003.0017. ISBN 978-0-19-994561-0.
- Trzebuniak, Jacek (2014). "Analysis of Development of the Tibetan Tulku System in Western Culture". Polish Journal of the Arts and Culture. 2 (10): 115–130.
- Usarski, Frank (2005-12-31). "(Re)Making Tradition in an International Tibetan Buddhist Movement: A Lesson from Lama Gangchen and Lama Michel". Historicizing "Tradition" in the Study of Religion. DE GRUYTER. pp. 345–356. doi:10.1515/9783110901405.345. ISBN 978-3-11-018875-2.
- Bhushan, Nalini; Garfield, Jay L.; Zablocki, Abraham (2009). TransBuddhism. Amherst: Collaborations (Paperback). ISBN 978-1-55849-708-5.
- Oldmeadow, Peter (2001). "Tibetan Buddhism and Globalisation". Sydney Studies in Religion. ISSN 1444-5158. Retrieved 2023-11-01.

See also Miller, Andrea (12 March 2021). "Magical Emanations: The Unexpected Lives of Western Tulkus". Lion's Roar. Retrieved 30 October 2023.

In other words, there is plenty of reason to treat Western tulku separately. Further, per @Johnbod: merging the pages would give WP:UNDUE weight to Western tulku.

"This is a POV fork." Every criticism of Western tulku given here is properly attributed in accordance with WP:BLP. There is no evidence that the page is non-neutral past irrelevant musing on the relationship between Western tulku and their masters.

Next, I want to point out that this entire AfD proposal is in bad faith. Since the beginning, User:Skyerise has engaged in disruptive editing, including:

Threats;^[1]
Refusal to assume (or accept) good faith;^[2]
Canvassing;^[3]
Purposefully creating edit conflicts, as they did not want to "let [me] finish" a completely misguided page per their own words;^[4]
Censorship, removing mentions of race where it is present in the original source; and ^[5]
Merging against policy (i.e., without consensus), which is especially deceptive since they have been falsely claiming it is a fork which was split off the older Tulku page.^[6]

I think that it is important to note that according to their user page, Skyerise is a western Tibetan Buddhist. This isn't exactly a conflict of interest but it seems to me to be a pretty clear-cut case of attempted censorship and POV-pushing based on Skyerise's personal offense taken at the criticism academics have levied against certain Western tulku or the concept of "tulku envy".

Apologies for the long comment, but this is incredibly stressful and I have to deal with white Buddhist rage enough as it is.--MY CHEMICAL ROMANCE IS REAL EMO!_{(talk or whatever)} 11:43, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

- More censorship here where their preferred version of the page has no critical analysis of Western tulku.--MY CHEMICAL ROMANCE IS REAL EMO!_{(talk or whatever)} 00:27, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ As per WP:HARASS, threats to disrupt one's editing are against policy. As per WP:ATD, merges are alternatives to deletion, threatening to propose a page for deletion for not following one's suggestion to merge the pages is incredibly disruptive. On my talk page: I suggest you merge this material to Tulku. If not, I will Afd the article as not a notable subtopic, a POV fork, and an attack page. On the talk page for Western tulku: Honestly I should speedy it as an attack page.
^ On my talk page, I asked them to [p]lease assume good faith. For what it is worth, I am a Shingon Buddhist and I do not have anything against Western tulkus. They have continually claimed that I am singling out white people, including here, well after this.
^ Skyerise contacted User:Joshua Jonathan and User:Scyrme asking that they participate in the deletion discussion. In Skyerise's defense, they justified this as getting more eyes on the dispute. They did, immediately after contacting these users, warned me that I would be getting feedback about [splitting pages by ethnicity] from other editors soon enough here, which is ominous, to say the least.
^ Skyerise understands and respects the {{WIP}} template when they are using it (see their comment here), but ignore it on pages they apparently don't like, here and here and here and here and other places too.
^ They removed the word "white" from a sentence where it was necessary to disambiguate white Western tulkus from Western tulkus of Asian (e.g. Tibetan, Mongol) heritage. Here, they removed the word "Caucasian" because it sounded racist to them, which rendered something factually incorrect and contrary to the source in question: the first Western tulku were of Tibetan or partial Tibetan descent. They also removed a link to cultural appropriation here, their rationale was that tibetans encourage, not discourage, adoption of their beliefs; western tulkus do not make themselves: they are made by Tibetans which is irrelevant (even if it is true) given that the academic sources mention cultural appropration by name.
^ For example, here and here. They've literally been watching me develop the Western tulku page and merging whatever they can.

Keep significant coverage in WP:RS, all of whom are independent, contrary to spurious claims above. I have collapsed a lengthy discussion above as it mostly discusses conduct and not the article, even though I agree with the relevant comments. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 10:33, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This seems to be a notable separate topic that would be largely a coatrack on the main Tulku article. Hemiauchenia (talk) 02:56, 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. ✗plicit 06:34, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Vibha Bhatnagar[edit]

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

Fails Wikipedia:Notability (people). Can't find info on this person and only found on the doctor [10] of the same name. I smell COI in this article. Best to redirect their husband? Manoj Bhatnagar [11] DareshMohan (talk) 07:12, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Can't find proof that she is Manoj's wife. Kailash29792 (talk) 07:31, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Businesspeople, Women, Mauritius, Indonesia, United Arab Emirates, India, England, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:39, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Only sourcing I find is for a doctor that died recently, with a similar name. The article barely has any inline citations and what's given doesn't appear notable. Oaktree b (talk) 13:24, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No news coverage AShiv1212 (talk) 6:27, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

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 Bright (American band). Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:39, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Miller Fantasies[edit]

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

. Fails WP:NALBUM I can't find anything in the way of non-trivial coverage. That's not to say sources don't exist, but in any case per WP:NALBUM: Notability aside, a standalone article is only appropriate when there is enough material to warrant a reasonably detailed article; articles unlikely ever to grow beyond stubs should be merged into the artist's article or discography Polyamorph (talk) 10:16, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs and Music. Polyamorph (talk) 10:16, 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!} 07:08, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Bright (American band) as has already been done at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bells Break Their Towers. This could have been done boldly for all of the band's albums with little controversy and no need for this lengthy process. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:02, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, but note I brought these albums to AfD after your suggestion here. Polyamorph (talk) 16:56, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Response for all Bright albums: At the time of that original suggestion, I expected more controversy, in which case formal AfDs would straighten things out. But with nobody other than me voting, that is another indication that bold action will cause little or no hubbub. Now we're just going through some minor procedural requirements. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 17:28, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Bright (American band). Fails WP:NALBUM. Mooonswimmer 23:04, 6 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 Bright (American band). Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:38, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Full Negative (or) Breaks[edit]

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

Redirect to Bright (American band). Fails WP:NALBUM I can't find anything in the way of non-trivial coverage. That's not to say sources don't exist, but in any case per WP:NALBUM: Notability aside, a standalone article is only appropriate when there is enough material to warrant a reasonably detailed article; articles unlikely ever to grow beyond stubs should be merged into the artist's article or discography Polyamorph (talk) 10:15, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs and Music. Polyamorph (talk) 10:15, 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!} 07:08, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Bright (American band) as has already been done at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bells Break Their Towers. This album had a couple of pro reviews but they are not very descriptive. The redirect could have been done boldly for all of the band's albums with little controversy and no need for this lengthy process. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:04, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, but note I brought these albums to AfD after your suggestion here. Polyamorph (talk) 16:56, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Bright (American band). Fails WP:NALBUM. Mooonswimmer 23:57, 6 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 Bright (American band). Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:38, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bright (American band Bright album)[edit]

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

Redirect to Bright (American band). Fails WP:NALBUM I can't find anything in the way of non-trivial coverage. That's not to say sources don't exist, but in any case per WP:NALBUM: Notability aside, a standalone article is only appropriate when there is enough material to warrant a reasonably detailed article; articles unlikely ever to grow beyond stubs should be merged into the artist's article or discography Polyamorph (talk) 10:09, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs and Music. Polyamorph (talk) 10:09, 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!} 07:07, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Bright (American band) as has already been done at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bells Break Their Towers. This could have been done boldly for all of the band's albums with little controversy and no need for this lengthy process. This 1996 album picked up a little support at AllMusic but that notice did not seem to last. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:06, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, but note I brought these albums to AfD after your suggestion here. Polyamorph (talk) 16:57, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Bright (American band). Fails WP:NALBUM. Mooonswimmer 23:49, 6 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 Bright (American band). Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:37, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Albatross Guest House[edit]

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

Redirect to Bright (American band). Fails WP:NALBUM I can't find anything in the way of non-trivial coverage. That's not to say sources don't exist, but in any case per WP:NALBUM: Notability aside, a standalone article is only appropriate when there is enough material to warrant a reasonably detailed article; articles unlikely ever to grow beyond stubs should be merged into the artist's article or discography Polyamorph (talk) 10:13, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs and Music. Polyamorph (talk) 10:13, 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!} 07:07, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Bright (American band) as has already been done at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bells Break Their Towers. This could have been done boldly for all of the band's albums with little controversy and no need for this lengthy process. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:05, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, but note I brought these albums to AfD after your suggestion here. Polyamorph (talk) 16:55, 1 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 05:05, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Urban Search and Rescue Nebraska Task Force 1[edit]

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

No independent refs on the page for many years, very little other than passing news refs to show notability. If there was anything to merge, it could go to FEMA Urban Search and Rescue Task Force as am AtD JMWt (talk) 12:34, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nebraska-related deletion discussions. JMWt (talk) 12:34, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:01, 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!} 07:06, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I can find articles about things this force has done and disasters they've assisted with, but nothing about them as an entity. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 14:06, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Coverage consists solely of trivial mentions and routine local coverage about their deployments. Mooonswimmer 23:53, 6 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 merge‎ to SCSI Enclosure Services. Star Mississippi 02:02, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

SCSI standalone enclosure services[edit]

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

I searched but I could not find enough good sources to show this is notable Chidgk1 (talk) 06:40, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Chidgk1 (talk) 06:40, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I couldn't find any sources at all, everything web search shows appears to be based on this article. Merge into SCSI Enclosure Services, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SCSI Enclosure Services. NicolausPrime (talk) 11:39, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with merging. DFlhb (talk) 05:26, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into SCSI Enclosure Services per above. Mooonswimmer 23:56, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per NicolausPrime. Owen× ☎ 00:07, 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 soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:35, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

National Youth Assembly of Korea[edit]

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

--KorTed (talk) 02:38, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I shalt solicit a delition of this document because information of unknown origin was included, and a large amount of information was found to be false as a result of fact-finding of the content; example of:

There is no youth council supported by the National Assembly of the Republic of Korea, and only the "Korea Children's Assembly" is held every year, which is an experiential activity. 'National Youth Assembly' is not official assembly run by government, it is only kind of civic movement group.
Members of the 'council' are not elected by election, but are arbitrarily selected from the executive branch of adults.
This organization has been criticized by Korean Intellectual Property Office and youth activity groups due to many operational problems, such as promotion through false or exaggerated information. Korean Government officially denied its relationship between National Youth Assembly.^[1]

References

^ [https://youthpress.net/xe/kypnews_article_society/410244 A civic group stole the name of the National Assembly and operated the 'Youth National Assembly'..Need to pay attention to 'Korea Youth Council' . Korea Youth Press Corps. 03 March 2018.

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Politics, and South Korea. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:40, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Notability not established. Searches didn't turn up references in news or books. Flurrious (talk) 20:14, 4 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. If an editor wants to work on this article in Draft space, contact me or go to WP:REFUND. I agree that this is TOOSOON and if it was Kept, the article would just be renominated for another appearance at AFD until we get closer to 2025. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:25, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

2025 Western Australian local elections[edit]

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

We have just had the 2023 local government elections. There have been no reforms to local government since then which might merit mentioning in this article. It is far too early for people to announce their candidacies. In short, this article was created too soon. Steelkamp (talk) 03:20, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and Australia. Steelkamp (talk) 03:20, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose deletion - Understand the points raised but I think given it's a periodic election (ie we are able to get clearer information on exactly who is up for election etc) plus the fact it's pretty standard, at least in my experience editing Australian elections, for the very next election to get its own page as soon as possible which can be added to. Totallynotarandomalt69 (talk) 03:26, 24 October 2023 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: Totallynotarandomalt69 (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this AfD. [reply]

SNOW Keep under WP:FUTUREEVENT's the event is notable and almost certain to take place, with notability passing via WP:RS with WP:DEPTH. Since election reform is already a key issue, either yea or nay results will end up touching WP:LASTING under effects on... society and legislation. Cheers, Last1in (talk) 14:40, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:FUTUREEVENT as it's not verifiable as there are no sources talking about this event occurring. The opening sentence in the article "The 2023 Western Australian local elections will be held in October 2025 to elect the councils of the 137 local government areas (LGAs) in Western Australia. Many councils will also hold mayoral and deputy mayoral elections." is not even confirmed by the source given which talks about the 2023 elections. This is WP:TOOSOON. TarnishedPath^talk 05:00, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Is there any support for moving this to Draft or User space until the elections get closer?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:33, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:25, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Draft Moving to draft seems fine, I can't see why this wouldn't take place. Oaktree b (talk) 15:47, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – No coverage of the 2025 elections to speak of, very clearly fails the GNG. Way, way TOOSOON. Not even worthy draftifying given it would have to be incubated for over a year and a half. 5225_C (talk • contributions) 03:16, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No verifying coverage of these events. Not even the date in 2025 has been set yet. LibStar (talk) 05:13, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No sources to justify. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 02:57, 4 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!} 01:20, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ann-Blair Thornton[edit]

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

Does not meet the WP:GNG. Let'srun (talk) 03:21, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Women, Beauty pageants, and Kentucky. Let'srun (talk) 03:21, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Only two hits, one talking about prize-winning hams [12], then confirmation of pageant participation [13], both of which don't really help notability Delete, lack of sourcing. Oaktree b (talk) 13:28, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:BIO. Mooonswimmer 00:19, 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. Consensus seems clear after relisting. I do not see any reason to protect the title at this time, but please ping me on my talk page if it is deemed necessary. Kinu ^t/_c 19:06, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ricky Guillart[edit]

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

No indication of notability per WP:GNG, WP:NACTOR. Only roles so far have been one episode of an animated series, and three uncredited roles, and it's not clear yet how big the roles are for the two upcoming films. I can find no evidence that he won a BET award. Google search for "Ricky Guillart" results in one screen worth of hits, mainly social media and film directories, but no significant discussion of the individual. May be a case of WP:TOOSOON. ... discospinster _talk 02:24, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, United States of America, and Texas. ... discospinster _talk 02:24, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, according to the information provided you can see that it is an article by a person who has been recognized very recently, super reliable sources are shown and the arguments are Well reformulated, no errors found, I propose that your nomination be canceled and this article removed until more references are obtained from more relevant media.

Let us remember that not every user can create an article on Wikipedia, and we have also seen the support of several collaborators such as User:Slgrandson, User:AnomieBOT, User:Onel5969, User:Certes, User:GoingBatty, among others. Also that all the information has been provided in recent months, that is, if we give time to get more information to verify this article, we can leave this call open, while you fix the errors you found and try to remove the payroll deletion notice from the item.

Also if someone else would be interested in helping with the collaboration of such an article, it would be much better for everyone, also since I have been able to observe that there are some articles with only 4 references and they are not nominated for deletion, I thank you very much for your supervision, this helps me a lot to improve when it comes to creating articles, but please let's wait until I can fix this error , I thank you a thousand times for your notification, while we correct the error, your alert could be removed from the article.

Thank you Michellelopez1234 (talk) 04:45, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

My collaboration was limited to replacing a link to Model by a more specific one to Model (person). I didn't assess the subject's notability. Certes (talk) 09:56, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Michellelopez1234: Similarly, my one edit before today was to remove overlinking. This edit (or the copyediting I did today) should not be considered when evaluating if Guillart meets Wikipedia's notability criteria.

Yes, there are many articles that are poorly referenced, and these should not be used when evaluating if Guillart meets Wikipedia's notability criteria per WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Feel free to improve them or nominate them for deletion if appropriate. GoingBatty (talk) 18:20, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Michellelopez1234: However, the number of references that failed verification could be used in this discussion. GoingBatty (talk) 18:40, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

•More relevant information has been added to this article, with references verified, and errors have been updated for the better. Michellelopez1234 (talk) 02:10, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG. Additionally, I am concerned regarding Michellelopez1234's use of "we" in their statement which implies it is a possible shared account (not to mention reads like AI). Best, GPL93 (talk) 21:05, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Looking over the article, I'd like to suggest draftification if that is okay with the nominator. Otherwise I see this as a Soft Delete and I imagine this article will be restored and back into main space soon enough.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:29, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Trivial acting roles, one voice over in a series, perhaps not notable yet. The award nomination is not notable. Still young, could be TOOSOON. Regardless, nothing for sourcing we can use. Oaktree b (talk) 02:40, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable article created by an editor with an inappropriate conflict of interest. Furthermore, this AfD was "closed" by a Cuban IP with the deceptive comment:

The result was Nomination withdrawn

Thanks for the sourcing, Since we have access to offline resources and results, as your notoriety was established, I withdraw this nomination and close this debate. --

The AfD tag on the article was removed with this edit summary:

This notification is canceled because the nomination debate for deletion was closed and its result was to cancel the nomination, it can be verified in the debate article, thank you

These edits upset me because they seem abusive of this website's openness and trust. I feel the use of a logged out IP and deceptive comments about the AfD are blatant indications of bad faith editing and I recommend the closing admin "salt" this article.

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 03:03, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be open to placing light protection on the article title but I think full protection is overkill if it is only due to the actions of an IP account who is obviously unfamiliar with Wikipedia's policies. I also think heavier protection is warranted if an article has been created multiple times which isn't the case here. Of course, we might run into a CSD G4 situation but that can be dealt with. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:03, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This person doesn't yet have the in-depth coverage in independent reliable sources needed to establish notability. Early in their career, so possibly WP:TOOSOON. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Neiltonks (talk • contribs) 12:53, 31 October 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 01:07, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Haely Jardas[edit]

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

Non-notable former beauty pageant winner with a lack of sustained coverage. Fails WP:GNG. Let'srun (talk) 01:57, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Women, Beauty pageants, and Washington, D.C.. Let'srun (talk) 01:57, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: This is all I can find [14], not enough to keep the article. What's used now as sourcing is PR items or lists from the various pageant websites. Oaktree b (talk) 02:37, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: She graduated in journalism and works for the Parks and Rec department, nothing of which help notability. Appears just another working individual. Oaktree b (talk) 02:38, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:BIO, couldn't find any significant, independent coverage. Mooonswimmer 22:55, 6 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. Sourcing has been found to be insufficient Star Mississippi 03:11, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

William Lee (captain)[edit]

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

Sources are all unviewable, but his accomplishments appear to be minor, with the possible exception of his memoirs. However, while the memoirs are in the Library of Congress, I don't see any notice of them. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:13, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Internet Archive has at least four of the book sources ([15], [16], [17], [18]). They are all merely citations to Lee's autobiography without analysis; i.e. no more than passing mentions. Jfire (talk) 03:08, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article needs work, but there is sufficient information and several secondary sources that editors could use to clean it up. It took me only a few minutes to add links to existing articles about vessels. Turning the list into text with inline sources would not be hard. The article could be of interest to genealogists, and editors working on the history of Georgia during the Revolution. Editors with those interests might well be able to add to the article. A deleted article cannot grow; a cleaned-up article might well improve further.Acad Ronin (talk) 22:34, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, England, Florida, Georgia (U.S. state), New York, Pennsylvania, and Virginia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:24, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:25, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Simply adding links to ships that have articles doesn't help establish his notability. Clarityfiend (talk) 09:54, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't believe that I said that the links provided notability. My perhaps too subtle point was that it would not take much effort to turn this into a well-structured stub that might grow in time. I have seen stubs gain from accretions by genealogists, local historians, and people with interests I could not have imagined.Acad Ronin (talk) 02:15, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Acad Ronin, I hear what you're saying but to keep this article, we need actual refs that establish notability now. Do you have them? If not, but you're sure you can come up with them, perhaps the best answer is to "draftify" this article and either put it in draft space or in your user space (as a subpage).

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 02:33, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep -- This is a badly structured article on a person of minor importance, but the existence of an autobiography may be enough to merit retention. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:36, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Autobiographies are not "independent sources" and therefore cannot be use to establish notability, according to our notability guideline.

-A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 02:40, 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!} 01:44, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not notable. If someone comes up with references that satisfy WP:GNG (general notability guideline) and WP:BIO (notability guideline for individuals), please ping me.

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 02:40, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no one has provided sources with WP:SIGCOV of the man yet. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 09:58, 31 October 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 01:06, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fazila Chiyembekezo[edit]

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

The subject has earned at least 10 caps for the Malawi women's national football team. I am unable to find sufficient coverage to meet WP:GNG. The most I was able to find was this transfer piece, which is already in the article. JTtheOG (talk) 01:04, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and Africa. JTtheOG (talk) 01:04, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:54, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 20:56, 31 October 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 01:06, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Clive Dawson[edit]

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

Non-notable British screenwriter. Could not find SIGCOV on him. Natg 19 (talk) 01:02, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and United Kingdom. Natg 19 (talk) 01:02, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per lack of notability. The contribs of the article creator make me wonder if there was perhaps a close connection to the subject. Crunchydillpickle🥒 (talk) 18:02, 31 October 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 01:05, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sheebah Zalwango[edit]

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

The subject has earned at least four caps for the Uganda women's national football team. I am unable to find sufficient coverage to meet WP:GNG. The most I found was 1, 2, and 3. JTtheOG (talk) 00:55, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and Uganda. JTtheOG (talk) 00:55, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:55, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 20:55, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per lack of notability and journalist's coverage on the subject. --VertyBerty (talk) 08:39, 1 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 merge‎ to Timeline of the 2023 Israel–Hamas war. This kind of discussion leads to a no-win type of closure but I think a Merge will address both those who believe this article should be Deleted (as this page will become a Redirect after Merger) and preserve some of the content for those who argue that it should be Kept. I will say that I briefly considered closing this as a procedural Keep as there wasn't a strong, policy-based deletion rationale but given the depth and breadth of the discussion that has evolved, I think that decision would have been disruptive. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:09, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Death of Omar Daraghmeh[edit]

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

This is not a lastingly significant event in this conflict, he doesn't appear to be that senior of a member of the organisation, and it's not even clear that it's actually an assassination (Hamas are blatant liars, and anything they say should be taken with a massive grain of salt). I would prefer a redirect to Timeline of the 2023 Israel–Hamas war where this is already listed. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:22, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military, Terrorism, Islam, Middle East, Israel, and Palestine. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:22, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment — Five minutes before starting this AfD, the nominator cursed at me on this article’s talk page after I asked a simple question, which was not pinging them. Minutes later, the nominator also accused me of being a “fool” and not knowing how to edit (i.e. WP:CIR). I have absolutely no idea what brought on the personal attacks, but whatever. I would like to see other responses before I comment an !vote, given the nominator seems to be angry for some reason. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 00:27, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- My complaints about WW's conduct are due to them placing the accusations of Hamas (who have blatantly lied during this conflict, such as denying the massacres of civilians they clearly commited) in wikivoice when this is clearly inappropriate, and then reverting with no edit summaries an attempt to correct this [19], which also re-introduced an error that WW made calling Omar the "leader of Hamas", which is just blatantly wrong. In my opinion, it displays a lack of competence to edit this contentious topic area. My tone was one of intense exasperation rather than personal venom. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:40, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  - (edit conflict) You still didn’t have to curse. I get what you mean, but even when I was trying to have a genuine conversation, you just weren’t civil and are still accusing me of WP:CIR style stuff. I would have proposed a WP:MUTUAL for us to both leave the article, as one, I may not have the knowledge to edit this topic and you are not editing in good faith, or at least not really showing you are. The AfD complicates that though. I would still like to propose a MUTUAL thought, i.e. we both stop editing this AfD & article and let the community figure it out. Agreed? (EC — While typing this, BD2412 proposed draftifying it, which I am not opposed to at all and would have been willing to do had you not started an AfD). The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 00:49, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    - Well, if you think that "Hamas accuses Israel of assassinating senior member in prison" is enough of a reason to call the article "assassination of", and you had, in earlier versions, "On October 23, 2023, Omar Daraghmeh, the leader of Hamas was assassinated..." as if that is established fact, then, in the context of your experience here, a "JFC" is strong but not unwarranted. Drmies (talk) 01:02, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Move to draft, pending development of sources indicating encyclopedic significance, rather than just interest within a news cycle. BD2412 T 00:44, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify — Per BD2412 The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 00:48, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep per speedy keep criterion #2, brought for vexatious reasons or reasons of disruption. The rationale of WP:TOOSOON is suggested by the nominator, but the based on the nominator's documented behavior at the talk page the motive seems to be anti-POV rather than notability.

Note that minutes before nominating for deletion @Hemiauchenia blanked a number of sources here[20] with the edit summary "Reverting to the least terrible version, though whether this should be a standalone article is questionable". That edit summary, IMHO doesn't explain the edit, and the removal of sources seems to be attempt to undermine the article just before nomination.

In the alternative, draftify. Oblivy (talk) 00:53, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted to this version primarily because it accurately stated in prose what happened, Omar Daraghmeh died in prison, Hamas and PIJ claimed it was an assasssination. WW's version stated definitively that he was assassinated, which was not appropriate. If you look at the actual sources covering this, like Reuters, The Times of Israel, Al Arabiya, they're all incredibly brief, maybe 3 paragraphs at most. There just isn't much to say about this event, which reliable sources don't seem to consider that significant. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:55, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If the goal was genuinely to improve the article, then why not simply do that rather than nominate it for deletion just minutes after the change? And why delete sources like the BNN article? It's not a deprecated source, and it documents the arrest Oblivy (talk) 01:07, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oblivy I looked at that edit--what is supposed to be helpful about those sources? ReliefWeb and the UN produces primary sources, and I don't know what they add. Drmies (talk) 01:06, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Reply to this version of Hemiauchenia's reply, altered in the EC) -- I think you just confirmed Oblivy's point. My first talk page question was and I quote, "Why is “assassination” not a neutral title? Two RS sources, Al Jazeera and Reuters used it (Reuters article)}}". Nothing else. The response you responded to that started with and I quote, "Jesus fucking christ"... You aren't going after a notability reason, but rather a POV reason. That is the whole issue. Noting, I am WP:COALing out, given other editors are commenting and I think it is clear a lack of good faith is occurring. Have a good day y'all! Cheers! The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 01:01, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Drmies Agreed that the UN sources don't add much re: the article subject but they did support some of the timeline in the prior version. The BNN article documented the arrest, which is relevant to the claim of assassination. Oblivy (talk) 01:17, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I also fail to see how this is a vexatious nomination, given that @Sj: Previously attempted to redirect the article, but was reverted by WW. It's clear that other people have concerns about the notability of this topic. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:59, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Let's go ahead and stop commenting on editors' and their possible motivations and focus on the notability of the article subject. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 01:03, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm happy to back away from this, but motivations are at the heart of my rationale for my speedy keep vote (and are inherent in WP:SPEEDYKEEP#2). Bad-faith deletion nominations are unhelpful to the project and deserve to be called out. Oblivy (talk) 01:11, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If you believe there is a behavioral issue, being it up at the proper venue. This is not the place for it. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 01:19, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Honest question: how else to invoke Speedy Keep #2? Oblivy (talk) 01:21, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not by making unsubstantiated accusations at an AfD of a CTOP article. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 01:24, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Id say redirect to the conflict but it is an implausible search term. Omar Daraghmeh could be redirected, but this is silly. Delete as completely pointless. nableezy - 01:17, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I actually don't have much of an opinion; I came here because I thought that here we had another useless "Death of" article overflowing with detail about the death of someone on whom we have an article. Ima go with a weak delete, and Ima do it "per Nableezy", because they usually make a lot of sense. Drmies (talk) 01:21, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to the article about the war. For all the 3 lines of text that it is, we don't need to be hurling accusations and hatred at one another. Oaktree b (talk) 01:22, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify If the topic has sustained coverage, and esp. if the situation around the death becomes more clear, it can be moved back into mainspace.Oblivy (talk) 01:25, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify: If the content develops, its develops; if it doesn't, it doesn't. Iskandar323 (talk) 06:37, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Drmies and Nableezy, possibly selectively merge anything of relevance to an appropriate article. W C M_email 09:05, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this stub as excessive fragmentation. As is, WP:NOTNEWS also applies. gidonb (talk) 10:38, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. This can go into an article about the war and doesn't need its own article at this point.Cortador (talk) 11:23, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Timeline of the 2023 Israel–Hamas war and/or Timeline of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict in 2023. Not opposed to draftifying. Mooonswimmer 14:00, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge per all above. There’s nothing indicating any special notability at this moment. The Kip 15:15, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above and lack of notability.Spilia4 (talk) 22:00, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge (with sourcing review) Per above comments. RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 22:00, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Merge per most of the above. Even if this article develops, this should be moved to the Timeline of the 2023 Israel–Hamas war per nom. 🛧Midori No Sora♪🛪 ( ☁＝☁＝✈) 06:17, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:HEY. The problem here was that the page was created before the news had even got to it, based largely on Twitter cites. Plenty of coverage has since come out, and I've added it, while culling the tweets. Iskandar323 (talk) 10:11, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
One sentence about his life pre-arrest and seven about his imprisonment and death barely even comes close to the "significant improvement" described by WP:HEY. The article is still a stub, and little information is given to explain why the subject is notable beyond Hamas claiming his death was an assassination, which is extremely shaky grounds for article-worthiness as it is. The Kip 16:23, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Deaths in custody are not a routine or mundane event, even in this conflict. Iskandar323 (talk) 17:46, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-notable. RodRabelo7 (talk) 01:54, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep clear pass on WP:GNG with WP:SIGCOV. We keep pages about long forgotten people who died in wars and then decades later get a story or two written about them and so for consistency must keep pages like this that meet GNG. The nom's "Hamas are blatant liars" is disproven by the coverage. Mztourist (talk) 05:06, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hamas have definitely flagrantly lied about the massacres in the kibbutzim, saying that no children were killed when we have actual footage of them shooting them [21] [22] That was my point. Is there previous coverage of this individual and/or coverage about what role did he serve in Hamas? Otherwise, it doesn't seem to have WP:LASTING significance. Hemiauchenia (talk) 05:34, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is significant coverage of his death now so its a pass on GNG. Whether or not this event has lasting significance can be determined in the future. Whether Hamas lied about other things is irrelevant, as SIGCOV exists of this event, from Palestinian and Israeli sources. Mztourist (talk) 07:14, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting this discussion as any closure with this makeup of comments is due to be contested. I see substantial arguments to Delete, Merge or Draftify this article. Sorry to prolong this divisive discussion but any closing decision would be seen as inserting my own opinion. Also noting that during this AFD, this article has been moved to be titled Omar Daraghmeh.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:53, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per Mooonswimmer. Eladkarmel (talk) 15:18, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Timeline of the 2023 Israel–Hamas war as nom and others have suggested. I don't see any consensus for either Keep or Delete developing. I think the source eval of the article shows it may have some recent SIGCOV:

Source eval:

Comments	Source
This certainly seems like SIGCOV, unless someone has an argument that this is not a WP:RS	1. Laxmi, Bijay (9 October 2023). "Prominent Hamas Leader, Omar Daraghmeh, Arrested by Israeli Forces". BNN. Retrieved 23 October 2023.
WP:IS, WP:RS, but fails WP:SIGCOV, its simply reporting a statement with one sentence	2. ^ Jump up to:a b Mughrabi, Nidal Al; Abd-Alaziz, Moaz; Adler, Leslie; McCool, Grant (23 October 2023). "Hamas accuses Israel of assassinating senior member in prison". Reuters. Archived from the original on 23 October 2023. Retrieved 23 October 2023.
WP:IS, WP:RS, but fails WP:SIGCOV, its simply reporting a statement with basic background	3. ^ Jump up to:a b c d "Hamas accuses Israel of assassinating its senior member". Al Arabiya.
WP:IS, WP:RS, but fails WP:SIGCOV, its simply reporting a statement in two sentences	4. ^ Jump up to:a b "Hamas accuses Israel of assassinating senior member in prison". Jerusalem Post.
Fails WP:IS WP:RS	5. ^ Jump up to:a b c d "Hamas: Leader in West Bank Daraghmeh 'Tortured to Death' in Israeli Prison". Palestinan Chronicle.
A one sentence bullet point. Not SIGCOV	6. ^ Jump up to:a b c d e f g h i "'Operation Al-Aqsa Flood' Day 18: Palestinian prisoner dies in Israeli custody; 32 health centers in Gaza forced out of service". Mondoweiss.
This seems like weak SIGCOV, unless someone has an argument that this is not a WP:RS	7. ^ Jump up to:a b c "Palestinian prisoners dies in Israel's jails 2 weeks into his detention". Middle East Monitor.
This seems like weak SIGCOV, unless someone has an argument that this is not a WP:RS	8. ^ "Palestinian group accuses Israel of killing senior Hamas leader in prison". Anadolu Agency.
WP:IS, WP:RS, but fails WP:SIGCOV, its two sentences	9. ^ "Palestinians protest in West Bank after Hamas official dies in Israeli custody". Time of Israel.

There does not appear to be any evidence that this will meet WP:LASTING and will fail as NOTNEWS, and no evidence that DRAFTing will improve the article with time, so trimming (article is longer than sources) and merging into an appropriate target which exists is the best option. If subject develops sources with SIGCOV that show it passes WP:LASTING and is something more than routine news, article can be split back out easily. // Timothy :: talk 17:05, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep - I chose not to comment earlier as I was wondering if anyone else would resurrect Oblivy's self-expunged SPEEDYKEEP #2. Since no one did, I will do so. I think that the article is in desperate need of cleanup and rewriting, probably to the point of TNT and certainly worthy of Draftify. However, you can't SPEEDY to either of those resolutions. The Talk commentary by the nominator -- specifically the use of obscenity, abuse, and insults -- seems to me to express open malice which satisfies CSK #2d. I cannot view this nomination as a good faith effort to improve the encyclopaedia; it appears driven by a desire to punish an editor based on their good-faith beliefs and reasonable edits. If brought by a neutral editors, I would happily !vote to TNT the article. Cheers, Last1in (talk) 15:57, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I have struck what I consider to be an unfounded aspersion against me in the above post. Hemiauchenia (talk) 17:11, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not ever change a post by another editor. I have changed my own wording to make clear that these are my impressions. You do not get to strike through things you do not agree with, especially after your own behaviour on the subject article's Talk. Cheers, Last1in (talk) 19:39, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please review WP:RPA, and if you think somebody is acting in bad faith report it. You do not get to attack other editors in an AFD, if you think the nomination was disruptive then go report it. nableezy - 19:47, 6 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. If an editor wants to work on this article in Draft space, let me know or go to WP:REFUND. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:18, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Next Conservative Party leadership election[edit]

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

WP:TOOSOON. This article is based off of early highly-speculative articles for an election that is entirely WP:Crystal Ball at this moment. It is also written with the presumption that the next leadership election will be to succeed Sunak. Likely, but that would be entirely presumptuous and WP:Crystal Ball given it is not an impossibility that the party’s next leadership election sees Sunak seek to remain leader while facing a challenger, as Thatcher did in both 1989 and 1990 (and Labour’s Kinnock did in 1988). Should be either deleted or draftified. SecretName101 (talk) 00:39, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and United Kingdom. SecretName101 (talk) 00:39, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:10, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or draftify. I agree this is too soon. We don't need to wait until there is actually a leadership contest formally announced, but we do need to wait until we're doing more than regurgitating speculation in 1-2 sources. Thryduulf (talk) 10:27, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 10:57, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
delete per WP:toosoon also this would need a dab specifying it's about the uk tories—blindlynx 23:04, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Looking for sources using news searches, the results from Bing gave me 6 on-point sources, two of which were unreliable tabloid newspapers, and the other 4 of which say "likely to be", "are considering", and "are prepared to". They in fact all cite one single newspaper report as their common source. Amd that further, 7th, source turns out to say that an anonymous person "believed" that something was "about to" happen. So basically this entire article comes off one source, with other sources just reporting the report, and that source never reported an actual factual event happening in the first place. This is unverifiable. I'd say restore the prior redirect, but that was the result of a page move in 2022, and "next" no longer means "2022" now. Delete. Uncle G (talk) 17:21, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails to satisfy conditions in WP:CRYSTAL necessary for articles about future events. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 00:23, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TOOSOON. No sense in having this article based solely on speculative news articles, better to wait until there's an actual impending leadership contest. Gazamp (talk) 00:43, 6 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.

[1] As per WP:HARASS, threats to disrupt one's editing are against policy. As per WP:ATD, merges are alternatives to deletion, threatening to propose a page for deletion for not following one's suggestion to merge the pages is incredibly disruptive. On my talk page: I suggest you merge this material to Tulku. If not, I will Afd the article as not a notable subtopic, a POV fork, and an attack page. On the talk page for Western tulku: Honestly I should speedy it as an attack page.

[2] On my talk page, I asked them to [p]lease assume good faith. For what it is worth, I am a Shingon Buddhist and I do not have anything against Western tulkus. They have continually claimed that I am singling out white people, including here, well after this.

[3] Skyerise contacted User:Joshua Jonathan and User:Scyrme asking that they participate in the deletion discussion. In Skyerise's defense, they justified this as getting more eyes on the dispute. They did, immediately after contacting these users, warned me that I would be getting feedback about [splitting pages by ethnicity] from other editors soon enough here, which is ominous, to say the least.

[4] Skyerise understands and respects the {{WIP}} template when they are using it (see their comment here), but ignore it on pages they apparently don't like, here and here and here and here and other places too.

[5] They removed the word "white" from a sentence where it was necessary to disambiguate white Western tulkus from Western tulkus of Asian (e.g. Tibetan, Mongol) heritage. Here, they removed the word "Caucasian" because it sounded racist to them, which rendered something factually incorrect and contrary to the source in question: the first Western tulku were of Tibetan or partial Tibetan descent. They also removed a link to cultural appropriation here, their rationale was that tibetans encourage, not discourage, adoption of their beliefs; western tulkus do not make themselves: they are made by Tibetans which is irrelevant (even if it is true) given that the academic sources mention cultural appropration by name.

[6] For example, here and here. They've literally been watching me develop the Western tulku page and merging whatever they can.

[7] [https://youthpress.net/xe/kypnews_article_society/410244 A civic group stole the name of the National Assembly and operated the 'Youth National Assembly'..Need to pay attention to 'Korea Youth Council' . Korea Youth Press Corps. 03 March 2018.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[1]