Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 September 21

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< September 20	September 22 >

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 move to draft‎. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 08:52, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kian Donkers[edit]

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

Article fails WP:GNG. Simione001 (talk) 23:45, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 23:45, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 23:45, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 23:45, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 10:09, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Drafify - not currently notable, but might be in future. Giant Snowman 10:12, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and let the winds of the future carry everything forward at the pleasure of the gods. No WP:GNG approached, even timidly. -The Gnome (talk) 10:54, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify, player with potential to have a page shortly. Also, there is a lot of coverage for the player, just not the kind Wikipedia likes for whatever reason.--Ortizesp (talk) 19:44, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not much indication that he passes WP:GNG and WP:NPEOPLE, as of the moment. Could have a future entry though. Seawolf35 (talk) 15:25, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to California Aqueduct. History will remain, so anyone interested in doing a merge will be able to do so. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 08:56, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Buena Vista Pumping Plant[edit]

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

Unsourced since 2018 with no improvement. This plant does not appear to be notable as a separate entity to the California State Water Project, with no in-depth coverage of the plant itself. The only easily accessible thing I could find that comes close is this page on UC Davis' website, but it's not even two paragraphs. Newspapers.com turned up WP:ROTM coverage only. ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him)^{Talk to Me!} 01:03, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him)^{Talk to Me!} 01:03, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I know that "looks big" is not a basis for keeping an article. Just the same, I'll note that on Google Earth, this thing is big -- about 200' high.

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 02:21, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This plant appears in the table at California State Water Project#Pump plants. If no reliable sources turn up to prove notability, that's a good redirect target. Note that only 3 of the other 17 stations have articles.

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 02:25, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:28, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:08, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect ~~merge~~ to California State Water Project#Pump plants per my comments above.

—A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)}<

Merge as recommended by A. B. seems like the best option, not much SIGCOV out there outside of a couple primary sources. This article on proquest is the best I found and could help add a line or two of context to the destination section. [1] —siro χ o 03:28, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A. B., are you sure about this Merge target? Because it's just a list. I don't see how any other information could be incorporated here. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:18, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(Facepalm) Liz -you're right. Sorry. Redirect.

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 05:22, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hm. Following other links on that page, maybe California Aqueduct could be a better merge target. (or California State Water Project § California Aqueduct)? —siro χ o 16:54, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to settle on one Merge target.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:48, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I think redirecting to California State Water Project#Pump plants makes sense since it presents information on the plant itself in a more accessible way. If people are interested, it's just one more click to the California Aqueduct for details on the broader project. ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him)^{Talk to Me!} 11:17, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to California State Water Project#Pump plants seems the most appropriate in my opinion. - Indefensible (talk) 06:22, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to California State Water Project#Pump plants, context makes sense. Bestagon ⬡ 02:54, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Do you mean redirect? There's so little information in the article as-is that I'm not sure what could be ported over to the CSWP article. ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him)^{Talk to Me!} 11:14, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. Please read my comment. It makes no sense to Merge to California State Water Project#Pump plants as this section is just a list. How would you Merge article content to a list? Please do not just rubber stamp what other editors have suggested and look at the possible target articles yourself. I'm giving this discussion another relist to see if editors can come up with a realistic suggestion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:14, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sources: https://www.topozone.com/california/kern-ca/locale/buena-vista-pumping-plant/, http://wikimapia.org/11413011/Buena-Vista-Pumping-Plant,https://water.ca.gov/Programs/State-Water-Project/SWP-Facilities/San-Joaquin, https://research.engineering.ucdavis.edu/gpa/excavations/buena-vista-excavation/ All our passing mentions or include very little detail. PaulGamerBoy360 (talk) 23:27, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Source assessment table:
California Department of Water Resources	~ Partially	Yes	No	✘ No
Wikimapia	Yes	? No	No	✘ No
Topozone	Yes	Yes	No	✘ No
UC Davis Civil & Environmental Engineering	Yes	Yes	~ Partially	~ Partial
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}}.

PaulGamerBoy360 (talk) 23:59, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I added some references. The way the soil shifted during construction is interesting, and so is the seismic study before construction. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 04:07, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: @PaulGamerBoy360, Bestagon, Indefensible, Siroxo, and A. B.: Pinging participants to see if we can agree - Per my comment above, I think redirecting (not merging) to California State Water Project#Pump plants makes the most sense. @Eastmain: I went ahead and redid the source table with the sources you added but I do not think there's enough there for GNG.

Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Source assessment table:
Water.ca.gov	State government		~	✘ No
Wikimapia		Open wiki		✘ No
Topozone			Database entry	✘ No
Tessa		~ No fact-checking, just a photo		✘ No
Final Design Report	Published by the state government		? Unaccessible in full via Google Books	✘ No
Final Geologic Report	Published by the state government		? Unaccessible in full via Google Books	? Unknown
Seismicity Near	Published by the state government		? Unaccessible in full via Google Books	✘ No
Office Report	Published by the state government		? Unaccessible in full via Google Books	✘ No
Analysis of Soil			Article is not about the plant but is about the soil more broadly	✘ No
Buena Vista Excavation			~ Short article + only about a very small aspect of the plant	~ Partial
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}}.

ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him)^{Talk to Me!} 11:25, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I think we should redirect the page, we don't have sufficient Independent RS with in Depth Coverage. PaulGamerBoy360 (talk) 14:32, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I recommend California Aqueduct as an ideal merge target. It already has the most coverage of this topic outside the current article, and could fit a few more sentences. —siro χ o 16:40, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to California Aqueduct per Siroxo. California State Water Project#Pump plants is simply a list of pump plants, whereas the Aqueduct article has some prose for context. Also, thank you to TON for the source analysis - I agree that it is accurate and shows that the GNG has not been met. Toadspike (talk) 09:06, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Changing my recommendation to a REDIRECT to California Aqueduct per others! ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him)^{Talk to Me!} 11:03, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:18, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Phil Hobden[edit]

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

Non-notable filmmaker / writer. His production company Modern Life? also seems non-notable. Natg 19 (talk) 18:08, 7 September 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) 18:08, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bundling production company into AfD officially:

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 18:11, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 18:12, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hobden might be notable as producer for the 2 notable (with a WP page, that is) films he produced. Hence weak keep. But it's either him or the company, I'd say. And the page needs some serious clean up.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 09:00, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am doubtful whether the two films that you mention are even notable, but would have to do more analysis on them. Natg 19 (talk) 15:44, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Clearly not notable and not worthy of his own article. This seems to be an easy delete. Go4thProsper (talk) 16:27, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:27, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:10, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not notable for an entry. Search performed did not yield needed result. Noneate (talk) 17:02, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I found no WP:SIGCOV, don't see how it meets WP:GNG nor any other WP:N guideline. Jacona (talk) 19:59, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:19, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In Search Of (film)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Non-notable film. There are sources, but sources do not mention film. Dead sources possibly support that this was screened at a festival, but that does not establish notability and there is no in-depth discussion or coverage. I am AGF but I am having a hard time understanding why many of these sources were used as they do not appear to involve film at all. ‡ El cid, el campeador ^talk 20:04, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and United States of America. ‡ El cid, el campeador ^talk 20:04, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: You might want to to search typing "InSearchOf" and/or maybe add Rady's name, otherwise (and even then) searching this film is quite difficult. This review exists. And the Quebec film directory lists the film's title as having been translated .... In Search of Sex. Note: yes, screenings at festival may establish notability but I couldn't check the claim. Final note: I have issues understanding this sentence in the article: "In Search Of was the first film to play in another reality when it screened in Second Life in 2008."-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 00:07, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. The source linked is not a full review but "synopsis provided by CinemaSource" per the small text after the first pargraph. CinemaSource is of dubious reliability and the coverage at just one paragraph IMO is at best marginal SIGCOV. I was unable to find further sourcing on IMDb, RT, Google, or Google Books using various different names as the film title is highly common. This also fails to meet any additional NFILM criteria. So, with IMO one source questionably counting to GNG I am at a delete. VickKiang (talk) 11:26, 9 September 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!} 23:25, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:09, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I can't find any WP:SIGCOV to add at all. Fails WP:GNG. Jacona (talk) 20:01, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete. The sources listed in the article might come close to notability but they are currently dead links. Was kept previously in the hope that better sources would be forthcoming but instead what little there was has disappeared. Should be deleted until and unless better sources such as reviews can be found. Eluchil404 (talk) 00:42, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 01:53, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Haseeb Hassan[edit]

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

Most of the references currently used here do not even mention or name-drop this individual, let alone cover him in significant depth. The Times of India reference has a brief blurb about him, but that's nowhere near sufficient for notability, and searching, I find a few name drops and brief mentions, puff pieces/press release looking material and a couple things about some spat on Twitter he was involved in, but nothing even approaching enough to write a comprehensive biography. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 19:31, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Actors and filmmakers. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 19:31, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:54, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No have any reliable sources. only film reviews Worldiswide (talk) 04:22, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already PROD'd, not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:05, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:22, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notable as director of various notable dramas (that received reviews, as mentioned above), which makes him meet the following criteria: "The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews, or of an independent and notable work (for example, a book, film, or television series, but usually not a single episode of a television series)".-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 21:13, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:06, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per the sources cited, none gives significant coverage and there also not reliable. Noneate (talk) 17:08, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A lame smattering of sources, once one defenestrates listings and advertorials, do not for notability provide. The subject has been busy but their work has never reached the level of notability one would consider enough for a stand-alone article here. -The Gnome (talk) 10:58, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I am inclined to !vote Keep here after looking at Diyar-e-Dil. Going through the references cited in Diyar-e-Dil#Critical_reception, it is clear that the portion of WP:DIRECTOR mentioned above has been met. Perhaps the dearth of sources specifically about this director means that the article will be sparse, but going by that guideline, this guy is notable. Not just "sources are presumed to exist", but "notable". In some cases multiple reviews were written by the same author, so here are three examples that should provide enough evidence that there are "multiple independent reviews" with the "primary subject" being a movie Hassan created: [2] [3] [4] As a bonus, some of the reviews actually do mention Hassan multiple times, like this one: [5] A more in-depth review could find something I missed that invalidates this argument, so please feel free to poke holes if you find any. Toadspike (talk) 09:21, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps, I was hasty in discounting the criteria for a film director. Let's see in detail.

Important figure or widely cited by peers or successors: No sign of that whatsoever.
Known for originating a significant new concept, theory, or technique: No; no; and no.
Created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. Such work must have been the primary subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews: The serial Diyar-e-dil gathered a few listings-cum-presentations in mid-2015 when it aired and has since sunk without a trace.
His work or works has become a significant monument, been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, won significant critical attention, or been represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums: No sign of anything out of that list.

I see no strong reason to change my suggestion. As to the fact that the article was curated by a single-purpose account ten years ago, that's just a collateral consideration. -The Gnome (talk) 11:59, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not especially well-versed in the application of WP:DIRECTOR #3, especially in the key issue of how "significant" is defined, so I don't want to come across as stubborn, but I believe Diyar-e-dil is "significant" enough. Criterium #3 does not state that everything with multiple independent reviews is "significant" per se, but it doesn't provide any better metric, so by my subjective analysis I think Diyar-e-dil clears the bar.

Going off of its Wikipedia article: Diyar-e-dil had reasonably high ratings in the world's fifth-largest country (FWIW the "rank" values in the article cannot be verified from the provided links). It got quite a few thorough (and incidentally positive) reviews outside of listicles. It even won some of the Lux Style Awards, which are not only independent, but also seem to be the most significant awards a TV show can win in Pakistan. I understand that it may not seem like much, but this begs the question of what more could it reasonably have achieved as a TV show in Pakistan?

WP:DIRECTOR specifically requires only one of the four criteria to be met, indicated by the or after each item. As for "[it] has since sunk without a trace", WP:DIRECTOR #3 seems not to require that its coverage or fame be lasting, unless there is some precedent or practice that I am unaware of. As for the "major role" part, I think it's hard to see how the director is not a major role, which is backed up by his also being nominated for a Lux Award [6]. I am honestly surprised by how strongly I'm defending this show and its director, but I think there's enough evidence for doing so. Toadspike (talk) 07:06, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The reviews provided by Toadspike appear to be the multiple independent periodical articles or reviews that WP:DIRECTOR #3 demands. Pilaz (talk) 14:23, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 06:43, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Niles, North Dakota[edit]

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

Another ND GNIS stub which turns out to have once been the location of a rail siding with a grain elevator beside it. There's nothing there now, and no evidence of a town surrounding the spot. Mangoe (talk) 22:15, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: North Dakota and Geography. A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 06:25, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This locale is only notable at the (very) local level, if that.TH1980 (talk) 00:01, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP

Place shows evidence from secondary sources.

Grain and Feed Journals Consolidated. Volume 11 1903 page 585.

Niles, N.D. -- The Farmers' Independent Eltr. Co has been sued by the G.N. Ry. to stop the construction of the elevator which is being built on the station grounds of the railway company without its permission.

North American Locomotives: A Railroad-by-Railroad Photohistory page 125

An A-B-A set of passenger F3s lead the eastward Western Star at Niles, North Dakota, on June 29, 1953. (showing picture of train and rural town behind, proving inhabited)

बिनोद थारू (talk) 02:04, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In the photo, it looks like a barn, not a town. Magnolia677 (talk) 13:32, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:20, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No information available; references above are passing mentions that only establish existence (which is not the same as notability) and that it was once populated, which also is not notability. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 01:46, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WNA stated, evidence does not equate to notability. ArcAngel (talk) 02:49, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. WP:GEOLAND policy.

"Populated, legally recognized places are typically presumed to be notable, even if their population is very low. Even abandoned places can be notable, because notability encompasses their entire history. Census tracts, Abadi, and other areas not commonly recognized as a place (such as the area in an irrigation district) are not presumed to be notable. The Geographic Names Information System and the GEOnet Names Server do not satisfy the "legal recognition" requirement and are also unreliable for "populated place" designation.[1][2]"

The legal recognition is given by the lawsuit happening in "Niles, ND", mentioned in the historical source above. So, this satifies WP:GEOLAND, leading to keep.

A railway station does not meet the criteria of "populated". Magnolia677 (talk) 13:34, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak keep~~ - This source says the BTR grain elevator facility "sits on the old Niles townsite", but that's all I could find to indicate this was ever a populated place. Magnolia677 (talk) 13:46, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Change to Keep, per User:RecycledPixels comments below. Magnolia677 (talk) 10:50, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Per WP:GEOLAND. The 1906 Minnesota. North and South Dakota and Montana gazetteer and business directory by R. L. Polk available here lists Niles, Benson county, on page 680 of the digital copy. It says: Niles. Benson county. A discontinued p o and flag station on the G N Ry, 27 miles n w of Devils Lake, 18 n of Minnewauken the county seat, and 4 1/2 e of Leeds, the bank location. Send mail to Leeds and which see for names. Looking at the directory for Leeds, which is on page 546 of that digital copy, I see a business listing for "McCabe Bros, grain elevator (Niles)" and under Page & Co., there is "Roy Parsons agt grain elevator (Niles)". That's the only business listings for Niles, but it suggests that Niles was recognized as a named settlement, with enough of a population of enough people to support a grain elevator and an agent. The 1880 and 1888 directories by the same publisher does not list Niles in the Dakota Territory directory (but not Leeds, either). A 1910 Department of the Interior General Land Office map of the State of North Dakota by Eckert Litho Co., available here (you probably need a free FamilySearch account to access it) shows the town of Niles a few miles east of Leeds. Also on the 1903 map here, but not on the 1889 or 1892 maps. RecycledPixels (talk) 23:05, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@RecycledPixels: Which of the sources states "with enough of a population"? Did any of the sources specifically mention that this was ever a populated place? Magnolia677 (talk) 23:33, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

None of those did, other than the mention in the gazetteer that if you want to send mail to people in Niles, mail it to Leeds because the post office in Niles is closed. I did a search on Newspapers.com through the Devils Lake Inter-Ocean newspaper and found enough snippets to confirm it was a populated place, such as August 24, 1906, page 3. "Harry Thompson of Lansing, Iowa arrived Thursday. He is interested with Mr. Bakewell in the town of Niles and will remain until the harvest season is over", or March 29, 1901, page 6, "Rocky Anderson, of Niles, has been down for a few days visit with old friends", or March 23, 1900, page 8 "E.B. Page, of Niles, Benson county, was shaking hands with this Churchs Ferry friends here Wednesday. He says he has to come here at least once a month and always hauls away a wagon load of supplies. Mr Page is paying considerable attention to the raising of hogs, finding it a very paying investment.". The other Devils Lake newspaper, the Devils Lake World, has snippets like "[...] A few weeks ago Montgomery paid an election wager to Elling Tufte, of Niles when he started to wheel the latter from Leeds to Niles in a wheelbarrow. [...]" on page 5 of the January 11, 1922 edition (I didn't re-type the whole blurb because it was wordy and not very interesting), or "Elevator burned: Niles, N.D., Oct. 21-- The Independent elevator here burned to the ground yesterday morning. Considerable grain was destroyed." on page 8 of the October 27, 1911 paper. Recall from above that Devils Lake is a community located 27 miles south of Niles. Newspapers.com doesn't have any archives of papers from Minnewauken or Leeds, which are the other nearby towns. But it does have a German-language (in German gothic typeface, no less) paper from Rugby, up the Great Northern Railway from Niles in adjacent Pierce county. On page 4 of the July 1, 1909 paper, there's an article that describes a tornado that hit the area around Leeds and Niles. Mrs. Weiler, who lives near the small Niles train station, lost her assets in the storm. Two and a half miles south of Niles, the Urness family farmhouse was demolished and Mrs. Urness suffered life-threatening injuries. A couple of counties away to the northeast is the town of Langdon. The Courier Democrat on May 2, 1901 on page 6 has the local weather forcasts for the surrounding counties. In Benson counties, weather reports are given for Pleasant Lake, Niles, Leeds, and Brinsmade. (cold with frosty night and the top two inches of ground were frozen in Pleasant Lake, in case you were wondering). The Grand Forks Herald, a paper published tree counties to the East, mentions in its January 3, 1922 paper on page 7, "... An interesting trip that would give some idea of the work of the highway commission would be one over the Theodore Roosevelt Trail through Nelson and Ramsey counties to Niles in Benson county, then south through Benson county over the state highwat to Sheyenne...". At this point, I've stopped looking further. RecycledPixels (talk) 00:29, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per User:RecycledPixels and WP:GEOLAND. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:58, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I see either closing this discussion as No consensus or relisting it for another week and I'm choosing the latter. As always, this discussion can be closed as soon as another closer sees a consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:05, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source assessment for the three sources I could access:

Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Source assessment table: prepared by User:PaulGamerBoy360
GNIS		This Location was enterred into the GNIS In 1980, The GNIS was not corrupted in 1980	148 Words, Partially Significant Coverage	✔ Yes
Hometown Locator	Independent of Subject	Well Known & Up to Date Website Containing Reliable information	~ Partially: Contains 2 Sentences of information about Niles, and lists nearby locations as well as a map	~ Partial
Source 3	Independent of Subject	~ Accuracy is Not Guaranteed	5 scentences & a map	✘ 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}}.

PaulGamerBoy360 (talk) 00:25, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

also found this source: https://roadsidethoughts.com/nd/niles-xx-benson-profile.htm PaulGamerBoy360 (talk) 17:35, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per GEOLAND. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 14:15, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
comments re source reliability and news mentions First, GNIS is not a reliable source on the nature of a location. If it says something is a "populated place", all that means is that there is some evidence of human activity there, but the variety of things it dignifies with a name is wide and often contains outright mistakes— click through the link for a list of some of the more amusing/egregious examples. Fourth class post offices and rail passing sidings (which all have station names in the US) almost always have names on the maps, even though they quite frequently are just a house or a store or a station building and nothing else. There's every reason to believe that Hometown Locator and its ilk are derivative of GNIS; at any rate, there's no evidence of their independence.

This brings me to the "person from" issue. I'm "from" Laurel, MD, except that I never lived in that city. I actually was born in DC (where I never lived) and lived in Silver Spring for a bit under a year; then we moved to a brand new suburb about five miles from Laurel. That's the problem: the fact that people are "from Niles" or the like only establishes Niles as a locale; it doesn't make it a town. All it really says is that people in the area, back when, went to the post office at the station to get their mail and send things off, and when RFD started in the area, it was where the wagon/truck set out from. We have doggedly said that locales have to pass a pretty high GNG-level notability test; just mentions and database entries don't cut it. Mangoe (talk) 00:30, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The GNIS is not reliable due to user generated content, which did not happed in 1980. PaulGamerBoy360 (talk) 17:26, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what you mean by "user generated content" (because, mostly, there isn't any in GNIS) but you are quite incorrect about it having been fine in 1980. In fact most problems we've found can be traced back to that initial exercise in map-reading. More recent entries from other sources besides the topos are quite a bit worse, but they made plenty of mistakes in the first pass. Mangoe (talk) 05:08, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. NGEO is a rebuttable presumption of notability. Policy says articles cannot be based on primary sources, and so far every single source identified that could support an assertion of being a "populated place" is primary (or primary and autogenerated SPS garbage like the "roadside thoughts" site, which asserts When the people of Niles refer to themselves (known as a demonym), they frequently use Nilesite). There is zero reason this possibly-populated grain elevator needs to be a standalone article, so if the fact that we haven't actually established it even meets NGEO at all isn't enough then my !vote can be considered based on NOPAGE.

JoelleJay (talk) 04:56, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I completely agree with JoelleJay. There has been no clear evidence in a secondary source that states without a doubt that Niles was populated. Although RecycledPixels did some very admirable work in searching through newspaper databases, none of the articles gave a population figure for Niles or anything of the like. Per WP:PST, we cannot *interpret* primary sources to mean anything beyond what they say: "Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation". Until someone produces a secondary source that states in no uncertain terms that Niles was populated, we cannot prove that it meets WP:GEOLAND, and the article should be deleted. Toadspike (talk) 09:47, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. While there's no consensus on whether this ought to be a separate article, there seems to be no wish for it to be outright deleted. Discussion on whether and where to merge can, of course, be continued outside of AfD. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 06:45, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Preaching chords[edit]

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

According to my WP:BEFORE, non-notable (fails WP:GNG). Previously de-prodded. (The term is real, but appears only as passing mentions, e.g. this PhD diss and the sources in the article.) Should potentially be redirected to Black sermonic tradition as an ATD. Suriname0 (talk) 23:00, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Arts, Music, Religion, Christianity, and United States of America. Suriname0 (talk) 23:00, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Courtesy pings to article contributors: User:Natemup, User:Geo Swan, User:North8000, User:Write Serum, User:IntellectualChristianWikiUser Suriname0 (talk) 23:03, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

keep: Referenced in many books, articles, videos, and literally has its own Google infobox (https://g.co/kgs/zHnmxr). There are entire websites and phone applications dedicated to the topic. natemup (talk) 23:10, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is not a !vote on whether it should be deleted or not, but it probably has it's own google infobox because it has a Wikipedia article, so it's kind of circular to say we should keep it for that reason. Jahaza (talk) 02:27, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep: I'm finding a lot of references to it in informal instructional guides, so it's a notable subject—but we need a reliable source that defines for it to be suitable for an article. Natemup, do you mind adding some additional RSs in this AfD, I think I could firmly vote for keep. ~ Pbritti (talk) 00:49, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Added some sources. natemup (talk) 01:30, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Thanks for adding some references, natemup. Unfortunately, it doesn't look to me like any of these sources discuss preaching chords directly and in depth. (In other words, they don't contain WP:SIGCOV and/or original research is needed to understand their relevance to preaching chords.) I only had access to the Google Books previews for the book sources, so I may have missed an explicit discussion of preaching chords: providing a brief quote and page number from the sources that discusses preaching chords would be helpful so others can evaluate they extent of coverage in the sources you added. A more meta comment: the guideline we use to determine if a topic is suitable for a stand-alone Wikipedia article is WP:GNG. A topic that is "referenced in many books, articles, and videos" should be covered on Wikipedia, but if it doesn't meet WP:GNG it should be covered in a more general article instead, e.g. in Black sermonic tradition or Gospel music or similar. Suriname0 (talk) 16:13, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ Alternatively the content and definition and sourcing could be merged to Call and response (music) It's basically a term for a subset of Call and Response music, and so much of the sourcing for Call and Response could be considered as available sourcing for this article. The definition and comment and sourcing for this article should not be lost. I 'spose merging all of that to the Call and response (music) is a possibility. If that is decided I'd be happy to do the merge if pinged. But as a minimum, the content and definition and sourcing absolutely should be preserved. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 19:05, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi User:North8000, it's clear that everyone in this discussion favors keeping this content. What's not clear to me from your vote is whether you favor keeping this content as a stand-alone article or merging it elsewhere. In particular, do you think this topic meets WP:GNG? Thanks! Suriname0 (talk) 19:11, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
My first choice is an outright keep and I consider a careful & preserving merge to be an OK and close second choice. I didn't comment on GNG separately. North8000 (talk) 19:19, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for clarifying. WP:DISCUSSAFD says "please do not make recommendations on the course of action to be taken that are not sustained by arguments". Since you favor a keep over a merge, would you mind speaking directly to whether the topic meets WP:GNG? Or, can you explain why meeting WP:GNG is not relevant in this case? Thanks! Suriname0 (talk) 19:31, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

After additional consideration, my first choice would be a careful merge and my second choice would be keep. I'd be happy to help on a merge if pinged. North8000 (talk) 03:47, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't find any usable sources while searching the exact phrase "preaching/preacher chords", but I got better results running more generic searches; I get the sense that "preaching chords" is a popular term that hasn't been picked up by academics, who instead just call it "instrumentation" or "musical accompaniment". The best source I found was Brooks, "The Sound of Celebration" (JSTOR 10.5323/48581552), which covers the subject in considerable depth (see especially pages 26 and 35–39). Unfortunately, that's the only source I found that I believe meets SIGCOV. While there's a lot of discussion of the vocal aspects of "whooping"-style sermons, the instrumentation generally only gets mentioned in passing. The second-best source I found was Williams, "Sermon and Song", page 91, which describes the co-operation between preacher and organist but still keeps the organist firmly in the background. Other sources simply mention that preachers are often accompanied by a Hammond organ and say little more about it.
I think the best outcome here would be a redirect to Black sermonic tradition. Even if the concept of "preaching chords" is notable, it would make more sense to discuss it in the context of whooping sermons, about which a lot more could (and should) be written. I'm suggesting a redirect rather than a merge because I don't think the sources currently in the article are really any good for verification, which means that most of the content is effectively unsourced. The E. Dewey Smith quote could maybe be merged, but that's about it. I don't agree with North8000's suggestion to merge into Call and response (music), firstly because that article has a very wide scope and I don't see how this content would fit into it, and secondly because I don't believe it's true to say that preaching chords are a subset of call and response music – as I understand it, it is the preacher and the congregation who engage in call and response, not the instrumentalist. Sojourner in the earth (talk) 21:38, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, some solid Keeps and a Redirect/Merge suggestion to two different articles so we are not close to consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:02, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or redirect to Black sermonic tradition: Granted the refs aren't that good (and ref 1 is a deadlink) but subject matter seems notable as per WP:GNG. We need to give editors time to find good sources. CVDX (talk) 22:17, 29 September 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. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:26, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Philip Conkling[edit]

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

Non-notable author / businessman. Created by a SPA in 2007. Natg 19 (talk) 22:17, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Businesspeople, United States of America, and Maine. Natg 19 (talk) 22:17, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I moved this article after creating the AfD, as the person may not use his middle name. Natg 19 (talk) 22:22, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - was doubtful but seems to have enough coverage including 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, etc. to suggest notability. There is more but I stopped looking. - Indefensible (talk) 04:57, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:38, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, appears notable per the sources found where the subject received significant coverage. Noneate (talk) 17:14, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep notable scholar and academic with significant contribution to Island Studies.Vinegarymass911 (talk) 11:17, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A quick google search reveals a few sources that support notability, such as 1, and 2 Seawolf35 (talk) 15:31, 28 September 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!} 00:07, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sergem[edit]

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

From the limited sources online, it seems like sergem is a word that means 'offering'; could not find sources that this exists as the dairy product that is described here under provided spelling. Kazamzam (talk) 20:50, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Kazamzam (talk) 20:50, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sergem is a Dairy product, though not sure if the current page is accurate as the ref I have added shows it is a buttermilk ^[1]^[2]^[3] Davidstewartharvey (talk) 17:19, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your response. I am unable to view the page for the first reference, and I have my doubts about the reliability of both The Northeast Today as a site and Cheese for Dummies. The third reference only mentions sergem and Tibet once in a table - I don't think that meets the criteria for a quality reference to establish notability or determine the nature of the topic itself. Kazamzam (talk) 21:16, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:37, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Pure original work - that's also quite lazy. The links invoked above are inadequate: two passing mentions in books for dummies and about another subject altogether, plus a write-up about Chhurpi, which they misspell. There's very little here, practically nothing. -The Gnome (talk) 11:20, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:24, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of attacks on civilians attributed to United States government forces[edit]

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

WP:SYNTH and fails WP:NLIST. Per WP:NLIST, " list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources," which this list has not. Besides, the items here are covered with further depth and proper context in United States war crimes. Longhornsg (talk) 22:28, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Also, by the criteria specified, the Kent State shootings, the Waco siege and practically every police incident of note would have to be included. It also defines "government forces" as including NATO forces for some (non)reason. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:35, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military, Lists, and United States of America. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:40, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. This is clearly WP:SYNTH, and is an untenable topic for an article given the vague scope (the current content includes deliberate attacks authorised by the US government, accidents and unauthorised and criminal acts by individual military personnel). Including attacks by "North Atlantic Treaty Organization forces under U.S. control" is odd. The article also duplicates the superior United States war crimes article. Nick-D (talk) 01:01, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom and all of the above. The list is unwieldy and somewhat patchy too. TH1980 (talk) 01:26, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per nomination --Shrike (talk) 14:57, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with a bang; not a whimper. A list of atrocious uselessness. -The Gnome (talk) 11:21, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - A useful article might exist in just the military events that had significant civilian casualties, but the list as formulated is unworkable and unencyclopaedic. Cheers, Last1in (talk) 16:49, 26 September 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!} 00:08, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Executive actions of the CIA[edit]

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

WP:SYNTH and WP:POV article that..makes no sense anyway. Execution actions are executive orders, and already covered in well-sourced article such as Executive Order 11905, Executive Order 12036, etc. Specific events covered in country-specific articles such as Drone strikes in Pakistan. Longhornsg (talk) 22:22, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete None of the sources cited are about executive actions with regard to the CIA. The only source about executive actions, this CBS article [7], doesn't mention the CIA at all. The GNG has not been met. I think this is indeed a case of WP:SYNTH, and one taking up a fairly broad redirect Executive action, as well. If this article is indeed deleted, that redirect should be changed to point to Presidential directive, Executive order, or Executive Action (film), though the first one (Presidential directive) is probably most appropriate. Toadspike (talk) 10:01, 28 September 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 Afshar experiment. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:23, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Shahriar Afshar[edit]

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

Subject does not satisfy WP:NACADEMIC or WP:GNG. No faculty position, Web of Science gives 56 citations total. The main claim for fame is Afshar experiment which has historically had a disproportionately large impact in Wikipedia. But based on the low citation number, it has had no significant impact on the field and thus does not confer notability to the subject. Here is the version of the article before my edits and deletions. It has few more references (to minor awards and such). Those New Scientist refs can be read in Wikipedia library. Jähmefyysikko (talk) 22:00, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Science. Jähmefyysikko (talk) 22:00, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Afshar experiment. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:57, 21 September 2023 (UTC).[reply]

~~Keep~~Redirect I'm not a fan of Bio pages generally nor of self-promoters, but Wikipedia seems to have a low bar for both. I agree that the experiment is the sole source of notability, so a small scale merge would also be ok. The failure of Wikipedia to limit the scope of his experiment should not, in my opinion, weigh against his notability; that's our failing. Nor should our (low) opinion of the single experiment weigh against notability; we are not peer reviewers. I think he is notable because of the self-promotion and failing experiment. I don't think the article makes this clear, and the academic pushback should at least be referenceable. I don't think we should adjust the bar up for people whose work we don't agree with. Johnjbarton (talk) 23:29, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As @Ldm1954 notes the "Institute" does not show up on Google maps. The site is mostly dead. The startup site is just a picture. The Kor-FX was a Kickstarter project in 2014 when the Facebook account goes silent. They have a web site with product but it's unclear if the really still exist. If all of this info is removed as unreliable we are left with the Afshar exp already covered. Johnjbarton (talk) 01:57, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The article is also lacking reliable sources for biographical information. There are multiple interviews and articles, but the reporter has likely obtained the information from the subject himself. Due to the tendency for self-promotion, they are not very reliable. For example, 2004 New Scientist article tells that Afshar worked on Boston-based Institute for Radiation-Induced Mass Studies (IRIMS). I am not convinced such institute exists, except as a webpage. And in the APS article he is said to hold a faculty position in Rowan, although in reality he was a visiting professor. Jähmefyysikko (talk) 00:06, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Redirect I see no demonstration of notability. At a minimum the bar for a scientist should be that they would receive a tenured position at a major university, a national lab or a high profile position in industry. I see no evidence for this. His experiment can remain, but I see no rationale to defend this page.

Ldm1954 (talk) 00:33, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Adding, WP:NACADEMIC is perhaps higher than what I mentioned, although it is also not specific so has loopholes. Ldm1954 (talk) 00:38, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:41, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Afshar experiment. The experiment is (barely) notable, the person is not. He needed to have done something else to warrant an article, and apparently he didn't. See WP:BLP1E. Tercer (talk) 08:12, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This seems to be the most pertinent policy in this case. I agree with the redirect. Jähmefyysikko (talk) 11:37, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Afshar experiment: unremarkable case of a person known for only one thing which itself is barely remembered. XOR'easter (talk) 17:35, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as above, and add short biographical section. It's starting to WP:SNOW. -- Michael Scott Asato Cuthbert (talk) 21:23, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect: per WP:BLP we have to be extra careful.--ReyHahn (talk) 14:35, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Afshar experiment.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 17:57, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as above, with above WP:BLP admonitions well taken. -The Gnome (talk) 11:23, 26 September 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. Nomination withdrawn, no support for deletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:28, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Digital Music News[edit]

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

This is a terribly written article that fails WP:NCORP. Despite the large number of references, it's basically all WP:REFSPAM, where DMN is passingly mentioned, but there is no significant coverage. There is no in-depth coverage as far as I can see. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:19, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw I intend to cleanup this article once this AfD is closed. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:42, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism, Music, and United States of America. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:19, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:NOTCLEANUP. Yes, the article is written badly (sorry Pi314m, but your prose almost reads like a punched card). While someone really needs to come in with a shovel and remove all of the WP:REFBOMBing, WP:NCORP says, ... please consider whether they have had any significant or demonstrable effects on culture, society, entertainment .... From sources like NPR and The Atlantic it seems that this outlet led by Paul Resnikoff has indeed been able to do things like persuading streaming platforms to excise certain content from their platforms, with all of the cultural fallout that entails. I would argue that this coverage has been borderline significant, since they seem to attach weight to what the owner of this outlet thinks and has accomplished. I can't check the NYT refs, so I don't know to what extent they are passing references, as is Newsweek, but I assume that this is just enough for a WP:NBASIC profile. StonyBrook _babble 01:34, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the references on the article show the subject does indeed have some notability. - Indefensible (talk) 05:53, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:14, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: From the sources provided here, this subject clearly does pass WP:BASIC. User:Let'srun 20:31, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but needs an ambitious editor to cleanup the machine gun prose. See WP:OVERCITE Lightburst (talk) 00:41, 22 September 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 Jack Ketchum. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:22, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ladies' Night (novel)[edit]

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

Tagged for notability since 2010. Fails WP:NBOOK and WP:GNG. Perhaps redirect to Jack Ketchum? - UtherSRG (talk) 18:46, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. UtherSRG (talk) 18:46, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:13, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to author. I am not seeing any sources that would pass GNG or NBOOK. The entire article is plot summary and there is no evidence of notability. ‡ El cid, el campeador ^talk 20:58, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect seems ideal in this case. Couldn't see any worthy reviews. scope_creep^Talk 07:37, 22 September 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 Los Angeles crime family (tentatively, in any case). The consensus is clear that this should not be a standalone article, and as it appears at this time that Cohen crime family is headed for a merge result as well, it would not make sense to do the work twice. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 06:48, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of Cohen crime family members[edit]

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

Totally unsourced, and no sources appear to exist to indicate that such a "crime family" ever existed. These people certainly existed, but their membership in a supposed "crime family" is at best dubious. Note that the main article Cohen crime family has been nominated for deletion on the same grounds at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cohen crime family Coretheapple (talk) 16:06, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people, Crime, California, and Nevada. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:17, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Cohen crime family, both created by User:HomG. Same crime family, except the list has no sources at all. — Maile (talk) 00:02, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Los Angeles crime family under the section about Jack Dragna. This so-called family appears to have arisen as a result of a falling out between Dragna and Mickey Cohen when Bugsy Siegel was killed. Also, both Siegel and Cohen were working for the New York mafia, so their West Coast operations is more like a branch office. - Cameron Dewe (talk) 22:15, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Two different Merge targets suggested, one of which, Cohen crime family, is also at AFD.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:07, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment While I don't think this should be kept per WP:REDUNDANTFORK, the nomination should have waited till the outcome of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cohen crime family, since a 3rd merge/redirect target has been identified there at Mickey Cohen. Greater clarity about what to do here will be obtained once that discussion closes. StonyBrook _babble 15:51, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
True, but my feeling was that this article warranted deletion on its own lack of merits. Coretheapple (talk) 12:52, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Point well taken. However, in the interest of preserving the flow of information here, a delete would prevent this from being housed in Category:Lists of criminals, Category:Organized crime members by organization and Category:Organized crime-related lists. StonyBrook _babble 01:24, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nor should it be, as this was an arbitrary list concocted by Wikipedia editors without any basis in sourcing. Coretheapple (talk) 13:59, 24 September 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. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 06:50, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

2023 Brownsville crash[edit]

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

Non-notable news story in violation of WP:NOTNEWS: underwent a brief burst of coverage with WP:RSBREAKING sources, which does not count toward WP:GNG or WP:SUSTAINED. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 16:05, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime, Events, and Texas. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 16:05, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as NOTNEWS and failing SUSTAINED EvergreenFir (talk) 16:08, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:46, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. 8 dead, 10 injured in this ramming. Extensive coverage. Way too early for the claim that this is not sustained. The experience with similar events, however, is that these are sustained. gidonb (talk) 14:30, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Gidonb, the number of dead people related to an article is not relevant when weighing notability, and I don't know what you think that has to do with this. Breaking news sources do not count toward extensive coverage. Hypothetical future sources do not count toward sustained coverage. Your !vote currently has no policy-based argument toward keeping. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 22:47, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

At the time and to date, there was breaking news and there was more WP:SUSTAINED coverage. For example, there was a comprehensive analysis of the event that appeared 16 days later in the New York Times [8] and an item on Texas Public Radio 2.5 months after the event.[9] The extensive and sustained coverage makes that the article meets the WP:GNG with the caveat that only 4 months have passed since this apparent attack on Latino homeless in the US. Hence the comment that it is Way too early for the claim that this is not sustained. The experience with similar events, however, is that these are sustained. Moreover, the sustained coverage is already evident. Also, while it is true that all the sources IN the article appeared from May 7 to May 9, per WP:NEXIST, Notability is based on the existence of suitable sources, not on the state of sourcing in an article. gidonb (talk) 00:00, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Venezuela-related deletion discussions. gidonb (talk) 05:48, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Unlike events in the United States such as mass shootings, an attack against a migrants shelter is a lot more uncommon, not to mention the amount of deaths and injured. --NoonIcarus (talk) 09:44, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

To complement on gidonb's articles: as recently as August, there have been articles covering the crash after the release of the toxicology report results,[10], after a ramming in North Carolina,[11][12] and during the anniversary of El Paso mass shooting.[13] There has definitely been WP:SUSTAINED coverage. --NoonIcarus (talk) 20:06, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The NYTimes and Texas Public Radio article provided by Gidonb should demonstrate that there is coverage even after the initial news cycle. S5A-0043^Talk 12:50, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:06, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This nomination is not well-rooted in fact and policy. Sure, policies are quoted, yet their application is in error. The nomination looked no further than the references in the article and is in defiance of the golden WP:NEXIST rule. gidonb (talk) 02:59, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep because there was in fact sustained coverage as demonstrated by Gidonb, it's just that the nominator didn't bother to look for it. CVDX (talk) 22:31, 29 September 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!} 20:17, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lisa Gable[edit]

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

Fails WP:BIO. Sources cited are mostly interviews, plus some obvious paid puff pieces. She has some impressive-sounding titles, but has so far had only what appear to be minor presidential appointments, as a delegate, a vice-chair of a committee, and "U.S. Ambassador to Expo 2005". That's not a diplomatic role, or an ambassadorship: for context, BTS are South Korea's ambassadors to the 2030 Expo.

In a WP:BEFORE search, I can't find any significant secondary coverage of her, or her book, and WP:NAUTHOR isn't met. All I can find is a large pile of self-promotion and interviews, where she describes herself as a "former US ambassador".

Lisa Guillermin Gable was speedy deleted twice in 2017 and 2018 as spam, and was part of WP:Sockpuppet investigations/BrookeCook/Archive. The edit history of this one so far has a powerful aroma of sockpuppetry about it. Wikishovel (talk) 12:46, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Authors, and Women. Wikishovel (talk) 12:46, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I'm not finding anything which would count as RS covering this person. Happy to reconsider if someone can offer sources. JMWt (talk) 13:28, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The President of the United States directly appoints a US Commissioner to the World EXPO with the designation of US Ambassador. here are others that have held this position: Doug Hickey Tony Coelho.Terry McAuliffe 148.59.230.158 (talk) 20:55, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and probably SALT both namespaces. Doesn't meet GNG standards in terms of sourcing. Best, GPL93 (talk) 00:55, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Here are links to White House and State Department press releases provide documentation of positions held. Is this what you need? https://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/2004/08/20040809-12.html

https://2001-2009.state.gov/r/pa/prs/ps/2007/february/80959.htm

https://www.wsj.com/articles/bestselling-books-week-ended-october-9-11634239435

https://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/2002/04/text/20020412-5.html 148.59.230.158 (talk) 20:43, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Press releases are not references that lend towards notability because they are not independent coverage. Additionally, none of the positions held confer notability. Of the examples mentioned are notable because of other things, although honestly Doug Hickey's article does not have particularly strong sourcing and even being a real US Ambassador does not guarantee notability. Best, GPL93 (talk) 15:22, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A statement by the President of the United States should not be mistaken for a mere press release; rather, it represents the official appointment of a critical role through which the President exercises his authority.

The individual in this position signs a bilateral agreement on behalf of the United States and other nations and officially represents the US with the heads of state and sovereigns from 120 countries. Japan's operation under this role involved over 72 personnel and served approximately 2 million visitors at the Pavilion. Notably, 19 state delegations, 16 led by governors, signed manufacturing agreements that directly led to billions of dollars in foreign direct investment. These achievements are documented in a report submitted to Congress and were recognized on the floor of the Senate. The U.S. presence at the Aichi World EXPO amounted to a $32 million operation and remained one of the most extensive public-private partnerships within the U.S. government. World's fair

It's worth emphasizing that the position of Vice Chair of the Defense Advisory Committee on Women in the Services holds a 4-star protocol status and reports directly to both the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the Secretary of Defense visiting over 50 military bases worldwide representing the office of the Secretary. This particular role advised the Secretary of Defense on the fallout from Tailhook, the most significant sexual harassment scandal in the US military, a "notable" item covered in Wikipedia.

Observing the underrepresentation of women at this level within Wikipedia is disheartening. This commentary underscores the apparent bias against women in the review process and a deficiency in recognizing the significance of positions within the United States government as designated by the President.

Wikipedia features numerous minor officials within the United States government. However, it is puzzling that the only woman to assume a presidentially named ambassadorial role, after a 172-year gap, as a direct representative of the United States to the royal family of Japan and the Prime Minister is deemed not to meet the notability criteria. Caeser2023 (talk) 02:57, 20 September 2023 (UTC)— Caeser2023 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

She has worked with notable people, at a notable expo and on a notable committee, but on Wikipedia, notability is not inherited. The expo report submitted to Congress linked above is written by Gable. What's needed to demonstrate WP:Notability is multiple independent, WP:Secondary sources about her and her work. Wikishovel (talk) 05:08, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Below find notable sources, including WSJ, NYT, Washington Post, Japan Times, Politico, the Congressional Record, and White House Archives.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/bestselling-books-week-ended-october-9-11634239435

https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CREC-2005-05-10/pdf/CREC-2005-05-10-pt1-PgS4865.pdf https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2004/08/13/business/u-s-names-aichi-expo-commissioner/

https://www.nytimes.com/2004/11/04/garden/design-diplomacy-us-rejoins-worlds-fairs.html

https://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/2006/06/text/20060629-11.html

https://uncommonwealth.virginiamemory.com/blog/2022/05/18/enormous-opportunities-governor-mark-r-warners-2005-trade-mission-to-japan-and-india/https://www.politico.com/story/2014/01/food-companies-calories-michelle-obama-101982

https://www.politico.com/story/2014/01/food-companies-calories-michelle-obama-101982

https://www.wsj.com/articles/career-makeover-stepping-up-to-lead-1383089206

https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/food-allergies-poor-children/2020/10/30/faadfe74-14ab-11eb-bc10-40b25382f1be_story.html

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/07/health/coronavirus-food-allergies.html Caeser2023 (talk) 18:50, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: An assessment of recently discovered sources would be useful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:04, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Most of the new sources are viewable by subscription only, but their titles suggest they are not about her. Lots of less-than-notable positions and no reviews of her book Turnaround: How to Change Course When Things are Going South. Claimed to be "five-time award-winning" on her website, but no details provided. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:49, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

For the paywalled ones, I was able to search "Gable" before the wall went up. Most appear to be 1-2 passing mentions and not significant coverage on Gable herself. Best, GPL93 (talk) 12:37, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The one possible exception from the new links is the short speech in the US Congressional Record [14], apparently by her Senator, thanking her and praising the job she did as Commissioner General to the Expo. In US politics, do these statements carry significant weight in assessing notability? Or are they throwaway political favours, like here in the UK? Either way, we still don't yet have WP:SIGCOV from "multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject". Wikishovel (talk) 13:10, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Wikishovel: I would say not a ton notability-wise. A lot of notable people obviously have had recognition entered into the Congressional Record, but it's more Members of Congress recognizing constituents or as a favor like in the UK. For example, a similar short speech was given and entered into the record for a relative of mine upon his retirement as a police officer for a suburban township of about 50,000 people. It looks like this is one of many additional statements submitted on May 10, 2005, which include recognizing an Indiana high school receiving honorable mention (10th overall) in the We the People: The Citizen and the Constitution finals and the 75th anniversary of a local Wyoming VFW Post. Best, GPL93 (talk) 14:21, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination, though with prejudice. Subject fails the criteria. And the fact that the article was put up by an account used to just create two articles, one for a diplomat and another, this one, for a businesswoman, does not help much. -The Gnome (talk) 11:33, 26 September 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 Argentina–Brazil football rivalry as a primary merge target, though this of course does not forbid merging elsewhere in addition should anyone feel that it's appropriate. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 06:52, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Copa 50imo Aniversario de Clarín[edit]

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

Similar case to Copa Raúl Colombo. Lack of Wikipedia:Notability. This "cup" was not a tournament or recurring sports event but just a friendly match between Brazil and Argentina with no significative historic relevance for any of them.

Although this article has several reliable sources, most of them refer to the Clarín newspaper (main sponsor) and the presence of forward Tulio Maravilha (who had scored a goal with his hand in the 1995 Copa América – source: here) rather than the match itself.

This page could be merged into Argentina national football team results (1980–1999) which lists all the matches of the side during that period. Fma12 (talk) 19:22, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football, Argentina, and Brazil. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:36, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 10:08, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Alternatively merge/redirect to Argentina–Brazil football rivalry. Giant Snowman 10:11, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge selectively into Argentina–Brazil football rivalry. The match itself doesn't pass WP:GNG, but merge an redirect to general rivalry article is fine, and similar to the recent AFD for 150th Anniversary Heritage Match, which was also a non-notable friendly match. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:36, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Part merge and redirect per Joseph. I also feel that prose should be added to Argentina national football team results (1980–1999) about the match, the article is pretty barren on prose. Govvy (talk) 13:11, 22 September 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) •Cyberwolf• 17:39, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

TJ Storment[edit]

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

Non-notable player. Fails the general and biographical notability policies. - UtherSRG (talk) 19:07, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Sportspeople, American football, United States of America, and North Carolina. UtherSRG (talk) 19:07, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know. The article is in really poor shape, which was the reason I didn't accept his submission at AFC - but Storment does appear to pass GNG with plenty of coverage: Fort Worth Star Telegram (p2) - again (p2) - again (p2); Statesville Record and Courier (again); Lubbock Avalanche-Journal; Dallas News, etc. – I know WP:DELETIONISNOTCLEANUP but this article is really in poor shape. BeanieFan11 (talk) 19:26, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'd easily accept draftificaiton as an WP:ATC. I just didn't want to take that unilateral action as it was already a draft. I also believe the primary author of the article is either Storment's wife, or Storment himself. - UtherSRG (talk) 23:05, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
He played college football for five teams in five years. I didn't think that was possible. Cbl62 (talk) 23:14, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

TJ Storment has had a significant football career in different leagues, like the NFL and XFL. His journey from being undrafted to playing for various teams is noteworthy. He also played for 5 university teams which is interesting to readers and fans.
His achievements are also diverse as a football player, poker player, and in Christian ministry.
I'd like to clarify that my contributions to the Wikipedia article about him are based solely on publicly available information from reputable sources. If you have any concerns or suggestions regarding the article's content, please feel free to share them, I am still learning how to create on this platform and am planning on more pages for athletes from leagues like the XFL. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Takswupdate2 (talk • contribs) 23:35, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:SIGCOV Lightburst (talk) 00:43, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:SIGCOV Themanwithnowifi (talk) 22:20, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep interesting career Patsfan1988 (talk) 18:02, 25 September 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!} 19:44, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Raza Mahmoudi[edit]

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

No evidence of meeting WP:GNG or even WP:SPORTBASIC #5. My WP:BEFORE search yielded no sources showing significant coverage, even when searching in his native language ("رضا محمودی"). Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:29, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Afghanistan. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:29, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:30, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 20:19, 21 September 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 Procedural generation. (non-admin closure) Actualcpscm^{scrutinize, talk} 19:21, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Random dungeon[edit]

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

Old, poorly-sourced stub that I think fails notability guidelines. There isn't even a page for procedural generation in video games, which is what this is a subset of, just a video game section in Procedural generation. Most of the results I got in searches for "random dungeon" contradict the article's assertion that this is primarily a video game phenomenon - outside sources mostly mentioned Dungeons & Dragons - but more importantly, the results were all for dungeon generation tools, not for anyone discussing the subject in and of itself. Random dungeons could be covered elsewhere, possibly roguelike if people want, but I don't think anything would be lost by deleting this page. Moonreach (talk) 18:05, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:16, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to procedural generation#Video games per WP:ATD. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 18:49, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I considered this, but the problem is that the concept of "random dungeon" also extends to tabletop games. I don't think there's a good, single redirection target for this. Moonreach (talk) 19:04, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The same article also has a subsection on tabletop games. XOR'easter (talk) 19:37, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'd feel okay with a redirect to the procedural generation page without the piped link; then the reader could decide what they're looking for. Part of me still thinks the whole subject of "random dungeon" is too obscure to even warrant a redirect, though. Moonreach (talk) 19:59, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think a redirect to procedural generation would be the best approach. Cowgod14 (talk) 01:15, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to procedural generation. Borders on a neologism, as extant usages of the term are as far as I can find just a way of describing dungeons that are randomised, not a standalone concept. ― novov (t c) 07:34, 22 September 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!} 19:35, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Marc Roca Barceló[edit]

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

I can find no information about this player except for databases, none of which provide anything apart from the fact that he was part of an Olympic team which finished 7th in 2016 - I can't even find out whether he even played. Black Kite (talk) 17:41, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Sportspeople. Black Kite (talk) 17:41, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Olympics and Spain. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:13, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not meet WP:SPORTCRIT/WP:NOLYMPICS. I am unable to find coverage. Lightburst (talk) 00:49, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A text posted up right after the player participated in the 2016 Olympics, an admirable feat for any athlete but one that does not convey instant Wiki-notability. Fails WP:GNG trivially, but also WP:WPOLO/N. -The Gnome (talk) 16:14, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The article does not meet the standard set forth in WP:SPORTSCRIT #5. Also, no SIGCOV is presented to show qualification under WP:GNG. Cbl62 (talk) 13:59, 27 September 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!} 19:35, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Pinkman[edit]

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

Tagged for notability since 2010. Fails the general and artist-specific notability policies. - UtherSRG (talk) 16:16, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Artists, and Japan. UtherSRG (talk) 16:16, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non notable artist. No sources found. WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 22:58, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Created mainly by a single-purpose account, this is no more than an attempt at getting to be more widely known through Wikipedia. Subject fails WP:GNG. -The Gnome (talk) 16:17, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, fails the specific criteria laid out at WP:ARTIST Seawolf35 (talk) 15:34, 28 September 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) Actualcpscm^{scrutinize, talk} 19:19, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Marilynne Paspaley[edit]

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

Tagged for notability since 2010. Fails the general, actor, and biographical notability policies. - UtherSRG (talk) 16:09, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, Businesspeople, and Australia. UtherSRG (talk) 16:09, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:22, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. In 2008 she received an Order of Australia so immediately satisfies WP:ANYBIO#1. The Paspaleys are a notable Australian family. I will endeavour to add more to the page but as noted, it already meets notability criteria. Cabrils (talk) 08:33, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but not because of the AM as it is lower on the list of Australian honours (nice summary), but based on coverage. National Library of Australia has a book of Biographical cuttings on Marilynne Paspaley, actress, containing one or more cuttings from newspapers or journals] and articles such as this. Cosic, Miriam (5 October 2000), "Pearl Queen - Marilynne Paspaley and the making of a Top End empire - Family jewel", The Australian Magazine is 3104 words and gives lots of details. Caccetta, Wendy (16 May 2010), "Queen of the Kimberley", STM Gloss Magazine is 1966 words, has lots of direct quotes but still good. Stage shows include God's Best Country which received 4 articles of coverage and more more the next year. And Falling From Grace which got 4 reviews plus this. this and this might be useful too. duffbeerforme (talk) 07:45, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sources supporting subject's notability, as already related above. Meets WP:GNG head on. -The Gnome (talk) 16:26, 26 September 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 OPTi Inc.#History. (non-admin closure) Actualcpscm^{scrutinize, talk} 19:18, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

OPTi 929[edit]

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

Tagged for notability since 2010. Fails general and product-specific notability policies. - UtherSRG (talk) 15:53, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Technology, and Computing. UtherSRG (talk) 15:53, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This might have gotten a review from PC/Computing, other than that there’s nothing but directories — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mach61 (talk • contribs) 02:06, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to OPTi Inc.#History as a valid search term. DigitalIceAge (talk) 18:36, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per DigitalIceAge. Redirects are cheap, the article subject is mentioned there and it is a plausible search term. Pavlor (talk) 05:05, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to List of television stations in North Carolina. (non-admin closure) Actualcpscm^{scrutinize, talk} 19:14, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WTNG-CD[edit]

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

Another non-notable LPTV; not much to go on (other than being sold to Bridge News) Mvcg66b3r (talk) 14:51, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and North Carolina. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 14:51, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Yep, there is nothing here to show this LPTV meets WP:GNG. Merely that the station exists does not correlate to it being notable. User:Let'srun 20:40, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of television stations in North Carolina Only thing they have notability for is packing fifteen subchannels onto one signal; that's (cursed) alchemy of some kind. It'll still be the same thing when Newsnet takes over. Nate • (chatter) 22:53, 21 September 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!} 02:31, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm Twenty Something[edit]

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

Lithuanian student's graduation film, a 20-minute short, apparently won (no RS on this in any case) best student film, a 'Golden Egg' and not the Silver Crane. In any case, it's not enough for WP:GNG or WP:NFILM - "The film is widely distributed and has received full-length reviews by two or more nationally known critics." or indeed any other WP:NFILM criterion. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 13:32, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Film, and Lithuania. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 13:32, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:17, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete - to me this is borderline. There ARE citations, but I'm doubtful that most could pass muster as reliable secondary sources, and none of them indicate sustained notability. Of note: references 1 and 10 are the same web page. Moonreach (talk) 20:08, 21 September 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) WJ94 (talk) 14:12, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Baliochila barnesi[edit]

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

Next to no information about this species to be found. This short article is about everything one can source. Griseo veritas (talk) 14:11, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. Griseo veritas (talk) 14:11, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This is a valid species under an accepted name, and has three RS citations.

awkwafaba (📥) 15:13, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:SPECIESOUTCOMES. Shellwood (talk) 16:18, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for linking this, it’s good to know. I tried in vain to find something pertaining to animals but obviously I didn’t look hard enough. Griseo veritas (talk) 06:25, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I was going to link SPECIESOUTCOMES, but it's already done. SchreiberBike | ⌨ 19:51, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
SNOW Keep per above. AryKun (talk) 13:31, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I've added a couple of citations to the article, including the protologue, which is linked to BHL. This link should show that there is much information that could be added to the article, contrary to the nom's assertion. Esculenta (talk) 14:40, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep! Why would we delete this species? Please read WP:SPECIESOUTCOMES. Jacona (talk) 20:06, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep duh Steven Walling • talk 06:45, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No need to be rude. Not everybody is as experienced with Wikipedia as you are, Steven. Griseo veritas (talk) 07:51, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We're all learning. Steven Walling • talk 04:44, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep given what I’ve learned from others input here and the existence of SPECIESOUTCOMES. Griseo veritas (talk) 08:19, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Consensus is that there is not a valid reason or need for deletion, but the list should probably be split as its current size significantly inhibits its usefulness. Details of that proposed split are best discussed on the talk page, they're not really a matter for AfD at this point. (non-admin closure) Actualcpscm^{scrutinize, talk} 19:12, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of Glagolitic manuscripts[edit]

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

By far the longest article on enwiki, an endless list of every minor scrap of paper with this script. Either needs very severe pruning to include e.g. only notable manuscripts, or complete scrapping as unwieldy, excessively detailed, WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Fram (talk) 13:32, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language, Literature, History, Lists, and Europe. Fram (talk) 13:32, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Yeah, this is a database dump, not a list. There is absolutely zero selectivity or encyclopaedic commentary. Large sections of it haven't been translated into English. I'm not opposed to a list of notable Glagolitic manuscripts, but you'd have to start that from scratch so I don't see the point in retaining this version. It's a shame, because someone's obviously put a lot of work into it, but they did so in the wrong place. – Joe (talk) 13:46, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
First, the size: it's a long list which is conveniently already broken up into several sections, so if it's a worthwhile list to have it's easy to just split it. Also, the reason it's such a large page (regardless of number of items) seems mostly because of the citations -- though it appears they're intended not just as citations but as a list of resources. e.g. Bibliography: [69][70][71][72][73][74][75][76][77][78][79][80][81][82][83][84][8][85][86][87][88][89][90][91][92][93][94][95][96][97][98][99][100][101][102][103][104][105][106][107][108][20][109][22][110][1][111][112][113][114][24][65] (!!!). That's, um, a bit much. It's worth noting, too, that this is the way it looked at the beginning of the year. About 1.2 MB of content was added since then. It certainly wasn't a list of notable examples before, so presumably it just continued down the same road? More on that below.
It doesn't seem like anyone's challenging whether it's an appropriate topic for a list (WP:SALAT/WP:NLIST), and indeed that's probably a given since it's a subject of obvious interest to anyone studying Slavic language/culture/history.
It's a list, so we don't actually need to include much "encyclopedic commentary" (referencing the comment above), but actually there is a ton of information in here compared to typical Wikipedia lists, e.g. Codex Zographensis. Folios 41-57 are a palimpsest of an earlier Glagolitic manuscript, part of whose text was published in Cyrillic transcription by Dobrev 1971. Partial facsimile in Jagić 1879, reprinted Graz 1954. Hand Zog-2 is dated 1046–1081, in contrast to the earlier parts. Transcription at TITUS, CCMH. is what immediately precedes the citebomb I pasted above. The author is clearly a librarian/archivist.
Then there's the inclusion criteria: exhaustive lists and lists of notable examples are both possible per WP:CSC. This is where my lack of knowledge comes in and why I'm not !voting at this time. Is an exhaustive list realistic? Are all known Glagolitic manuscripts documented and thus possible to include? If so, what kind of numbers are we talking about? Is this list already exhaustive, or is this a tiny fraction?
If this list is already exhaustive or nearly exhaustive, then I'd be tending towards keeping. Notability: check; inclusion criteria: check; ability to resolve issues like size, citations, style, etc. by editing/splitting rather than deletion: check.
If the list isn't exhaustive and/or the subject is not something it's possible to cover in an exhaustive way, that's when things get harder. Thinking about the reasons someone might be looking for a list like this, I don't know how useful a list of just notable examples would be (which isn't to say Wikipedia's policies wouldn't allow it, of course). If it came to that, I'd probably be inclined to suggest doing something else with this work before shrinking it: maybe sending it over to WikiBooks or perhaps it is a useful resource to retain for a WikiProject. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:13, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- I apologise for the mess. The long citation chains are not permanent. Anything covered in detail by that many sources deserves a standalone article or section, so the citations will be moved to the bibliography, keeping only the most important for the list. Most of the details can be deleted or relegated to footnotes once I have checked for duplicate entries. The parts that have not been translated into English are names and "names", without which there would be even more duplicates. My offline copy is in the process of being split. That is why I have not updated the page for months.
  Depending on how one counts, there are about 4000 manuscripts. But many of these have been collected in boxes or bound in fascicles and codices, so they will be merged. Most have been described, and most of those that have not are free folia in boxes in Zadar. There are already over 3000 on the list. You asked how useful a list of just notable examples would be? Most of the manuscripts from the 10th to the 15th century are notable on their own, and almost as many from the 16th century on are notable enough for a standalone article but the proportion decreases significantly. Many are in between standalone notability and section notability. For example, enough literature exists to write Glagolitic parish registers, but I doubt articles on individual parish registers would pass an AfD. Ivan (talk) 00:04, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but perhaps pare back. I agree with many of Rhododendrites' points, but I lean toward keep because a significant minority of the entries link to stand-alone Wikipedia pages. (This is unfortunately not obvious; it would be better to have the links with their full page names rather than abbreviations.) If the index as it stands is determined to be overkill, I would much rather see it pruned back to just these notable entries and retitled "List of notable Glagolitic manuscripts" rather than deleted entirely. I'm unfortunately not an expert on the subject and can't answer what I think are the core questions, which are whether such a list can be exhaustive and, if it can, whether this IS exhaustive. If this is everything, keep it. If it isn't - either because the list isn't finished or because it can't be - then pare it back to the manuscripts with stand-alone pages and either dump the rest or pass it on to some more specialized project. Moonreach (talk) 20:18, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Whatever decision is reached on this page should also be considered for List of Glagolitic printed works, a similarly large list on a related subject. Moonreach (talk) 20:29, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- I wish I had thought about placing the column with full page names second instead of with abbreviations earlier. On the other hand, some names are very long right now. I will make room for that when I delete the columns for folio count, folio size, columns x rows. Ivan (talk) 00:04, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Valid list. Deletion is not cleanup. First thing it needs is to be split. Srnec (talk) 20:26, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Judging by the talk page discussion the aim is to include all manuscripts. Various suggestions have been made there as to splitting the list by century, which would seem to address the major concern. I'm not seeing a deletion rationale. Espresso Addict (talk) 21:20, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This article is not ok. That's certain. But to delete it is just an extra step. All this information can be on wikipedia from what I have read of the article as it is notable enough to be mentioned in other articles and have various lists about the topic. Of course, the size of this article is not normal and it needs a huge scale-back. With that said, I am in favour of keeping the article (perhaps with a name change) to include notable scripts, and over time, spreading all the information on it arround related articles adding encyclopedic value to it. Lakwat (talk) 21:30, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Again, I apologise for the mess. A lot has changed since a friend and I began the list in 2017. But I do have a cleaning and splitting plan. It should be acceptable within about a year of our recent expansion. The list is notable and at least 10% of current entries are notable enough for standalone articles. Not every entry in a list has to be notable, but excessively long lists break the data dump rule. If this list were twice as long it would break it, but with about 4000 manuscripts in existence it merely "bends" it. Especially since many of those can be condensed into a single entry. Even split into separate articles for each decade, a List of Cyrillic manuscripts would be better off on WikiBooks, except for List of early Cyrillic manuscripts. But Glagolitic manuscripts are very rare, so the script itself makes the entries notable. At least notable enough to be listed. See List of New Testament minuscules (1–1000) for a similarly large corpus. Ivan (talk) 00:04, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (valid list) but split with extreme prejudice. My laptop cannot load the article. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 00:48, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree there's no point in using Wikipedia as a database. I don't think the table format is useful because some columns have very small bits of info while the notes are quite large, and it looks ugly even at a large desktop resolution. The linking is also inconsistent, I noticed how the Istrian Demarcation is not linked in the first instance but somewhere later, also with a weird pipe link. This should not be kept as is. --Joy (talk) 11:00, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Those columns will be deleted. They are there only to prevent the creation of duplicate entries. Ivan (talk) 11:58, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  Which columns? --Joy (talk) 15:21, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  "Folia", "Dimensions", "Columns and rows". Such information is good for infoboxes of independent articles on manuscripts but excessive for List of Glagolitic manuscripts. But sometimes it is the only information available to differentiate between similar entries in catalogues. Ivan (talk) 12:27, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
For the notes, most information will be transferred to standalone articles or relegated to footnotes. Ivan (talk) 12:31, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Split into discrete articles and turn this into a disamb. page. It seems like there's a general consensus to start doing that now? SN54129 11:56, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A disambiguation page would mean creating List of undated Glagolitic manuscripts, but because the split is by century, most manuscripts will eventually have a "date" and the page would eventually need to be deleted. So for now I prefer a reduction similar to List of New Testament lectionaries. Ivan (talk) 14:28, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Could also just spin out the longer sections (basically that would mean leaving the first few in this article, and creating separate articles for the last several). e.g. List of companies of the United States by state. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:38, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is a good idea. I would have to add the links to the standalone lists to the top, though (15th, 16th, 17th, 18th, late). To make navigation quicker. Ivan (talk) 20:14, 27 September 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!} 19:23, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This Window[edit]

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

Fails WP:NBAND. Theroadislong (talk) 13:18, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists, Bands and musicians, and Arts. Theroadislong (talk) 13:18, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I cannot find any RS (or really any independent sources) on this band, and they seem to be very obscure. From all that I can tell, fails GNG and NBAND. ‡ El cid, el campeador ^talk 14:23, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:23, 21 September 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. Notwithstanding some bludgeoning of this discussion, there is consensus that the article as written is in violation of WP:SYNTH and WP:NOR. Vanamonde (Talk) 03:26, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusion-making[edit]

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

A dogs-breakfast compilation based around the common word 'conclusion'. No single identifiable topic, as should be self-evident from the section headers and the sources cited. Wikipedia is not a repository of Google search results. AndyTheGrump (talk) 11:32, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Philosophy, Science, and Psychology. AndyTheGrump (talk) 11:32, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - No valid rationale for deletion has been provided (e.g. a link to a specific policy with a specific quote). This is a notable subject with WP:RS. It's about the processes, methods, and systems for making conclusions.

Maybe you got a little confused with the name, albeit it seems like for some unknown reason you in particular suggest nearly all articles I create for deletion (which I assume is allowed and I try to keep good faith). It's not "a repository of Google search results"; it's about (the making of) conclusions which is a substantial and notable subject in various fields such as procedures in academic literature or AI.

Prototyperspective (talk) 11:45, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Which single source amongst the many you cite suggests that 'conclusion-making' is a single defined topic encompassing everything from the 'conclusions' section of a scientific paper, to science education, medical diagnosis, AI, "argument map systems", and the genetic basis of intelligence? And how does 'conclusion-making' differ from 'decision-making' - a set of loosely-related topics which Wikipedia quite properly does not attempt to shoehorn into a single article? This is not a 'notable subject' it is a synonym for a common phrase - 'decision-making' - commonly applied in all sorts of diverse contexts. AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:05, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The article is not about "genetic basis of intelligence" and I don't know why you suggest it is. It a large/broad topic, just like articles on Sensemaking, Thinking, Interpretation (philosophy) or Meaning (psychology) are (only few examples). While some used sources are about the subject do not use the term "conclusion-making" or are only about subaspects, quite a few of the used sources use this particular title/term (and if needed the article could be moved). How it differs from decision-making is clarified in the lead already which you don't seem to have read. There could also be three or four separate articles but I thought it would be better and more appropriate to have only one with subsections, especially since those are substantially overlapping and interlinked. Prototyperspective (talk) 12:22, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I read what purports to be the lede. Given that it fails to follow Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section and summarise content covered in more depth the article body, but instead tries to define the topic by citing contradictory dictionary definitions and the like for the word 'conclusion', I fail to see how it is relevant to the question I asked: which single source you cite suggests that 'conclusion-making' on such a broad swathe of subject matter is a single topic? AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:33, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I'll try to improve the lead and will add even further WP:RS. If you and/or others object to the current title, it can be moved to "Conclusion" with a subsection like "How conclusions are made" or "Conclusion-making". I don't think splitting it into 3–4 articles would be due, and all of these are relating to not "different things" but one single concept of conclusionmaking, similar to sense-making, applied in different fields. Prototyperspective (talk) 12:48, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Changing the article title and/or concocting a lede around an unjustified premise will achieve precisely nothing. This article is synthesis cobbled together around a word used in different contexts to mean different things. AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:55, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

And please read WP:TALK#REVISE. I'd appreciate it if you didn't edit your posts after I've replied to them. [15] AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:49, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Computing. --Prototyperspective (talk) 11:51, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not an encyclopedic topic, but rather a mishmash of various uses of the word "conclusion". Rife with WP:SYNTH. XOR'easter (talk) 13:53, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Conclusions and the making of them is a broad/abstract certainly notable singular concept applied in multiple fields due to which there are subsections. WP:RS clearly establish this to be a subject of notability and many of them refer to it as "conclusion-making" too.

How is it not an encyclopedic topic? Sensemaking, Thinking, Interpretation (philosophy) or Meaning (psychology) for instance are.

Good to see you refer to a specific policy. It says Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any source which is not done here and I don't see how it would apply. Prototyperspective (talk) 14:00, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

So where is the single source which concludes that the disparate collection of 'things called conclusions' can be treated as a unified topic? AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:00, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The sources are about the making of conclusions. I object to splitting the article since all of those refer to the same concept of conclusion just applied in different fields and the split articles would be too short each. Should I link all sources are about that and/or using that specific wording here? You could just look into the refs where I also added more quotes now so you can more easily see that they're about the subject of this article.

Examples [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22]. I think I found an appropriate middleground between the notability/prevalence of the subject and what the sources cover in detail/explicitly – the latter could be better/more extensive due to which I added an hatnote. Prototyperspective (talk) 15:13, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for making your inability to understand Wikipedia policy on synthesis so abundantly clear. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:16, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Those sources use the same term(s), all referring to the same concept, just applied within different fields.

How is it synthesis to put the different fields where this concept is applied or is a subject into one article, rather than separated multiple, when they all refer to the same concept? Just like in this case, e.g. sensemaking is applied in many different contexts, which certainly could warrant separate articles for each but does not preclude having one for the subject in general. Prototyperspective (talk) 15:21, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Provide a single source that explicitly states that this is 'the same concept'. Do it now. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:35, 21 September 2023 (UTC)=[reply]

Just because other broad-topic articles that sound vaguely related exist doesn't mean that this article should. It's possible that they're junk and just haven't been nominated for deletion yet because nobody has wanted to bother. XOR'easter (talk) 16:26, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Unless someone can find a single source that discusses the topic in a manner that encompasses all the different examples given (scientific literature, AI, medical diagnosis, etc.), this article is just a mashup of several different unrelated subjects linked by WP:SYNTH, which is not how we're supposed to construct articles. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 15:07, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
These are highly related and overlapping as well as referring to the same overarching concept of conclusion-making though. Would you really prefer if there were separate Conclusion-making in science, Conclusion-making in artificial intelligence, and so on despite that these all refer to the same concept of conclusion? It's not a mashup – each has its own section. Prototyperspective (talk) 15:15, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your personal unsourced opinion that multiple sections of this article are "referring to the same overarching concept" is of precisely zero relevance to this discussion. Provide a source which explicitly backs it up. Now. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:53, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Done (>a single source). (Also consider that they use the same term/wording.) Prototyperspective (talk) 16:15, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Which source is that? Provide a fucking citation before I report you for your ridiculous stonewalling bullshit AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:29, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think they mean this edit. (Which, as far as I can tell so far, is just more mashing and includes at least one source that we shouldn't regard as reliable.) XOR'easter (talk) 16:31, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We seem to be well into WP:CIR territory at this point. Either that, or trolling. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:44, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It is the sources in the lede, which I thought I wouldn't need to clarify, in addition to all the other sources in the article which use the same terms like "conclusion-making". Since when are people to assume that the same wording / terms refer to different things instead of one thing due to which there is a word/phrase for it? I also take note of the unfriendliness to say the least at Provide a fucking citation before I report you for your ridiculous stonewalling bullshit. Prototyperspective (talk) 16:48, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Since when are people to assume that the same wording / terms refer to different things instead of one thing due to which there is a word/phrase for it? Since 1971 at least. XOR'easter (talk) 16:54, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

So, still no actual identified source, just more hand-waving, accompanied by the most ridiculous argument yet. What a surprise... AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:09, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, this is pure WP:SYNTH, not a notable topic in philosophy. Conclusion is a disambiguation page for good reason, the word is polysemic. - car chasm (talk) 06:14, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'll accept this decision and there is some merit in the argumentation if the yet-unmentioned WP:TOOSOON is also considered since there could be more refs about all/multiple of the subsections at once than currently in the lede. This is my last comment here (most likely) and I just want to say, also addressing XOR'easter's point about ambiguity above: the word is not polysemic, it just has different applications.

Conclusion-making in AI is very different from human conclusion-making, but in this sentence "conclusion-making" refers to the same abstract concept, where implementation varies heavily, which is very different from "polysemic". Never said it was a notable subject in philosophy, it is a very notable subject more broadly and in other fields. Prototyperspective (talk) 08:27, 22 September 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!} 05:41, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Stereotypes of Nigerians[edit]

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

unneeded article, not notable FMSky (talk) 12:22, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. FMSky (talk) 12:22, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Unsure - I think it can be argued both ways as there are sources but they're not all talking about the same thing (for example I found one talking about gender stereotypes in Nigerian films). I'm not sure how one would write a page such as this without a considerable amount of subjective opinion and WP:SYNTH. JMWt (talk) 13:38, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Ethnic groups and Nigeria. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:23, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ♠PMC♠ (talk) 11:32, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Sure there are sources, but most are one-liners, then what appear to be OR refuting the claim. I mean I don't doubt that Nigerians can speak English, but it's poorly sourced... It should be fairly obvious in Nigerian English-language media, should it not? I can see the value of the article, but sourcing just doesn't help. Oaktree b (talk) 13:56, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You'd almost need a sociology paper in a peer-reviewed journal that talks about the stereotypes, not mentions here and there from the press, to be able to make a decent wiki article... Just my thoughts. Oaktree b (talk) 13:58, 21 September 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!} 19:16, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Double Hope Films[edit]

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

Article about a film production company that has been practically unsourced since 2012. I tried to source it myself before bringing it here but came up with nothing. Does not satisfy WP:NCORP or WP:GNG. Jamiebuba (talk) 11:25, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, Companies, and United States of America. Jamiebuba (talk) 11:25, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I checked the company for adding news article as well. and i would like to say that it does not have any good amount of coverage about itself just trivial mentionings it fails - WP:NCORP and WP:GNG - Syed Sadique Hussain (talk) 11:15, 24 September 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!} 19:11, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Phil Hawksworth[edit]

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

Fails WP:NBAD, WP:GNG & WP:SIGCOV. The current version of article is just a stats stub stating his streak of win in the National championship which is the only claim of notability for this article. It is also mentioned in New Zealand National Badminton Championships. Moreover there are no sources found which would be essential for passing the general notability guideline. zoglophie 11:13, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Badminton, and New Zealand. zoglophie 11:13, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't even find mention of him on any .nz websites. What's used in the article now is trivial coverage. Delete for lack of sources. Oaktree b (talk) 13:05, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Subject fails WP:GNG. -The Gnome (talk) 16:39, 26 September 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!} 19:11, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Naxatra News Hindi[edit]

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

Neither website, nor any other source which shows the existence of such channel. ☆★Sanjeev Kumar (talk) 11:07, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media, Television, Bihar, and Jharkhand. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:25, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not have any significant coverages and non-notable news portal. Citadeol(talk) 18:09, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A pure, unadulterated promotional effort, haphazardly put together after being allowed to appear ten years ago. But Wikipedia has thankfully moved on from that time. It's explicitly not a collection of random information. -The Gnome (talk) 16:44, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I want to allow this, because it seems to be a real station with 85k subscribers on Youtube and thousands of clips posted, but in my searching I could only find one third-party source [23] and it's an article from 2008 that might just be a press release. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 18:30, 28 September 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!} 19:14, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Rhys Toms[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG, also some unreliable sources and disclosed payments. MirrorPlanet (talk) 09:29, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Music, and Australia. MirrorPlanet (talk) 09:29, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Whilst there might be some notability here this article is purely paid for PR in direct opposition to the TOU and what Wikipedia is NOT. Blow it away and let someone independent take over. duffbeerforme (talk) 07:46, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 06:59, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Pacific Century[edit]

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

I fear this is a poor, WP:OR-violating essay. The first few paragraphs defining and analyzing the term broadly are unreferenced, then there is a random note about the existence of a documentary titled The Pacific Century, followed by two lengthy paragraphs on American policy in Asia/Pacific, based on sources that mostly do not even use this term. Perhaps this is a notable term (although this could be just redirect to Asian Century, which could discuss the usage of this term as well as of Asia-Pacific Century), but the current article makes a good case for WP:TNT. I can't even recommend a merge to Asian Century, given the above-described poor state of the article (OR about the main term+mostly irrelevant content about American policy in the region). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:43, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics, Asia, and United States of America. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:43, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. This Wikipedia article is the only reason I even know what "Pacific Century" means, so I'd prefer it not be deleted. I've seen the phrase used elsewhere and this was the first source. Thanks. 2600:8804:5A03:BB00:6265:C273:2376:543F (talk) 20:10, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please consider WP:ITSUSEFUL _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:14, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:DINC. The article needs to be rewritten, but it is neither unencyclopaedic nor factually wrong. Reliable sources exist, are persistent over time, and are independent of the subject. It is tagged correctly. There are no policy-based reasons to delete this article, and doing so would not improve the encyclopedia. Cheers, Last1in (talk) 14:52, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as there does not seem to be a coherent topic here. The article seems to contain two paragraphs of unsourced OR claiming that the term "Pacific Century" is used like "Chinese Century" or "Asian Century" to describe the 21st century, one paragraph about a PBS documentary series focused on 19th and 20th century Asian history, and two paragraphs about miscellaneous aspects of US foreign policy with respect to Asia. This is not an encyclopedic article about one subject – it's a collection of unrelated information that can vaguely be associated with the phrase "Pacific Century". —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 16:52, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Mx. Granger I noticed Asian_Century#Origin talks about the term "Pacific age", which would arguably be more relevant here then there, but it also further reinforces the point that this is all really the very same concept just with few different names. Redirecting this tere might be best for now? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:29, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that redirect makes sense, because I don't see any sources indicating that "Pacific Century" is used with a meaning related to "Asian Century". If anything, a redirect to The Pacific Century would make more sense as a variant of that title. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 19:46, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oceania-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:29, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 07:40, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Joe (talk) 08:58, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are a number of Google Scholar results for the term "Pacific Century," many independent of the term "Asia-Pacific Century." The term goes back to at least the 1980s. The article by Rosemary Foot and Andrew Walter includes a useful definition of the term and some history. --Enos733 (talk) 22:04, 29 September 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!} 06:59, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Pawar/Bhoyar[edit]

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

Article about one sub-caste Community in Rajasthan and looks like promoting a community. Not Notable. There already exists a parent article at Paramara dynasty, drafts created on the AfD subject were already declined at 1 & 2 -- iMahesh (talk) 06:51, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Hinduism and India. iMahesh (talk) 06:51, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Mirrors the Paramara dynasty article. HarukaAmaranth ^春 _香 00:14, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a povfork. Source used twice can't be checked as no p9age numbers. Editor also created an article now moved to draftspace which is very similar. Draft:Bhoyar Doug Weller talk 16:10, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I recently moved a copy Draft:Bhoyar to draftspace. Also the editor has been blocked as a result of distruptive editing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ibjaja055 (talk • contribs)
"Comment'' - we seem to have a meatpuppet (not a sock so far as my CU check shows).[24] Doug Weller talk 13:10, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - looks like a meat farm at work in pushing a sanskritisation agenda, the topic is covered elsewhere, the term in the article title isn't used in sources etc. - Sitush (talk) 19:35, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete mercifully per nomination. Subject fails WP:GNG. -The Gnome (talk) 17:04, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:02, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nail Olpak[edit]

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

President and chairman of the executive board of Foreign Economic Relations Board of Turkey (DEİK), the sources cited are press releases, bio handouts or DEIK owned media. Subject fails WP:GNG. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 06:21, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Turkey. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 06:21, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Smiles.. I wouldn’t know how you determine your WP:GNG, kindly do a google query on the subject. Hundreds of publications on him and his activities. Kind regards Wikipractitioner (talk) 07:16, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipractitioner is a single-purpose account whose sole contribution to Wikipedia so far has been the creation of this article. -The Gnome (talk) 17:02, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:56, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm having a difficult time finding any independent reliable sources in which he is more than just a passing mention. In parallel, roughly half of the sources in this article are simple biographical entries that do not really count towards notability and would be easy to stumble upon for most people not notable enough in terms of the criteria in Wikipedia. He is a passing mention in a few of the other sources that are news articles. Maybe a little more than that in the article from Anadolu Agency. And the rest are not independent from the subject. Overall, there is no indication of notability. Aintabli (talk) 22:39, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Karar, Anadolu Agency, Bloomberg’s HT, Milliyet, Daily Sabah and Yeni Şafak were all cited and are obviously reliable enough. Quite confusing on how subject is not independent of these sources, and other referenced sources asides footnote #10. Except there’s another Wikipedia guidebook being used that’s not WP:GNG & WP:SOAP, it’ll be wrong to delete. Kind regards. Wikipractitioner (talk) 23:41, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Those sources are "obviously reliable enough"?! For those of you who don't read Turkish just look at the color for Yeni Şafak on https://tr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vikipedi:G%C3%BCvenilir_kaynaklar/M%C3%BCtemadi_kaynaklar as it is the same color as Daily Sabah on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources Chidgk1 (talk) 12:56, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. An article full of padding, which cannot hide the subject's lack of notability. To wit: We have an article about something else, the election of the Industrialists Association, in which our subject, being an industrialist, is name dropped; the Daily Sabah report about, once again, something irrelevant ("economic reforms in Turkey") in which our subject is, once again, name-dropped for his opinion; a "message from the president" written by our subject; a bunch of lame advertorials here, here, and here; a plain listing in the "biyografya" website; and so on. Well, Wikipedia is not a collection of random information or vanity projects. -The Gnome (talk) 17:02, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
From talks of subject independent sources to claims of trivial mentions and Advertorials to allegation of having this work as my lone contribution on Wikipedia which are all false. Subject is notable and passes GNG. Non of the sourced articles are promotional nor unambiguously appear to be biographical handouts as claimed earlier. Please do note that I do not have any interest/benefits/affiliation/expectations from either the subject or its associates as I do not live in Turkey. Nonetheless, I suspect a deliberate collaboration from some editors in bringing works down and thereby not surprised at some of the submissions. Wether deleted or kept, I will not let these set of persons intimidate me. Kind regards. Wikipractitioner (talk) 18:21, 26 September 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 Anti-gender movement. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:02, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

1 Million March 4 Children[edit]

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

CSD tag placed by @Raladic: for WP:A7 and removed by an IP; I agree that the article does not show why it is significant, nor does it have WP:SUSTAINED coverage. Its content, if even appropriate for Wikipedia, can be covered in articles such as anti-gender movement. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk) 06:03, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics, Sexuality and gender, Education, and Canada. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk) 06:03, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Wikipedia is WP:NOTNEWS and this event cannot be considered to have a sustained effect at this point. Might be WP:TOOSOON, but also likely can just be covered in the existing articles as they Afd nomination suggests. Raladic (talk) 06:13, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and Merge with anti-gender movement

MicrobiologyMarcus (talk) 13:07, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I feel like this is just a news event and nothing suggests it is lasting in its significance for now, could be covered at existing articles. Alextejthompson (Ping me or leave a message on my talk page) 19:31, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no redirect Nothing significant here except for disconnected groups trying to make something out of what's ultimately nothing in the real world outside their phones or computers. Nate • (chatter) 23:05, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. B3251 (talk) 00:56, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to anti-gender movement; a summary section can be added for Canada under Anti-gender movement#North America. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:00, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to anti-gender movement or, if consensus if against a merge, I would !vote for deletion. There are no supporting sources for WP:GNG (or, more appropriately, WP:NEVENT) here, and it lacks WP:SUSTAINED and WP:EFFECT needed for a stand-alone article. Cheers, Last1in (talk) 15:40, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Anti-gender movement per Ivanvector and Last1in. Sal2100 (talk) 17:55, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Basically WP:ONEEVENT but for org. NM 19:41, 23 September 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 Big Brother Africa (season 6). Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:03, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sharon O[edit]

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

Big Brother Africa contestant, not winner: no record of enduring achievement or roles as an actor in film or TV, no charting recordings. Coverage presented is PR, interviews. Fails WP:GNG; WP:MUSICBIO; WP:NACTOR. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 06:02, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Bands and musicians, and Uganda. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 06:02, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Big Brother Africa (season 6). WP:BLP1E applies, not any all Big Brother contestants local or global franchises are notable under BLP1E rule. 2600:1700:9BF3:220:F5FA:A7D7:9AA4:E005 (talk) 06:23, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:57, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Big Brother Africa (season 6). Subject lacks proof of independent notability. -The Gnome (talk) 17:06, 26 September 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 Big Brother 18 (American season). The detailed analyses of reference material leads to the conclusion that there is not enough to sustain an article, however large the number of them may be. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 07:04, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Paulie Calafiore[edit]

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

Non-notable. scope_creep^Talk 04:03, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Television, and New Jersey. Skynxnex (talk) 04:44, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect back to Big Brother 18 or to Cody Calafiore. Not notable enough to pass guidelines. Coverage about him is nearly all in relation to The Challenge/Big Brother, or him coming out after being eliminated on The Challenge recently. WikiVirusC^(talk) 13:01, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect agree with above, bring back the redirect. Mike Allen 13:31, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, has appeared in enough appropriately sourced and varied television shows to meet GNG. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:38, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
He was only a contestant (that doesn't win) on Big Brother and The Challenge. That's a stretch of the GNG policy. Mike Allen 13:50, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but he keeps coming back for more shows which are then noted. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:55, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't cut it by any length of the imagination. It just makes him bit-part reality star. They don't get articles. scope_creep^Talk 15:11, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Seems you don't like it?, and casting aspersions on my imagination makes me...ah...I don't know, can't imagine what. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:19, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per GNG because "The person has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions." Also, he played soccer professionally for the Colorado Rapids. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 13:58, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

None of this is valid either. That is a completely false statement. Where is the coverage to support that. scope_creep^Talk 15:11, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In the article. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 15:13, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The article itself cannot substantiate the claims in the article. There is no evidence that Calafiore ever played in a game for Colorado Rapids. – Pee Jay 10:29, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I fail to see how any of his reality TV appearances qualify as “significant roles”. Bgsu98 (Talk) 20:45, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep His roles in television and in sports are a more than credible claim of notability, and the sources back up that claim. Alansohn (talk) 20:22, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
DELETE. Lacks notability. Competed on, but did not win, Big Brother or The Challenge. Simply appearing on those shows is not inherently notable. His so-called “career” in professional soccer is dubious at best. Bgsu98 (Talk) 20:42, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, passes GNG with significant coverage.--Ortizesp (talk) 21:52, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The Colorado Rapids thing, in spite of appearing in an ESPN article, may not be completely untrue, but he was never drafted by the Rapids as one source claims (this is incredibly easy to verify), and there's absolutely no documentation with him signing for, training with, or appearing for the Rapids. It looks like the ESPN author probably just regurgitated some puffery and it made it into Wikipedia. I haven't looked at the rest of the article, but any argument that he's a professional footballer that was made here is simply flagrantly incorrect. He did appear to be a good collegiate player, though. I'd support redirecting this. SportingFlyer T·C 22:08, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@SportingFlyer That's not true. There are other sources on the article's talk page, if you want to take a look. Thanks! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 22:11, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Another Believer: There are other sources, but they are all lies. At best he had a trial with the Rapids. There is absolutely no media coverage that he was on trial there, though. His brother was on trial with the Columbus Crew and at least has a source proving that. One of the articles you mention says he was drafted by the Rapids - that is easily verified as false. Again, there is absolutely no documentation of him ever being even on trial with the Rapids, and none of the articles on the talk page are in a position to claim otherwise. Which begs the question - if this is a lie, or overstated, what else in this article is wrong? SportingFlyer T·C 09:59, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ohhhhhhhh ok, I didn't realize all the sources were lying. (eye roll) ---Another Believer _(Talk) 13:56, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If I told a journalist I had played for Real Madrid, no one fact checked it, and then the claim I played for Real Madrid gets reprinted 10 different times in sources that we'd claim to be reliable... even though it's incredibly easy to determine I've clearly never played for Real Madrid... how else would you classify that? SportingFlyer T·C 08:43, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per above. Clearly notable figure with mnany sources already. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 05:51, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment' Seems to be a lot of "inclusionists" here a label along with "deletionist" I never liked because its not accurate but when you get editors that "drive by" to !vote keep without any intellectual examination of references, that will need examined in the coming months to see if there is a problem here, particularly since there has been claims that the references are untrue. Lets examine the first two blocks in detail:

Ref 1 [25] It is a clickbait site. States the sources are US Weekly and his instagram. So its not independent.

Ref 2 [26] Another clickbait site. Links to his instagram account. So its not independent.

Ref 3 [27] It has direct comments from his, so it is not independent.

Ref 4 [28]

Ref 5 [29] Passing mention in a 4-line paragraph. Not significant, nor in-depth.

Ref 6 [30] Passing mention. Not significant, nor in-depth.

Ref 7 [31] A routine annoucement that he is going Big Brother.

Ref 8 [32] This is a cast for "The Challenge" made up of small profile. Not in-depth.

Ref 9 [33] Another clickbait site. Not independent.

Ref 10 [34] Another clickbait site. Not independent.

Ref 11 https://www.usmagazine.com/celebrity-news/news/challenges-cara-maria-sorbello-wants-marriage-kids-with-paulie/] His wife.

Ref 12 [35] An interview. Not independent.

Ref 13 [36] Another clickbait site. Has the couples social media links to instagram. Social media driven. Not independent

Ref 14 [37] Another clickbait site "Speaking exclusively to the People magazine". An interview. Non-rs likely.

Ref 15 [38] Another clickbait site. His timeline. Not independent.

Ref 16 [39] Clickbait site. Content lifted from a youtube interview by Calafiore. Not independent.

So to summarise:

1. Not independent
2. Not independent.
3. Not independent.
4.Couldn't see this. Likely clickbait site.
5.Passing mention. Not significant, nor in-depth.
6 Passing mention. Not significant, nor in-depth.
7.Not in-depth not significant
8 Not in-depth
9 Not independent.
10 Not independent.
11 His wife comments
12 Not independent
13 Not independent.
14 Non-rs
15 Not independent.
16 Not independent.

So the majority of these references are social media fed clickbait that are pure trash in everybody's book. Looking at them of the 16 references in the first blocks, 9 are not independent of the subject, 2 are passing mentions, 2 are not significant nor in-depth and one is non-rs and one I can't see it is likely another clickbait site, by the quality of these. There is not a single WP:SECONDARY reference in the first blocks and there is NO evidence he was drafted. None at all. scope_creep^Talk 11:28, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You are absolutely right! Bgsu98 (Talk) 11:33, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The interviews, at least the couple I've looked at, are not just pure q and a, they give background, further information, and feature the subject. Take out the quotes and there is still enough material to count as a source. Dismissing such references discounts the full feature article status and factual or descriptive wording, so these should certainly be counted as independent and secondary sources. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:52, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Can you stop making false statements. Interviews do not count toward notability, particularly the majority of these that are using social media to drive their content model. That is established consensus They are lowest quality clickbait crap that is possible to imagine as a source, yet your supporting them. There is a limit to peoples patience. scope_creep^Talk 15:49, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think with the Colorado Rapids thing though - which is clearly and easily verifiably incorrect, but also picked up by a lot of these sources - if you remove the coverage of this person that wasn't directly supplied by them, there seems to be precious little for this article to hang its hat on. SportingFlyer T·C 13:47, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@SportingFlyer: No evidence he was drafted. Sorry. sp mistake. scope_creep^Talk 15:39, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Totally disagree with Scope creep and their (incomplete) assessment. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 13:40, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Clickbait articles are still valid coverage. Interviews can be independent, non-independent would mean articles by the subject himself. And passing mentions add up if there's tons of them. There is clearly enough coverage to pass GNG. Ortizesp (talk) 23:37, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The problem with clickbait articles is that it's not necessarily secondary coverage. The entire problem with his non-professional football career is he said he played in MLS and no one fact checked it. No one as far as I can tell has identified a source that's truly secondary. SportingFlyer T·C 08:41, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Clickbait articles aren't valid coverage in any kind of instance and shouldn't be used on Wikipedia. They are not independent by definition. They are generated by software, by bots largely at the moment and as time goes on they will generated by AI, as is starting to happen now. They have no intellectual depth, they are merely surface, copied and pasted information from somewhere else. They are not independent by definition. They are used by sites to drive the companies advertising model. That is all they are for. Wikipedia is built on intellectual analysis and if your building articles based on what you have just said, then there is a real and serious problem here. Your stating a falsehood, essentially and following an ideology that is at odds with Wikipedia core policies on notability. If your using clickbait sites to support your articles, then you need to stop. Regarding passing mentions. They don't add up to anything. They have no intellectual depth. They are merely linking text, in the context of some other subject, and there is nothing that can be used prove something per WP:V. Your statement constitutes a fringe view, common to a core block of inclusionists who are willing to completely bypass or ignore consensus based notabilty standards to prove a point. The saddest thing about this as core content creator who I used to really value, due to the amount of articles you created, I wouldn't trust another word you said. scope_creep^Talk 09:54, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Scope creep: Re: "Your statement constitutes a fringe view, common to a core block of inclusionists who are willing to completely bypass or ignore consensus based notabilty standards to prove a point. The saddest thing about this as core content creator who I used to really value, due to the amount of articles you created, I wouldn't trust another word you said." Who are you referring to here? ---Another Believer _(Talk) 14:46, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Scope creep: Can you please clarify? ---Another Believer _(Talk) 16:41, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I was speaking to editor Ortizesp. Why did you quote my comment with red ink. scope_creep^Talk 14:08, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 19:21, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 19:23, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@GiantSnowman:, I found sources like [40], [41], [42], [43], among manymany more sources online. Clearly notable figure with mnany sources already. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 19:38, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Some minor news pieces and some interviews. Giant Snowman 19:40, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@GiantSnowman Are you able confirm if any of the 30 sources currently used as citations, most of which mention the subject by name in the title, are inappropriate for Wikipedia? I'd like to start there, before addressing depth of coverage. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 20:12, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As SC says, lots of non-independent and clickbait. You need to persuade me he is notable, not the other way around. Giant Snowman 20:29, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I understand how this works, I'm just trying to first establish that the 30 sources currently used as citations are at least appropriate for Wikipedia. If you're saying no, can you please be specific about which publications are problematic and why? ---Another Believer _(Talk) 20:51, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@GiantSnowman:, Also they arent merely minor news pieces, and the inetviews do ahve secodnary coverage. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 19:26, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am not going to re-analyse what SC has already done and which I agree with. Giant Snowman 10:07, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

SC's "assessment" is a joke and ignores half of the sources already used as citations. This doesn't seem constructive and I'm confident the page will be kept, so I'll just move on and let others weigh in. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 14:16, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

keep this guy seems pretty notable with all the tv shows hes been onMuur (talk) 23:08, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as he is notable and has appeared in many different reality shows, which he wouldn't if he wasn't notable. DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 06:35, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. This focusing on berating other editors who have drawn different conclusions than you have after examining an article and its sources has to STOP now or blocks will begin to be handed out for incivility and casting aspersions. This is a focus on the article not on other contributors. Wikipedia succeeds because we have civil discussions among editors who hold a variety of points of view. AFD should not be a rubber-stamp process. Please limit your disagreement to source evaluation and not on other editors' values. If you can't discuss differences of opinion without snide insults, then you should stop participating in AFDs.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:23, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The article has recently underwent a WP:HEYMANN standard update with the addition many new references: I'll examine the first two blocks.

Ref 1 [44] This is a routine PR annoucement of Cody Calafiore joining Big Brother. Its not independent.
Ref 2 [45] It is a clickbait site. States the sources are US Weekly and his instagram. So its not independent.
Ref 3 [46] Another clickbait site. Links to his instagram account. So its not independent.
Ref 4 [47] It has a number of direct comments from him, speaking to the site, so it is not independent.
Ref 5 [48] Unable to view it.
Ref 6 [[49] Passing mention in a 4-line paragraph. Not significant, nor in-depth.
Ref 7 [50] Another clickbait site. An interview. Not independent.
Ref 8 [51] Another clickbait site. The exact same story from Ref 7 above.
Ref 9 [52] Passing mention. Not significant, nor in-depth.
Ref 10 [53] A routine annoucement that he is going Big Brother.
Ref 11 [54] This is a cast for "The Challenge" made up of small profile. Not in-depth.
Ref 12 [55] Another clickbait site. Not independent.
Ref 13 [56] Another clickbait site. Not independent.
Ref 14 [57] Single sentence mention as younger brother of Cody. Not significant.
Ref 15 [58] Another clickbait site. His wife.
Ref 16 [59] Another clickbait site. An interview. Not independent.
Ref 17 [60] Another clickbait site. Has the couples social media links to instagram. Social media driven. Not independent
Ref 18 [61] Another clickbait site "Speaking exclusively to the People magazine". An interview. Non-rs likely.
Ref 19 [62] Another clickbait site. His timeline. Not independent.
Ref 20 [63] Clickbait site. Content lifted from a youtube interview by Calafiore. Not independent.

So it looks like 5 new references have been added to the first two blocks. None of them are considered WP:SECONDARY sources that would establish notability. Instead its typical of a listing of PR coverage for a z-list celebrity. WP:Notability (people) defines three critieria to establish notability. The subject here fails on all three. They are neither worthy of note, nor remarkable nor significant or interesting. The WP:BLP crieria states Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources. None of these are high-quality sources. scope_creep^Talk 07:55, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly disagree with this assessment and will continue asking the editor to leave me alone. Moving on to other parts of the encyclopedia... ---Another Believer _(Talk) 13:13, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Scope creep, I agree. I just read the article again and I can't find anything about him that seems in any way notable. None of those stints on The Challenge nor his one appearance on Big Brother resulted in a win, nor any press other than "This guy is appearing on [insert show here]." He got a tattoo and learned tae kwan do. Big whoop. Bgsu98 (Talk) 13:42, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I looked at the first 15 sources and was unimpressed:

1: trivial mention in article on his brother

.
2: low-quality ("Paul was born in Howell, New Jersey, to Parents Palu Jr. and Linda Calafiore. He graduated from high school in his hometown New Jersey before moving to Rutgers University. While in the university, Paul played for the Scarlet Knights football team and was on the stars.") amalgam of regurgitated web-scraped factoids

.
3: semi-opinion piece mostly composed of quotes

.
4: interview with very little independent encyclopedic commentary (maybe 1.5 sentences)

.
5: blurb hyping TC:U 2 with basically no encyclopedic content

.
6: passing mention

.
7: tabloid trash with mostly quotes

.
8: almost 100% quotes

.
9: non-independent

.
10: local-interest news with a small amount (~5-6 sentences) of independent content; not enough for me

.
11: blurb in cast listicle

.
12,13: tabloid trash by non-journalists

.
14: passing mention

.
15: interview with no independent content

.
If the next 15 sources are similar to this then I !vote delete. JoelleJay (talk) 23:17, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Big Brother 18 (American season) as a non-notable game show/reality TV show contestant and per source analysis by JoelleJay and Scope Creep. Frank Anchor 17:10, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Big Brother 18 (American season). After going through the list of what's been proffered as sources, that is the most one can graciously suggest. Thanks are due to JoelleJay and Scope creep. -The Gnome (talk) 17:12, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: @Frank Anchor and The Gnome: Can you both confirm you've reviewed sources in the article itself, and not just those posted above? The source assessments by JoelleJay and Scope creep are both (admittedly) incomplete. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 17:40, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If the first fifteen provided sources were found to be of poor quality, why should anyone be expected to parse the next fifteen? Bgsu98 (Talk) 21:35, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
My question wasn't directed at you. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 23:33, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Irrelevant. Anyone is welcome to participate in AFDs. Bgsu98 (Talk) 23:42, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, of course, but I am specifically asking two editors about how they've assessed coverage, especially since their comments are very similar. You, too, seem to support Scope creep's assessment, but can you please stop interrupting? You're trying quite hard to ensure deletion of an entry which more editors here seem to prefer to keep. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 23:45, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I did not look at the pages in the article at the time I voted; I made the very reasonable assumption that the "keep" voters would present their best sources while in their argument. Thank you for drawing my attention to other sources available. However, most of what I see in the article I consider to be either routine coverage or interviews, so that does not change my redirect vote. Frank Anchor 12:21, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Big Brother 18 (American season) given the lack of quality sourcing. BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 15:51, 27 September 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. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 08:46, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Futurism (Judaism)[edit]

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

There's no indication, either in the article or on the internet, that this topic actually exists. The article consists of two unsourced statements which partially define the topic~~, and two lists which aren't related to the topic~~. Dan Bloch (talk) 04:17, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - found some references from both Sefaria and My Jewish Learning to establish notability as reliable references. Futurism (Judaism) is a bust but Jewish Futurism has some hits. Might want to change the title of article. Kazamzam (talk) 12:31, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Can you provide any of these references, or the search that found them? The vashtimedia.com citation you added is specifically about futuristic Jewish literature, which is not what the bulk of the article is about. Dan Bloch (talk) 13:50, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:29, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Can't find anything other than passing mentions for Jewish Futurism. Shapeyness (talk) 14:13, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't meet WP:SIGCOV --Shrike (talk) 14:59, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Since I cannot find references to support this article I have to assume it is a neologism, It should be deleted. Lightburst (talk) 23:31, 29 September 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 Boxing at the 1924 Summer Olympics – Middleweight. Stifle (talk) 08:19, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Emilio Bonfigli[edit]

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

Emilio Bonfigli

Stub about boxer who does not satisfy the current versions of boxing notability or Olympic notability. The only reference is a database entry. The Heymann criterion is to find two or more sources to establish general notability.

Draftify as nominator, to allow six months to find significant coverage. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:59, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Boxing, Olympics, and Italy. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:59, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:17, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Article was created when just competing at an Olympics was viewed as sufficient to show WP notability. A first round loss doesn't meet any SNG. The coverage doesn't appear to meet WP:GNG. Of course, there may be coverage in archives of old Italian newspapers, but that's not within my scope to check. It seems like deletion would be the correct option, but I have no objections to making the article a draft and giving the article's creator addition time to find good sources. Papaursa (talk) 22:56, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Boxing at the 1924 Summer Olympics – Middleweight Thanks, Cbl62. I should have thought of that myself. This provides info on him and allows time for sources to be found that would allow the article's recreation, if possible. Papaursa (talk) 22:46, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Boxing at the 1924 Summer Olympics – Middleweight. His name rolls off the tongue mellifluously, but unfortunately the article fails to comply with WP:SPORTBASIC (prong 4) as it does not include any SIGCOV (just databases). Also, my searches turned up nothing that would constitute SIGCOV that might satisfy WP:GNG. Finally, fails WP:NOLYMPICS as he lost in opening round. Unless there's someone who is indicating a desire to work on this in the near term, I think a redirect is a better alternative to deletion in this case. The history remains with the redirect if someone chooses to dig into 100-year-old Italian newspapers. Cbl62 (talk) 19:23, 27 September 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. Although borderline, it seems to me that the references have been considered and found insufficient. Arguments based on the player having played in League 2 are not admissible, per the link provided by GiantSnowman. Stifle (talk) 08:18, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Zack Kotwica[edit]

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

This was just speedy deleted from pl wiki, which is often more inclusive than English, and the article doesn't strike me as meeting WP:NBIO. Minor player, sources fail SIGCOV (stats) or are press releases from the club he plays at (Cheltenham Town F.C.). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:43, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and United Kingdom. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:43, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable. Did not play internationally. At league career the best achivement is playing for fourth-tier in UK what is too few. Not big chance for career in future especially that now he plays in lower tiers. Dawid2009 (talk) 05:25, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails GNG as I couldn't find significant coverage of him. It doesn't matter what level someone plays at as GNG has to be passed. Dougal18 (talk) 14:30, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 18:42, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. Only sources I can find are routine transfer pieces, surprising given he had a decent career in League Two. If sources are found please ping me. GiantSnowman 18:46, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- @GiantSnowman:--Ortizesp (talk) 23:34, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- You've just created Lewis Shipley, how is this article is notable if Kotwica's not? Martinklavier (talk) 11:51, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I thought that consensus was such that every player spent a single minute in a professional league match is eligible for an article. Otherwise we need to delete hundreds articles of current and past players in League Two, League One and probably Championship. Martinklavier (talk) 07:40, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I am pretty sure that consensus has been overturned long ago. Ugh, link, link. @Levivich, I vaguely think you may know what discussion I am thinking of? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:30, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NSPORTS2022 - being a professional footballer is not enough, there must be significant coverage. Giant Snowman 13:57, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, has significant coverage online like this BBC article, this, this, this, and tons of coverage online. Not really understanding this nomination, as there's enough sources to clearly satisfy GNG.--Ortizesp (talk) 23:34, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Routine contract news; about a schoolboy breaking his record; interview in local media; routine and non-independent. I found 2 of those 4 in my own search. Where is the significant coverage? Giant Snowman 07:24, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per Ortizesp and Martinklavier. Enough sources imo. Also is payer wiht over 30+ games in fully pro EFL Leauge Two with ongoing career. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 08:07, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but it's borderline. Sources are relevant and significant and trustworthy. ButtonPocketSquare899 (talk) 08:29, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:17, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Sources are routine transaction reports,[64] have little independent coverage,[65][66] or are non-independent and trivial.[67]

JoelleJay (talk) 22:38, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The four refs are unsuitable as sources to establish notability. scope_creep^Talk 09:13, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. It looks like there will be no source review forthcoming so I'll close this as No Consensus. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:48, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This Won't Hurt...[edit]

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

album that is not notable under WP:NMUSIC and the WP:GNG. little more than a track listing, and none of this band's other albums have articles either. refs listed aren't significant secondary coverage either. StartOkayStop (talk) 22:23, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. StartOkayStop (talk) 22:23, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets WP:NALBUM#C1/GNG. Note that the presence of articles on subject's other albums have little bearing on this discussion. Regardless, taking a quick look, they could almost certainly be restored from redirect based on available coverage.
1. 145 word dead tree review in AMP (magazine) [68]
2. 300 word online review on punknews.org [69]
3. 255 word dead tree review in Razorcake, a long-running zine with editorial staff [70]
4. 106 word dead tree review in Maximum Rocknroll, a long-running zine that has been core to the west coast punk scene for 40+ years [71]
5. A 100+? word review in Ox, highly influential German language zine[72]

—siro χ o 23:45, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Siroxo shows that WP:NALBUM#C1 is met. Moreover, when the album was re-released 15 years later (which itself shows lasting impact), the news was noted in multiple publications. Pichpich (talk) 19:49, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Analysis of the proposed references would be very helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 03:00, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:09, 21 September 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.

List of Aerolíneas Argentinas destinations[edit]

The result was speedy keep. Withdrawn by nominator. (non-admin closure)‎ S5A-0043^Talk 02:51, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Direct recreation of the deleted article at the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Syrian Air destinations AFD discussion. iMahesh (talk) 02:43, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. iMahesh (talk) 02:43, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: There are Multiple articles with the same lists on the Wikipedia, should I go ahead and include them on this AfD discussion? Or if any consensus is arrived at this discussion We can proceed for CSD#G4. --iMahesh (talk) 02:47, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The reason given for deletion is flawed - this is not a recreation of the deleted article "List of TUI fly Netherlands destinations" as claimed - it is concerned with an entirely different airline and has been in existence since 2005. While many similar articles have been deleted recently, lets frame the discussion properly - this article does seem to be better sourced than many of these destinations lists, so there is probably more that warrants preserving.Nigel Ish (talk) 08:25, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The rationale here is flawed as stated by Nigel Ish, so that should not be a reason considered in this case. As for the airline destinations itself, I checked through Google, and did find a few articles that discuss some destinations ARG serve ^[4] ^[5] ^[6] ^[7], so it seems to pass WP:NLIST. While there is a "needs updating" tag on the list section (dating back to 2021), WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP. There are some well-maintained lists of airline destinations that exist (List of Singapore Airlines destinations is an example), and I believe this article has the potential to be well-maintained as well (provided someone does it). Since the above-mentioned AFD lists a particular discussion on WP:VPP, personally I think this is a limited consensus as the discussion is not particularly active (only around 20-25 users participated in a period of 1 month) and the relevant Wikiprojects (eg WP:AIRLINES) were not informed properly, thus I'd personally not be convinced that the VPP is a good rationale. There was also a DRV that came after another AFD involving the SIA article, which eventually closed as keep. I also don't think this fails WP:NOTTRAVEL which was also mentioned in the discussion above. Lists of destinations are not the same as travel guides, because they only provide the destinations without the flights between each one of them. Taking the first few airports on the list as examples, is there a flight between Bahia Blanca and Catamarca? Is there a flight between Cordoba and El Calafate? A travel guide would tell me a definitive answer as to yes or no. This list, however, does not, and without the exact flights it is practically useless for travel information. This probably would be more of a concern if the airline operates flights out of only 1 hub (such as the SIA one which flies out of Singapore only), but with 2 hubs and domestic flights I don't think this is the case. S5A-0043^Talk 11:09, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Aviation, Lists, and Argentina. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:30, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep as the nomination rationale is entirely incorrect, this article has never been subject of a deletion discussion in the past. Jumpytoo Talk 20:56, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawn Per S5A-0043. --iMahesh (talk) 00:50, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep‎. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) BeanieFan11 (talk) 21:36, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ehsanul Haque[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV. No in-depth coverage, only passing mentions and stats. FatCat96 (talk) 02:25, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. FatCat96 (talk) 02:25, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Cricket and Bangladesh. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 02:47, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep International cricketer that featured in a World Cup and had a strong domestic career. It is highly likely that sourcing exists offline given the time of his career, or in non-English language sources. I'm sure other cricket editors will be able to find sourcing on him. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 18:57, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The guidelines are very clear, he must have at least one source providing significant coverage, which I was unable to find anywhere. Maybe other editors can find sources on him, but if there are none, then he certainly fails WP:SPORTSPERSON, WP:GNG, and WP:SIGCOV. FatCat96 (talk) 02:33, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I really don't think you understand the level of the game at which he has played... StickyWicket aka AA (talk) 21:39, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I do understand that he has played at a high level. But that does not make him notable. As I said before, he must have at least one reliable source providing significant coverage, which he does not, and therefore fails WP:SPORTSPERSON, WP:SIGCOV, and WP:GNG. FatCat96 (talk) 17:23, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The fact he has played Test cricket and in the cricket world cup makes him very notable. Whilst English language sources might be lacking (particularly as his international career came to an end just when the internet really took off), there will be plenty of Bangladeshi written sources for him - he made 134 appearances at the highest domestic level of cricket in Bangladesh alongside his international career (of which, Test cricket is the highest level of the game). We are not Anglopedia. StickyWicket aka AA (talk) 20:51, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A nomination beyond stupid. StickyWicket aka AA (talk) 20:05, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep no WP:BEFORE has been done, and this nomination appears not to have looked for non-English language sources, of which I would expect there are many given that he played at a Cricket World Cup, and had a long domestic career. I've added one piece of significant coverage based on a 2 minute search, so it seems very likely that more exists if people look for it rather than blindly nominating this as non-notable. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:28, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hello @Joseph2302. When I nominated I did look for non-English and English sources (though not very thorougly), and found nothing. I just finished another more in-depth search, and found at least 3-4 sources, which I will soon add to the article. I will conduct another search soon. I am now considering withdrawing this nomination. FatCat96 (talk) 01:58, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawing nomination: Enough WP:SIGCOV found to satisfy WP:GNG and WP:SPORTSPERSON. FatCat96 (talk) 02:23, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. as there is disagreement among editors on whether the reviews that exist are sufficient to meet WP:NBOOKS. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:46, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

History Upside Down[edit]

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

This book does not obviously pass WP:NBOOKS. No scholarly reviews have obviously percolated through to Google Scholar, and the one review posted to the page is from Middle East Forum, a polemical think tank that has been deemed an unreliable source. In any case, that is all of one review. If there are more reviews out there (and any from actually reliable sources), I have not found them. The only other sources on the page are the publisher and the book itself. The page was established in 2010 by an account that, by want of subsequent activity, was clearly an SPA that one might imagine likely had a COI in producing the page. Iskandar323 (talk) 13:25, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics, Israel, and Palestine. Iskandar323 (talk) 13:25, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NBOOKS. I searched for reviews and also found only the capsule review from Middle East Forum. Jfire (talk) 14:46, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete bordering on WP:SPEEDY as likely but unproven WP:PROMO. There does not seen to be any WP:NBOOKS or WP:GNG rationale for this article. Cheers, Last1in (talk) 14:58, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Clarifying - Regarding the article itself, it seems to violate WP:PROMO and possibly WP:CONFLICT (the latter of which is extremely difficult for an individual editor to confirm). Regarding the subject, the reviews do not seem to meet the standard that WP:NBOOK is striving for. The only peg on which to hang notability is WP:BOOKCRIT 1 (emphases added), two or more non-trivial published works... This can include published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, other books, television documentaries, bestseller lists, and reviews. Since all we have are reviews, it comes down to the meaning of 'non-trivial'. Encounter is a book seller, so the 'review' is simply advert copy; it cannot be used to establish WP:GNG any more than the dust jacket of the book itself. MEQ is extremely tenuous as a WP:RS, especially on topics such as polemical works that match their rather extreme ideological bent. The cites found by Oaktree b and Goldsztajn seem (to me) to be similar in nature and equally problematic for establishing notability. That leaves us with ASMEA which is questionably a RS (see analysis by Iskandar323 below), but is it a non-trivial review? After reading it a few times, I don't think so. But even giving it the benefit of the doubt, I would expect to see at least one more from outside the echo-chamber of the fringe where this work resides. A month into the discussion, I simply do not find the Keep !votes convincing on this one. Sorry & Cheers, Last1in (talk) 17:47, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as this book passes WP:NBOOKS, which requires that "the book has been the subject of two or more non-trivial published works." The first review was in the Middle East Forum's Middle East Quarterly, a peer-reviewed journal that is indexed by major indexing databases. The second independent review is here. In addition, according to Google Scholar, the book has been cited no fewer than 16 times by other independent scholars, who clearly believe its credible. Not the highest profile book, but meets Wikipedia requirements. Longhornsg (talk) 17:06, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As mentioned above, even if you are counting the MEQ, which is more a pseudo-academic journal run by an advocacy organization, it is still is no more than a capsule review. That other review is meanwhile a mere web review with no more intrinsic value as a blog post. That is an organization's website, not a publisher or editorial outlet with scholarly or editorial pedigree. That is absolutely scraping the barrel in terms of WP:NBOOKS. Iskandar323 (talk) 17:56, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Iskandar323, no need to be insulting. The WP:NBOOKS states that the book is the subject of two or more non-trivial works. That's it. There's not a minimum word count, requirement that the works are scholarly outlets, or be the Washington Post. Nor that the outlets be completely free of bias (lord knows this standard would disqualify half the citations in the I/P sphere). The outlets should be independent of the publisher or author -- which they are. And the mentions must be non-trivial -- which they are. But interesting that you do not believe that a review published on an academic society's website is enough. Keep in mind, we're building an encyclopedia for the public, and not for academia. Longhornsg (talk) 18:06, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Excuse me. I insulted no one, so don't go impugning anyone else either. WP:NBOOKS intentionally sets a fairly low bar of several non-shit sources, but non-shit sources are indeed what are required, at least in my interpretation. I definitely don't see it as a box ticking exercise where any old moldy sock of a source qualifies, job done. Quality counts. And no, I wouldn't rate the 2007 Association for the Study of the Middle East and Africa particularly highly at all (it's page is in a pretty dire state of affairs itself). It is the 1966 Middle East Studies Association, the organization that it split from (apparently on ideological grounds), that is the outlet with the more serious academic pedigree. But even so, I wouldn't just rate random blog posts from the latter's website either. Yes, I expect serious reviews to have passed either editorial or peer review. (And not be unreliable, like MEQ.) Iskandar323 (talk) 18:54, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
you are being extremeley disrespectful with the words your using and the way you are using them. PaulGamerBoy360 (talk) 04:29, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Çomment Article is certainly WP:PROMO at present (noting WP:NEXIST however). FWIW text appears to have been reviewed in Volume 62-63 of the South African Jewish Board of Deputies Journal "Jewish Affairs" (p.54) by Gary Selikow. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 10:27, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:09, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 03:16, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. No doubt that this book is controversial. That's not a reason to delete. Sufficient sources were identified above. Plus there was SIGCOV in a major Israeli news source. I look it up again later. gidonb (talk) 17:22, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:14, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Commment Well, the book has a chapter cited here: [73], the Jewish Policy Centre here [74], and this Times of Israel blog [75]. This in Moment magazine [76]... Oaktree b (talk) 03:34, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep Most of the sourcing is from the Jewish world/perspective, so it is biased. The book has just enough to pass notability. Oaktree b (talk) 03:34, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

just becaus eit is from jewish perspective does not make it biased PaulGamerBoy360 (talk) 17:16, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The reviews are one-sided, but so long as the article here is neutral, it's fine. Oaktree b (talk) 18:00, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Seconding PaulGamerBoy360's comment; the problem is not Jewish perspectives, it's that the book and reviews are a right wing echo chamber. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 06:39, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Added another review clearly meets WP:NBOOK --Shrike (talk) 14:52, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep ~~found two more reviews, although~~ one is quite short, it offers a more critical perspective.^[8]~~^[9]~~

References

^ https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=kwGk2e0N3V4C&pg=PA335&dq=%22Sergem%22+tibet&hl=en&newbks=1&newbks_redir=0&source=gb_mobile_search&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjX3eKizrSBAxXCWEEAHZxJCNkQ6AF6BAgGEAM#v=onepage&q=%22Sergem%22%20tibet&f=false
^ https://thenortheasttoday.com/states/sikkim/the-hardest-cheese-in-the-world-churpi/cid2526945.htm
^ https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=hiVdDgAAQBAJ&pg=PA337&dq=%22Sergem%22+tibet&hl=en&newbks=1&newbks_redir=0&source=gb_mobile_search&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjPrP_31LSBAxVTSkEAHV1NBrAQ6AF6BAgJEAM#v=onepage&q=%22Sergem%22%20tibet&f=false
^ https://www.flightglobal.com/networks/aerolineas-argentinas-to-launch-flights-to-usa-from-aeroparque/153527.article
^ https://www.aviacionline.com/2021/09/aerolineas-argentinas-to-add-international-flights-during-the-summer-season/
^ https://www.aviacionline.com/2023/04/aerolineas-argentinas-increases-flights-to-italy/
^ https://simpleflying.com/48-million-loss-aerolineas-argentinas-best-financial-result/
^ "History upside down; the roots of Palestinian - ProQuest". Reference and Research Book News. ProQuest 199678671.
^ ~~Romirowsky~~, ~~Asaf~~ (1 January 2009). "~~Review of History Upside Down~~". Middle East Quarterly.

Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 06:46, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies, I see that the MEQ reference was already discussed, I'll strike that. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 06:48, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Changing my !vote to a weak keep - with the reviews from "Reference and Research Book News" and Simpson, there's just enough to balance the echo chamber reviews. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 06:56, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:43, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Joshua Kelley (sailor)[edit]

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

Article is a stub with one line of text. Despite a flurry of media coverage in May 2023, I have concerns on the notability of this individual. Cssiitcic (talk) 07:45, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Military. Cssiitcic (talk) 07:45, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. Kelley can be mentioned in the US Navy article, or possibly in an article about non-binary members of the military. I don't' think they need their own article. Cortador (talk) 09:39, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. Perhaps this article on gender identity in the US military might be a good fit. However, if this article were expanded upon to discuss Kelley's drag queen performances, and the ensuing controversy and coverage, it could possibly meet notability guidelines. Jdweikler (talk) 09:59, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (as article creator). Media coverage throughout at least May through August 2023 is already established by article sources. Notability is not contingent on the current status of the article, so if this article were expanded …, it could possibly meet notability guidelines is a non sequitur. Meets NBIO based on sustained, personal media note, and expansion is not a valid deletion or keep criterion nor contingency.
Additional sources, not currently included in the article, embrace two articles in Stripes [77][78]; one in The Independent [79]; one in NewsNation [80]; one in Newsweek [81]; and several by the New York Daily News [82], The New York Post [83], the Washington Examiner [84], and by conservative opinion outlets [85][86]. I would not use the latter for the article, but they do help to establish notability. BTW these are all on the first two pages of a widely used search engine on the terms "Joshua Kelly sailor" so I wonder if WP:BEFORE has been attempted. ☆ Bri (talk) 15:56, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 02:08, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Reliable sources (The Independent, Stars and Stripes, Military Times, Daily News) in this discussion and in the article indicate WP:BASIC, WP:SUSTAINED coverage May though September of this year. Note that I am not considering WP:IBTIMES, WP:NYPOST, Washington Examiner or Newsweek as RS.
Alternatively, a merge to Sexual orientation and gender identity in the United States military could be a better option. —siro χ o 04:34, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep; the extant sources plus User:Bri's sources here meet the threshold for WP:N. — Fourthords | =Λ= | 12:07, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'd also like to share: the article's fully-sourced prose has now been expanded 16.6 times since the deletion nomination, the number of sources has doubled (and spans 4.68 years), and there are a further four reliable sources on the talk page (in a {{refideas}} I've yet to mine & incorporate into the article. — Fourthords | =Λ= | 02:21, 27 September 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. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 08:47, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Lo[edit]

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

This person mostly fails significant coverage, most of the references are PR and social media and YouTube links. Systumm (talk) 08:31, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, Journalism, Film, and Television. Systumm (talk) 08:31, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (original author) Hello, appreciate your feedback here and would like to address your concerns. This individual clearly meets notability requirements as discussed in the "Creative Professionals" guidelines. They were the creator of two works that received significant coverage in periodical articles and reviews, many of which are referenced on this page.

With regards to references:

1. There are some PR/press releases referenced, however these are only used to verify basic facts. Additional references, including to discussion of the subject in a recent book, have been added to further meet significant coverage standards.

2. No social media links are referenced.

3. Two Youtube links that were referenced were used to access episodes uploaded by the station (KMVT, a reliable uploader and the content's originator). This is also supported by secondary reference (reference 6) However, given your feedback, I have updated and improved those citations to use the {{cite episode}} template. Jdweikler (talk) 09:21, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

And just for further clarification, here are two references that most clearly meet the general inclusion threshold as outlined here (at least two people to have written something substantive (more than just a mention) about that subject that has been published in a reliable source.)

Reference 1: https://www.bu.edu/articles/2023/unconditional-documentary-screens-at-the-white-house/

Reference 14: Lui, Richard (2021). Enough About Me. HarperCollins/Zondervan. pp. 64–65. ISBN 978-0310362395. Jdweikler (talk) 09:43, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I created a source assesment table as well to further clarify:

Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Source assessment table:
https://www.bu.edu/articles/2023/unconditional-documentary-screens-at-the-white-house/			300+ word article specifically on the subject (Alex Lo)	✔ Yes
https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/speeches-remarks/2023/05/10/remarks-as-prepared-for-delivery-by-first-lady-jill-biden-at-a-film-screening-at-the-white-house-of-unconditional-when-minds-hurt-love-heals/			No discussion of subject	✘ No
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/maine-woman-punches-bear-chased-dog-bear-bites-back-rcna92217	Written by subject		Includes bio for the subject and his work for NBC News	✘ No
https://www.advancingjustice-aajc.org/press-release/new-bystander-intervention-animated-videos-show-methods-everyday-people-can-do-fight		Press Release	? Quotes from subject.	✘ No
https://www.losaltosonline.com/magazine/media-education-has-evolved-but-the-studio-experience-endures/article_7bb6ac04-7e2e-11ec-9552-43c69bff6342.html			~ Subject is not main topic of the source material, but 30+ words specifically about subject	~ Partial
https://www.losaltosonline.com/archives/mv-chamber-of-commerce-honors-community-leaders/article_23e65196-5671-55b5-bbe9-39c1c5c04096.html			Trivial mention	✘ No
https://www.cbsnews.com/sanfrancisco/news/robotics-team-mentor-helps-south-bay-students-engineer-success/			~ Quotes from the subject and just a few words on them.	~ Partial
https://www.bu.edu/admissions/tuition-aid/scholarships-financial-aid/first-year-merit/trustee/		Primary source for context		✘ No
https://www.bu.edu/econ/2023/08/14/econ-major-alex-lo-produces-documentary-on-caregiving-that-is-screened-at-the-white-house/			~ Brief writeup (48 words)	~ Partial
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/asian-america/new-documentary-highlights-young-veteran-caregivers-color-n1247480			Subject is not mentioned, although the film they produced is the main subject of the source.	✘ No
Lui, Richard (2021). Enough About Me. HarperCollins/Zondervan. pp. 64–65. ISBN 978-0310362395.		Book published by HarperCollins/Zondervan	2 pages (550+ words)	✔ Yes
https://thehill.com/blogs/in-the-know/in-the-know/525304-new-doc-from-msnbcs-richard-lui-examines-young-americans-who/			Subject is not mentioned, although the film they produced is the main subject of the source.	? Unknown
http://www.roku.com/		~ Video streaming listing		✘ No
https://web.archive.org/web/20201008162239/https://variety.com/feature/2021-oscars-best-documentary-feature-predictions-1234784896/			Subject not mentioned, but the film they produced is listed as an awards contender	✘ No
https://www.goldenglobes.com/articles/docs-unconditional-spotlights-heartrending-difficulties-caregiving			Subject is not mentioned, although the film they produced is the main subject of the source.	✘ No
https://www.adweek.com/tvnewser/saturday-may-27-scoreboard-fox-news-cnn-average-same-number-of-adults-25-54-in-primetime/531533/			Subject is not mentioned, although the film they produced is noted here as being the top rated program in its timeslot.	✘ No
https://www.journal-isms.com/2023/07/aaja-picks-texas-for-2024-convention/			Trivial mention	✘ No
https://static1.squarespace.com/static/621f898a98dc785cd663ab7b/t/64b1e5ab8b2e681bedab41ca/1689380268869/Inclusion%40Work+_+Black+Americans+2023.pdf	Subject is on advisory panel		Trivial mention/bio	✘ 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}}.

Jdweikler (talk) 19:36, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 02:08, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't count the first "green" source in the table above as notable. Oaktree b (talk) 03:36, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Green links used are about projects he's worked on, nothing about him as an individual. Sadly, there just isn't sourcing for this person. Oaktree b (talk) 03:38, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Sorry, can you please clarify your comment -- I don't believe that is accurate. The first source in green has 300+ words about the subject and his work. The second green source has 550+ words about the subject as an individual.
Jdweikler (talk) 19:22, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The one ending in .edu is a university website, we generally prefer not to use sources where the person has an affiliation. Oaktree b (talk) 21:44, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Understand there may be a preference for non-.edu sources, but that source is still is discussing the subject as an individual at length, a secondary/independent source, and nonopinionated/factual. I think that source, combined with the extensive coverage of the individual in a widely-published book should meet significant coverage. And as previously stated, the individual clearly meets notability as per WP:FILMMAKER Jdweikler (talk) 00:06, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The edu sources are not independent as they are alumni news from his alma mater. I am not seeing "extensive coverage" nor even enough reliable WP:SIGCOV to meet WP:GNG or meet WP:FILMMAKER. Best, GPL93 (talk) 22:18, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
2600:1017:A801:CB75:30AD:D33C:500E:2F31 (talk) 05:29, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Respectfully, the subject very clearly meets WP:FILMMAKER. As stated in WP:FILMMAKER Criteria (#3), an individual can be considered notable if: "The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews, or of an independent and notable work (for example, a book, film, or television series, but usually not a single episode of a television series)". The subject of this article has created (as the producer) two well-known, major films that were widely distributed by Universal Pictures (the most recent of which was screened at the U.S. White House). Both have also been the subject of multiple periodical reviews and articles. Therefore the standard for WP:FILMMAKER is very clearly met.
Jdweikler (talk) 05:32, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The person that would meet it for both works is Richard Liu, and not Lo. He was one of four co-producers (two of whom do not seem to meet notability either), and co-produced the second with a host of executive producers. The coverage on both works don't focus his role, unless it's in his alma mater's alumni news, and instead focuses on Liu, so the indication is that the role he played as a co-producer was not major in the way that FILMMAKER would dictate. Finally, all of your edits have been in relation to Alex Lo and things he's worked on. If you have a WP:COI, you must declare it. Best, GPL93 (talk) 11:48, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Again, the policy standard is for the person to have "played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work". Being one of the two filmmakers who worked on the film to be invited to the White House for their work would seem to indicate that. And also as stated above, there are additional sources (including multiple pages in a major book, that discuss his work. Jdweikler (talk) 05:56, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

White House invites are not a great indicator of notability as usually it's a group of people. From what I can tell, Lo did not write or direct and the referencing on both works focuses on other contributors. Generally, the criteria for creatives in in relation to the creative side of the work and not co-producing. Additionally, the "major book" is by Richard Lui, the director of both documentaries that Lo was a co-producer on, and that he only is mentioned in only 2 of 256 total pages (and back-to-back, likely indicating one mention) in his book would suggest a less-than-major role in addition to the reference not being completely independent. Also the book never even hit on any of the prominent bestseller lists, so definitely not "major". Best, GPL93 (talk) 16:29, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The book and other sources discuss his role on the films, which include responsibility for: selecting the individuals to be profiled/casting, coordinating production in the field, co-directing animated sequences, and overseeing postproduction and marketing. That too would indicate a very major role.

The book that references him does so several other times although they are trivial mentions. So I'm leaving those out and focusing just on the 550+ words that discussed his work. Jdweikler (talk) 02:15, 30 September 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. Please have a discussion on the article talk page about a possible Rename. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:36, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dangerous & Offensive Trades[edit]

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

Does not meet notability criteria, unclear if this is an actual discrete category that multiple laws fall under rather than a common phrase. Kazamzam (talk) 17:09, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law and India. Kazamzam (talk) 17:09, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unable to find any reliable sources to establish notability. JoeNMLC (talk) 04:26, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Not just in India, but elsewhere in Commonwealth, this is a term for companies that produce bad smells as part of producing animal byproducts. Many more references here. Лисан аль-Гаиб (talk) 15:50, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and move to Dangerous and offensive trades without predjudice to further moves. Satisfies GNG easily and by a wide margin. This topic has received significant coverage in many books and periodical articles. In addition to the numerous statutes in many countries that have inherited English law because they were formerly part of the Empire, Stephen's Commentaries says that "dangerous and offensive trades" are part of the English common law of public nuisance: [87]. There are a large number of English and Anglo-American law books that have offensive or dangerous or noxious trades or businesses or manufactures as a form of public nuisance: [88] [89] [90] [91]. The precise language varies between different legal writers, but they are talking about the same thing. The said commonwealth etc statutes look like a restatement, codification or reform of the common law of nuisance. James500 (talk) 21:40, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 01:55, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

keep AS @James500 and @Лисан аль-Гаиб say this is a widespread theme in laws in the Commonwealth and laws regulating noxious trades exist in many, many countries today.

The article was in a sorry state, and as much as I dislike WP:TNT as a proposal I almost suggested it. Instead I've added some meat to the article, reduced the India-focus. As it stands it's barely encyclopedic but certainly enough to pass deletion. More hands would help.

As far as rename, my impression is that the more common term is "offensive trades" but I don't have stats to back that up.

Oblivy (talk) 06:17, 21 September 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. Feel free to start a discussion on the article talk page about a possible rename or just Be Bold and do it! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:33, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

London International Hot Air Balloon Festival[edit]

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

Tagged for notability since 2010. Fails WP:NEVENT and WP:GNG. - UtherSRG (talk) 19:00, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Transportation, and Canada. UtherSRG (talk) 19:00, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, I found CTV coverage from the 1990s. As it has apparently historic value, it was republished in 2017. See here. 109.37.149.106 (talk) 10:35, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 01:54, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Note WP:COMMONNAME is London Balloon Festival, and the article should probably be moved there. ProQuest shows coverage for WP:GNG over several years in various papers. Here's the first several hits, but there is more: [92][93][94][95][96] —siro χ o 05:04, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:32, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Asiricomedy[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

If someone requests for the source analysis I would do it. RATIONALE: The article is filled with interviews from different reliable sources making them non-independent and thus failing the general notability guidelines. Best, Reading Beans (talk) 02:36, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, Authors, and Nigeria. Reading Beans (talk) 02:36, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:40, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:10, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I think this one is quite hard. I agree with the nom that the sources on the page are generally weak and many/most appear to be interviews in the Nigerian press. On the other hand, I don't have full access to the Nigerian press at it seems to me at least possible that he is a well-known and noted comedian there. The guff on a deleted-and-recreated page makes me wonder about COI issues. I'm not sure how to untangle these thoughts. JMWt (talk) 16:39, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Nigerian sources are to taken with a pinch of salt. As a Nigerian I know when something is done for promo. I can bet on that. Also, I have never heard of this comedian (which is not why I nominated it), so, he is not well known or noted here. Best, Reading Beans (talk) 19:38, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:45, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural keep. No vaild deletion rationale was brought forward. The intro is focused on the references, rather than the sources out there. It is also focused on references that are not good, and it is unclear if a serious search for good sources was conducted. Nothing is clear from this nomination. gidonb (talk) 18:05, 23 September 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. It would help if sources in this discussion found their way into the article so there is not a return trip to AFD. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:31, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Voice of the Turtle[edit]

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

Lack of notable coverage. From analyzing the sources, they are either passing mentions of the group and don't cover the group in depth(Wachs' obituary, the NYT source) or they are primary sources(Rootsworld is an interview, one of the sources is just a video of their concert, and Marini's book, as far as I can tell, contains an interview with Wachs as coverage of the group.) I also found no independent/third-party and notable sources that could be used to improve the page.Jaguarnik (talk) 02:08, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The group disbanded after Wachs died, so there isn't a whole lot of new news. I will see if I can find updates that are relevant. They have a dozen albums on an established record label, which is way above the notability criteria for a band. Their work is also significant from an ethnomusicology point of view. Behind each album is significant historical research, which involved travel all over the world to find historical records. Asbruckman (talk) 13:52, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I added an additional cite to comments by an ethnomusicologist about the archival research that supports their music. Does that help at all? Asbruckman (talk) 21:48, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, this is Joel Bresler, the publisher of www.sephardicmusic.org, one of the leading sources of information about Sephardic music on the web. VOT had a profound impact on the evolution of Sephardic music performance and recordings for numerous reasons. First, they released 12 albums, more than any other group. Second, they were well integrated into the *substantial* Boston Early Music community and so made quite an impression. Third, they were involved quite early, which increased their importance still further. Fourth, Ms. Wachs undertook substantial research including trips to Israel where she used the documentary print and sound resources at the National Sound Archive and (I believe) the Voice of Israel to collect repertory, tunes, performance practice, etc. Rather than remove this article - which seems to me off to a very solid start - I would suggest keeping it and letting the community embellish and expand it. Thanks for the chance to offer my thoughts. JB Discoguy (talk) 22:44, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 14:51, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 14:52, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:09, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Discoguy.

—A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 02:21, 14 September 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, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Meets multiple prongs of WP:NBAND including WP:NBAND#C1, #C7 and #C5.
1. Here's some in-depth secondary coverage intermingled with an interview in the Boston Globe [97], one quote short but relevant from that coverage:
  "Wachs and her quartet, Voice of the Turtle, are the preeminent exponents of Sephardic folk music in the country, perhaps the world."
2. In depth coverage from the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel [98] including:
  "Voice of the Turtle, an ensemble dedicated to preserving and performing music of the Iberian Jews, was presented in concert by Early Music Now. Voice of the Turtle has spent the past 19 years collecting and studying Sephardic music. Saturday's performance featured pieces reflecting the culture in diaspora. Melodies came from Turkey, Jerusalem and Bulgaria, places to which the Sephardim fled. The ensemble, Derek Burrows, Lisle Kulbach, Jay Rosenberg and founder/artistic director Judith Wachs, played a bevy of instruments ranging from a Medieval Spanish bagpipe to various flutes, lutes and percussion instruments, as well as harp, guitar and various bowed string instruments."
3. Here's some coverage from Washington Post discussing a performance [99] including:
  "On this occasion, a concert titled "Rites of Spring" given at the first annual Washington Jewish Music Festival, they sang three versions of "Had Gadya," an Aramaic song celebrating Passover. Then, in a spectacular demonstration of the vitality and diversity of the music they have collected in 21 years of performing medieval and folk music together, Voice of the Turtle sang a suite of more than a dozen other versions from Greece, Turkey, Bulgaria, Provence, Morocco, Yemen, Romania and Yugoslavia--countries in which the Sephardim took refuge when they were driven out of Spain in 1492."

There is more in ProQuest. I didn't check any other databases or search engines. —siro χ o 05:23, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Discoguy and siro Jacona (talk) 01:05, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:35, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Hope Division[edit]

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

Tagged for notability since 2010. Fails WP:NALBUM and WP:GNG. - UtherSRG (talk) 14:42, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs, United States of America, and California. UtherSRG (talk) 14:42, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The Sputnikmusic review had to go because it wasn't from staff, but the other three reviews (which were already there, just not in ref tags) should be plenty. Both AbsolutePunk and Alternative Press are listed at WP:RSMUSIC. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 17:00, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 01:59, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per norm. Non-charting album, no certificates nor awards. ihateneo (talk) 13:15, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There are plenty of notable albums which have none of those things. Does the GNG pass mean nothing to you? QuietHere (talk | contributions) 15:03, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
QuietHere, that's why i said "per norm", the reason why this is a discussion is because the outcome or fate of this article isn't solely decided by one person. I covered what wasn't mentioned, you want me to repeat what's already been said? ihateneo (talk) 01:59, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Ihateneo this response makes no sense to me. What norm? Again, plenty of notable albums don't have charting or certs, but they get a pass based on the amount of coverage they received from reliable sources anyway. The "norm" would be to look at all tenets at play, including GNG/NALBUM#1, and determine whether they are met, not ignore them for no reason and delete anyway. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 06:42, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think they meant "per nom". - UtherSRG (talk) 11:58, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: And it is true that albums do not have to chart or have awards to be considered notable. But it helps.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:03, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: This from Australia [100] helps, I think we have enough to keep. Oaktree b (talk) 03:51, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, meets WP:NALBUM.1/GNG given sources presented by QuietHere and Oaktree. —siro χ o 05:41, 21 September 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!} 01:54, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Peoria Academy[edit]

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

I looked--there is really no secondary reliable sources that actually discuss it, rather than just mention it and confirm its existence. Not notable by our standards (and a likely COI creation, and formerly a puff piece). Drmies (talk) 00:31, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I found no WP:SIGCOV. Jacona (talk) 12:04, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and Illinois. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:32, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the only reliable source currently on the article is NCES, and it's not independent. BEFORE shows nothing. That's to be expected as this is a very small, non diploma granting institution. NOTDIR applies. 4.37.252.50 (talk) 22:49, 21 September 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!} 01:54, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Pak Gyong-chol (North Korean football midfielder)[edit]

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

Article fails WP:GNG. Simione001 (talk) 00:23, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 00:23, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 00:23, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 00:23, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no sources found. Ping me if there are sources. Brachy08 _(Talk) 01:29, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:16, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 20:19, 21 September 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!} 01:54, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ri Pyong-chol (footballer)[edit]

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

Article fails WP:GNG. Simione001 (talk) 00:18, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 00:18, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 00:18, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 00:18, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, there is a source, but no sigcov. Ping me if there are sources. Brachy08 _(Talk) 01:32, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

* other Brachy08 _(Talk) 01:32, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:16, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 20:18, 21 September 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!} 01:53, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kim Wi-man[edit]

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

Article fails WP:GNG. Simione001 (talk) 00:15, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 00:15, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 00:15, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 00:15, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no sources found. Ping me if there are sources. Brachy08 _(Talk) 01:33, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:16, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unsourced. Citadeol(talk) 18:25, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 20:18, 21 September 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!} 01:53, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Choe Hyon-u[edit]

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

Article fails WP:GNG. Simione001 (talk) 00:13, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 00:13, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 00:13, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 00:13, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no sources found. Ping me if there are sources. Brachy08 _(Talk) 01:33, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:44, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unsourced. Citadeol(talk) 18:33, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 20:18, 21 September 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!} 01:52, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Cho Yong-nam[edit]

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

Article fails WP:GNG. Simione001 (talk) 00:10, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 00:10, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 00:10, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 00:10, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:44, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 20:18, 21 September 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] ttps://books.google.co.uk/books?id=kwGk2e0N3V4C&pg=PA335&dq=%22Sergem%22+tibet&hl=en&newbks=1&newbks_redir=0&source=gb_mobile_search&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjX3eKizrSBAxXCWEEAHZxJCNkQ6AF6BAgGEAM#v=onepage&q=%22Sergem%22%20tibet&f=false

[2] ttps://thenortheasttoday.com/states/sikkim/the-hardest-cheese-in-the-world-churpi/cid2526945.htm

[3] ttps://books.google.co.uk/books?id=hiVdDgAAQBAJ&pg=PA337&dq=%22Sergem%22+tibet&hl=en&newbks=1&newbks_redir=0&source=gb_mobile_search&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjPrP_31LSBAxVTSkEAHV1NBrAQ6AF6BAgJEAM#v=onepage&q=%22Sergem%22%20tibet&f=false

[4] ttps://www.flightglobal.com/networks/aerolineas-argentinas-to-launch-flights-to-usa-from-aeroparque/153527.article

[5] ttps://www.aviacionline.com/2021/09/aerolineas-argentinas-to-add-international-flights-during-the-summer-season/

[6] ttps://www.aviacionline.com/2023/04/aerolineas-argentinas-increases-flights-to-italy/

[7] ttps://simpleflying.com/48-million-loss-aerolineas-argentinas-best-financial-result/

[8] "History upside down; the roots of Palestinian - ProQuest". Reference and Research Book News. ProQuest 199678671.

[9] ~~Romirowsky~~, ~~Asaf~~ (1 January 2009). "~~Review of History Upside Down~~". Middle East Quarterly.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]