Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 February 18

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< February 17 February 19 >

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 keep‎. Star Mississippi 01:39, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rain (American band)[edit]

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

Lack of notability Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 14:44, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Washington, D.C.. GSS 💬 15:09, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This band was signed to Dischord Records, a label that has had substantial independent coverage, and had a member who later formed Girls Against Boys. It's rather plausible that, given those circumstances, this band would have received retrospective attention. I don't have them on hand, but these sources should probably be consulted in the event they have significant coverage of the band:
  • Andersen, Mark; Jenkins, Mark (2009). Dance of Days: Two Decades of Punk in the Nation's Capital. New York: Akashic Books.
  • Azerrad, Michael (2001). Our Band Could Be Your Life: Scenes from the American Indie Underground, 1981–1991. Boston: Little, Brown, and Company.
  • Blush, Steven (2001). American Hardcore: A Tribal History. Los Angeles: Feral House.

-- Chubbles (talk) 15:10, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:49, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep This is a tricky subject to find sources for - due to both the generic band name, and the age since they were active. I have added 4 citations to non-trivial independent coverage, all from reliable sources. I am leaning keep as a result; they may have have been short-lived but their music does appear to have significance, and sustained impact - with independent commentary such as "La Vache Qui Rit is both aesthetically and historically valuable" ([1]), and "Songs like “Worlds at War” and “That Time of Year” stood alongside the best of their peers" ([2]). It's nearly 40 years since this band was active, so on current evidence we should be able to presume notability - as there was likely greater coverage in the 1980s we cannot access. (Note - I have not managed to access the books above mentioned by Chubbles). ResonantDistortion 16:24, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Sourcing found. There is evidence that more should be presumed to exist offline. Likely meets WP:NBAND. ~Kvng (talk) 18:49, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Based on the work of the subsequent !voters, I will move to keep the article. Chubbles (talk) 00:56, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 13:55, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tree of Peace (World War I)[edit]

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

The bulk of the sources are by the project initiator, the soon-to-be-deleted Marek Sobola. Others are from the site of the already-deleted Servare et Manere, Sobola’s outfit. Either way, the self-promotion is clear. — Biruitorul Talk 16:07, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:47, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 23:38, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Choudry Mohammad Sadiq[edit]

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

I'm not sure how this person passes WP:GNG without any references. HistoriesUnveiler (talk) 23:39, 18 February 2024 (UTC) Blocked sock[reply]

  • Delete Low grade notability, seemingly impossible to verify MNewnham (talk) 18:31, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Law, Islam, and Pakistan. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:01, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: I don't see anything about a lawyer that died in 1975. Many hits on portions of the name, nothing for this individual. Oaktree b (talk) 20:08, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Just noting that the nominator has been blocked as a sockpuppet. In their 3 weeks of activity, they began quite a few AFD discussions. Liz Read! Talk! 01:05, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Oaktree b. Non-notable lawyer. 41.97.58.27 (talk) 20:31, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: No GNG. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 10:48, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:38, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kathy Buchanan[edit]

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

Only 1 article links to this. Does not meet WP:JOURNALIST either as a journalist or author. LibStar (talk) 23:29, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete No ongoing activity for author, official site is now a dead-end. MNewnham (talk) 18:45, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Journalism, and Australia. LibStar (talk) 23:29, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: This is all I can find, I think it's a different person [3]. Delete for lack of sourcing but willing to reconsider if we find more. Oaktree b (talk) 20:10, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: The references used in the article are insufficient and do not establish WP:NBIO. [NB: Cathy Marie Buchanan is a different person.] -- Cl3phact0 (talk) 10:14, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: No SIGCOV and Goodreads is unreliable. No GNG met. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 10:48, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:09, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mirza Aziz Akbar Baig[edit]

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

Found brief mentions about him: [4], [5], [6]. Lacks significant coverage to pass WP:GNG. HistoriesUnveiler (talk) 23:08, 18 February 2024 (UTC) Blocked sock[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Law, and Pakistan. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:02, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: per nom. Codenamewolf (talk) 06:12, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The nominator has been blocked as a sock and they started quite a few AFDs in their three weeks of activity. Liz Read! Talk! 01:08, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Codenamewolf. Can't find anything of note in Pakistani media. 41.97.58.27 (talk) 20:32, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unsourced BLP and likely lacks notability. The fact the nominator is a sock should not affect the outcome of the discussion. Broc (talk) 20:34, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Uncited with no GNG. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 10:47, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 23:39, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas van Straubenzee[edit]

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

Article has been tagged for notability for a year with no sufficient improvement. Clearly does not meet WP:NBIO or specifically WP:BASIC namely having not "received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject". Having looked through the sourcing I'm struggling to identify even a single suitable source meeting the criteria of significant coverage. Cannot inherit notability by connection with the British royal family. AusLondonder (talk) 23:01, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Romagnol. czar 05:02, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Forlivese dialect[edit]

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

Context: Forlì (population 117,000) is a city in the Italian historical region of Romagna, which comprises the southeastern half of the Italian region of Emilia-Romagna and extends to San Marino and Montefeltro. Romagnol is an endangered dialect, spoken commonly among older generations, with maybe 430,000 speakers.

Summary: We could create possibly dozens of articles about the dialectal idiosyncracies across Romagna's municipalities, which are well-documented across several sources, or we could summarise the differences in the article at Romagnol.

Explanation: Now, don't get me wrong: sources do exist on the Forlivese dialect (e.g. 1). This isn't a WP:GNG issue, though coverage is often or exclusively local. But sources also exist on every other variant in Romagna, and there are a lot to choose from. The crucial point is that Romagnol exhibits a dialectal continuum, "an infinity of Romagnol dialects decreasing from place to place, as continuous variations on a common basis" (2, 3, 4, 5, 6). A quick search reveals sources available on many dialectal varieties, down to the municipal level, e.g. Serravalle (pop. 11,000) [3] or Riccione (pop. 34,500) [7]. I appreciate that Forlì is larger than these cities, but then we also have Ravenna (pop. 159,000) [8], or the example I am most familiar with, Rimini (pop. 148,000) [9], a city that has a different name in Romagnol depending which side of the city you're in. As a point of reference, the Italian-language Wikipedia only affords a standalone article to the dialects of San Marino (noting the differences especially evident in Serravalle's dialect) and Senigallia. The current Forlivese dialect article doesn't actually detail how it differs from other variants of Romagnol, something which also isn't well-discussed in the Romagnol article.

Editor Metaphysicus, who removed my PROD tag on the nominated article, says that the Forlivese dialect is discussed by Dante Aligheri as the purest variant of Romagnol, a fact which that the editor kindly added to the article today (the article was previously unreferenced). That this makes the Forlivese dialect "its own and main version" of Romagnol sounds like editorial synthesis. And Dante's mention is currently pretty much the only distinctive detail the article offers about the Forlivese dialect that cannot be said about varieties of Romagnol in general. And sure, that's a mention with encyclopaedic value, but Santarcangelo (pop. 21,000) [10] has notable Romagnol poets (Tonino Guerra, Raffaello Baldini); Giovanni Antonio Battarra wrote poems in the dialect of Coriano (pop. 10,400); Gino Vendemini [it] did the same for the dialect of Savignano (pop. 18,000) [11]. We can clutch at the available sources (mixing local sources with scholarly inter-dialectal linguistic analyses) to write articles on each local, idiosyncratic variant of Romagnol. Or, rather than writing possibly dozens of articles that are virtually the same with just a paragraph dedicated to the differences, we can detail these differences in a subheading at Romagnol, also highlighting which variants of Romagnol have received the most treatment in published sources. Only then, if individual variants clearly have too much written about them to fit inside the article, might it be worth spinning off articles on local variants. IgnatiusofLondon (talk) 18:48, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge with Romagnol. If it was a quality page, sourced with scholarly articles on the dialect, with a description of the peculiarities of this variant of Romagnol, it would deserve its own page. Here most of the content is unsourced and adds very little to what is already presented in the Romagnol page. Broc (talk) 17:00, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: More discussion around the proposed WP:ATD would be helpful in attaining a consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 22:59, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Romagnol per above. PARAKANYAA (talk) 23:25, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 23:39, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Superleague Formula broadcasters[edit]

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

Of the sources, two are WP:RS; one is now dead and the other is offlice (from a hard copy magazine). The rest are primary sources; directly drom their own website which I doubt now exist. Fails WP:LISTN. In short, not a WP:NOTDIRECTORY or was. SpacedFarmer (talk) 22:49, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 GRTC Pulse#List of stations. The potential DAB page does not exist. If and when that's created, this can be re-targeted. Star Mississippi 01:43, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Arts District station[edit]

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

I couldn't find sources to confirm it meets WP:N or a suitable WP:ATD. This was deleted at the last AfD. Boleyn (talk) 15:44, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: More discussion regarding the disambiguation proposal would be helpful in attaining a consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 22:41, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:12, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Raja Zulqarnain[edit]

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

Brief mentions only, non-notable lawyer, fails WP:GNG. Should be redirected to the primary topic Raja Muhammad Zulqarnain Khan. HistoriesUnveiler (talk) 22:39, 18 February 2024 (UTC) Blocked sock[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) The Herald (Benison) (talk) 02:38, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mary Ann MacLean[edit]

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

Subject's has no notability outside their association/founding to the Process Church of the Final Judgment and Best Friends Animal Society.-dashiellx (talk) 21:44, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, subject has clearly received sustained coverage in multiple reliable sources, and was a major player and founder of two organizations which are clearly notable. ~Politicdude (About me, talk, contribs) 23:21, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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! 06:32, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

CapoeirArab[edit]

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

existing references do not work and there appear to be no recent references to or activity by the organsation Newhaven lad (talk) 19:10, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 21:35, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Every link in the reference section is a 404 page MNewnham (talk) 20:03, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. But if @Kvng: you want the history for a move and expansion, just ping me. Star Mississippi 01:58, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Shri Munjaba Tample, Ukkadgaon[edit]

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

Unreferenced article deprodded because it "may meet geoland". No reliable sources have been added and I was not able to find a single source that could verify if this location exists. Ben Azura (talk) 20:44, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: I could not find any proof of notability the temple (Shri Munjaba Temple), which this page is about. The village seems to exist though, based on some sources: [9], [10], [11] Bendegúz Ács (talk) 22:09, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already PROD'd so not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 21:29, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, definitely does not have “significant in-depth coverage by reliable, third-party sources” required per WP:NBUILDING. A possible hoax, as added Google Maps link does not return the temple and I can’t find any sources. ~Politicdude (About me, talk, contribs) 23:37, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to Ukkadgaon as WP:ATD and add sources found by Bendegúz Ács. The article already covers the village and the only information about the temple in the article is its name. ~Kvng (talk) 14:35, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NPLACE. RangersRus (talk) 15:46, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 23:44, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jimmy Blakeney[edit]

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

I couldn't establish that this meets WP:SPORTSBIO or WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 21:10, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. RL0919 (talk) 21:15, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

MrBeast videography[edit]

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

Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. The notability guideline for lists states that for a list to be notable it [needs to be] discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources, and MrBeast's videography as a whole hasn't been discussed by any reliable and independant sources. Besides, an indiscriminate selection of the most viewed videos and all the videos MrBeast has uploaded divorced from any sort of context via words is simply not useful to a reader. —Matrix(!) (a good person!)[Citation not needed at all; thank you very much] 20:33, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 23:45, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oxaï Roura[edit]

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

Cannot find sufficient significant coverage about the subject. popodameron ⁠talk 20:32, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. RL0919 (talk) 21:17, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agninshalah Collins[edit]

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

Doesn't appear to pass NPOL. Stood for a position that doesn't appear to be notable, and lost. Sources have some quotes from her; none of the sources are actually about her. Black Kite (talk) 20:16, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. RL0919 (talk) 21:20, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Esprit Lodge[edit]

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

I cannot find WP:CORP level of notability for the hotel or the rafting company. They exist, and the fire was in the news, but nothing lasting. Likely copypasta "Students from around the world travel here to learn" but it's an old article and I cannot find the source. Note, significant false positives in a BEFORE thanks to the CLub Med rebrand using espirit. Star Mississippi 20:07, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
    1. Fletcher, Katharine; Fletcher, Eric (1999). Quebec: Off the Beaten Path. Old Saybrook, Connecticut: Globe Pequot Press. p. 102. ISBN 0-7627-0276-1. Retrieved 2024-02-20 – via Internet Archive.

      The book notes: "Return to Route 148 from the chutes; turn left, then right after about 1 kilometer, toward Davidson. Go through this old lumber town and find the lane to Esprit Rafting on your left. From April through October, you'll find Jim and Erin Coffey primed and ready to pitch you into the heady world of river adventure. (Call, year-round, 800-596-RAFT for information, or contact Esprit at Thomas Lefebvre Road, Davidson, Québec JOX 1R0; camping is $15; hostel dorm is $20). Whether it's a canoe trip on the Noire (Black), Dumoine, or Coulonge Rivers, whitewater rafting on the Ottawa, a kayaking or swiftwater rescue course—or simply a camping spot or hostel bed—the Coffeys will make absolutely sure you have an unforgettable experience. Jim won't let you forget to take in the sunset from the back deck or the rocky beach. Jim and Erin are the real thing: They have sustainable ecotourism as their honest-to-goodness goal. We've traveled with them down the Ottawa and also on one of their Mexican trips. We recommend them highly."

    2. Hale, James (2007). Frommer's Ottawa (3 ed.). Mississauga, Ontario: Wiley. p. 209. ISBN 978-0-470-84035-1. Retrieved 2024-02-20 – via Internet Archive.

      The book notes: "Esprit Rafting. Offering day trips and longer-stay outdoor adventure packages, Esprit Rafting operates on the Ottawa River about 11⁄2 hours by road from Ottawa; the company can arrange transportation between Ottawa and the rafting site. They offer a wide range of adventure packages, including white-water rafting, white-water canoeing, white-water kayaking, and riverboarding. You can add horseback riding, mountain biking, or a bungee jump to your package. Esprit offers a great family white-water experience. In the morning, the family (children must be age 7 or older) rafts together with the assistance of an experienced guide. In the afternoon, children under age 12 take part in supervised shore activities while parents and children over age 12 take a more adventurous trip through the rapids. The day trip meets at a rendezvous point along the highway; get directions when you call to make your reservation. Overnight accommodation can be arranged at Esprit's private 2-hectare (5-acre) peninsula on the Upper Ottawa River, where camping facilities (tent and sleeping bag rental) and a hostel provide a place to sleep. There is a lodge serving meals, and activities include kayaking, canoeing, volleyball, and mountain biking."

    3. Karr, Paul (2000) [1998]. Hostels Canada: The Only Comprehensive, Unofficial, Opinionated Guide (2 ed.). Guilford, Connecticut: Globe Pequot Press. pp. 64–65. ISBN 0-7627-0616-3. Retrieved 2024-02-20 – via Internet Archive.

      The book notes: "Situated on a beautiful five-acre point of land on the Ottawa River, this establishment's main business is whitewater rafting and tours. But the newly certified hostel is sure to be a welcome addition for travelers heading west up the river in search of adventure. The hostel consists of two buildings: a main building with the tour headquarters and hostel kitchen and showers, plus the actual accommodations (that is, the bunks) in a separate lodge. Rooms vary in bed size. A sitting room has facilities for game playing and a fireplace, too. You'll certainly spend lots of time outdoors here; the staff offers canoe trips, canoe rentals, kayaking lessons, water-rescue instruction, and (of course) the famous rafting runs. There's a small general store in Davidson for essentials and a few restaurants for budget-busting splurges. All in all, a laid-back place where you'll feel at home lounging around on the deck, snoozing in the hammock, walking among the pine trees, or fishing the river."

    4. Fedio, Chloé (2016-05-21). "Esprit whitewater rafting lodge in the Pontiac destroyed in fire". CBC News. Archived from the original on 2024-02-20. Retrieved 2024-02-20.

      The article notes: "Everyone got out of the almost century-old pine lodge safely but the building where Coffey started Esprit Rafting near Fort Coulonge, Que., 25 years ago was destroyed, he said. ... Once part of the timber trade on the Ottawa River, the building in the Pontiac region of Quebec was transformed into a gathering point for rafters and the greater community, with a restaurant, live entertainment and offices to run the business. ... Esprit Rafting, headquartered in Davidson, Que., about 120 kilometres from Ottawa, does whitewater rafting, canoe and riverboarding trips on several rivers, including the Ottawa River, the Gatineau River, the Magnetawan River, the Petawawa River, the Kipawa River and the Magpie River."

    5. Fletcher, Katharine (1998-06-27). "The Adventure Zone. Three West Quebec tourism operators create build-your-own action getaways". Ottawa Citizen. ProQuest 240192156. Archived from the original on 2024-02-20. Retrieved 2024-02-20.

      The article notes: "Esprit is an accredited International Hostel, with new facilities. As with most hostels, the accommodation is spartan, but don't let that deter you. ... Want to try whitewater rafting down two channels of the Ottawa River? If so, Esprit Rafting of Davidson, Que., west of Fort Coulonge, is the only outfitter that runs both the middle and inside passages of the river. There's no reason to be nervous about rapids: you are in capable hands. Yet again, Esprit Rafting will represent Canada at the World Whitewater Championships this September in Costa Rica."

    6. McHutchion, John (1996-09-30). "Rough water profit: Shooting rapids in Africa is one way a small Canadian firm is building business". Toronto Star. ProQuest 437533967. Archived from the original on 2024-02-20. Retrieved 2024-02-20.

      The article notes: "Jim Coffey's firm, Esprit Rafting Adventures, sent a squad of seven paddlers that placed sixth this month in an international rafting competition in Zimbabwe. And now the tourism entrepreneur aims to market his expertise to foreign countries that want to start their own river-rafting businesses. Several foreign countries have come calling on Coffey's base camp in Davidson, Que., about 150 kilometres north of Ottawa. ... Esprit rafts the Magnetawan River near Parry Sound, the Petawawa River and the Ottawa River. The company handles about 3,000 rafters a year. ... In addition to its domestic trips, Esprit has also gone international, running rafting expeditions in Mexico and bicycle trips in Vietnam."

    7. Bruemmer, René (2010-05-15). "Looking for adventure? Canada offers wilderness tours for all tastes". Ottawa Citizen. ProQuest 241355752. Archived from the original on 2024-02-20. Retrieved 2024-02-20 – via Newspapers.com.

      The article notes: "Esprit Rafting company. Ranked No. 1 for "Best Outfitters on Earth" by National Geographic Online, this Ottawa-Valley-based rafting company offers everything from one-day rafting trips on the Ottawa River to multi-day canoe excursions (anywhere from two to 10 days long). It also gives certification training, teaches riverboarding and surfing on the rapids."

    There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Esprit to pass Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Primary criteria, which requires "significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject".

    Cunard (talk) 09:18, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, as always @Cunard for your research. I agree 6/7 are good. I do wonder if we have consensus anywhere about travel guide books and wehther they're sufficiently independent since so many are paid inclusion. Something to think about down the line if we don't. Star Mississippi 13:43, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Star Mississippi (talk · contribs). I consider travel guide books from reputable publishers generally to be sufficiently independent assuming that the travel guide book did not say they are being paid for including the company. And if they are being paid to include the company but did not disclose, then I would not consider them a reputable publisher. Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 100#Travel guides as sources and Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 262#Travel Guide discussed travel guides but focused more on what topics travel guides can be used as sources for rather than the independence and paid inclusion aspect. Cunard (talk) 11:25, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- Per Cunard, which is not a kind of !vote I usually like to make, but in this case they've done the exhaustive research and I have nothing further to add. Central and Adams (talk) 22:21, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. RL0919 (talk) 21:22, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Union Jack and the Megatones[edit]

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

Just a local band that briefly existed. It is difficult to find any coverage at all. toweli (talk) 19:52, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 23:43, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lockheart Indigo[edit]

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

I couldn't find any reliable sources besides the very short PC Gamer article. The Guru Gamer article is pseudonymous, as are their others. QuietCicada chirp 19:38, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Doesn't appear to pass GNG for the article. While the PCGamer source would be sufficient for mentioning in articles like List of freeware video games. IgelRM (talk) 23:02, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Scheduling (computing). History is retained if folks wish for a merge. Star Mississippi 01:54, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Process Contention Scope[edit]

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

Doesn't appear to meet WP:N, or have a good WP:ATD. Has been in CAT:NN for 14 years, so hopefully we can now resolve it. Boleyn (talk) 15:30, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: More discussion around the ATDs would be helpful in attaining a consensus here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 19:25, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 23:46, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Big Fury[edit]

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

Fails GNG. Sources in article are two database records, one of which is about another ride, and two blog posts, again one of which is about another ride. BEFORE found mill news about its removal, nothing meets SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth.  // Timothy :: talk  18:55, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 23:47, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Malgosia Majewska[edit]

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

Completely unsourced article about a model, not properly referenced as passing inclusion criteria for models. The primary notability claim here is that she won Miss World Canada and then went on to compete but not win in the international Miss World finals -- which would be fine if the article were properly sourced, but is not "inherently" notable enough to constitute an automatic inclusion freebie without WP:GNG-worthy sourcing to support it.
Most Miss World Canada winners, in fact, do not have articles at all, and neither do many of the contestants listed in Miss World 2006.
So nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt her from having to have proper reliable source coverage about her in real media. Bearcat (talk) 18:39, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Llanelli#Settlements near Llanelli as a viable ATD Star Mississippi 01:51, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pen-y-graig, Carmarthenshire[edit]

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

Fails WP:GEOLAND and WP:GNG, no sufficient sources found to develop the article, unreferenced since its creation. Not a name recognised by Ordnance Survey today, nor other online maps, unless connected to the "Penygraig road" in a similar location. Only seen it used as a trivial place name, possibly influenced by this article, and as a historic place name. However, as per the talk RM it may have been a building name, or a tiny village, since lost, and not enough for an article. DankJae 18:38, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Wales. DankJae 18:38, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or redirect to Llanelli#Settlements near Llanelli. Indeed not an OS settlement[12], can't find much online and although the Welsh Wikipedia article is more developed it mainly lists services etc nearby so doesn't really contain any content other than location etc. Crouch, Swale (talk) 20:13, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Crouch, Swale, the cy article is bot generated, so just uses the coordinates to guess where the nearest stuff is or what constituency it is in. DankJae 20:15, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • I just looked at the RM and see I was the nom and you supported where we questioned notability and I tagged the article for notability. Indeed the cy article is bot generated possibly from this article. Crouch, Swale (talk) 20:22, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can find no evidence that this is anything at all, and although it was something almost a century and a quarter ago, it appearing in some old gazetteers, I can find no documentation of what, specifically, it was. There are hints that, after what it was vanished, the name lingered in the names of some bungalows and a road on a council estate built in the 1960s. But no firm documentation of anything. The hints are in a sports player's biography, not exactly a firm geographic resource. Uncle G (talk) 15:13, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I can't find anything to even verify this. The other Pen-y-graig does not help. SportingFlyer T·C 15:13, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unsure Pen-y-Graig is marked on the OS six-inch 1888-1915 map,[13] and on the OS 25-inch map 1892-1914,[14] where Pen-y-graig looks like a hamlet. I found a reliable modern source: Llanelli Rural Council mentions Penygraig as a community,[15] (although this is not an official community for local government). An argument for keeping it is that does not seem to be a part of another place (based on the maps), it is unclear whether we might redirect it to Cwmcarnhywel, Bryn or Llwynhendy. Verbcatcher (talk) 07:18, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Verbcatcher, The LRC source uses Clos Cilsaig, Dafen and Penygraig, Bynea. Clos Cilsaig, "clos meaning close?", seems to be a street name, so Penygraig is likely too (Penygraig Road), with Clos Cilsaig located in Dafen, and Penygraig located in Bynea (for some reason). So "community" here likely is used generally. DankJae 12:11, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @DankJae: The LRC source says "Penygraig play area will also be situated on space formerly used as a play area at land behind Penllwynrhodyn Road." Penllwynrhodyn Road is about 200m from Penygraig road. The location of the Penygraig play area is confirmed by the picture in the LRC page (where they have copied a Google StreetView image).[16] This confirms that the LRC page uses Penygraig as an area, or a suburb. This qualifies for "Populated places without legal recognition" in WP:GEOLAND, but it should be "considered on a case-by-case basis" so there is no requirement to treat it as 'notable'. Verbcatcher (talk) 23:11, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Looking at the text size of the old maps compared to other places that are settlements it looks like it might just be making reference to a farm or at least a place below a settlement but its not clear. Its quite possible it was only a farm or similar and as Llanelli expanded the area it became became known informally as Pen-y-graig or similar but otherwise has (and quite possibly never had) any legal recognition. Looking at notability of places in Wales, communities (in the sense of municipalities as opposed to informal areas of towns etc) would be considered legally recognized per GEOLAND, OS settlements may be considered legally recognized and areas below OS settlements would not be considered legally recognized so it seems quite clear today (and possibly always) its a place without legal recognition and we haven't found any substantial coverage of it so it should be deleted or merged. Crouch, Swale (talk) 19:46, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. Star Mississippi 01:52, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Shinohara Yoshiko[edit]

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

Fails WP:BIO, WP:SIGCOV. Refs are PR, profiles and interview and passing mentions. No indication of significance for a WP:BLP. scope_creepTalk 18:29, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ref 1 is an interview, Ref 2 is a raw search url that points to two articles in the FT. The first one is a passing mention, the 2nd one is a passing mention. Ref 3 is another interview style article "she told Forbes Asia in 2015.". Can't read Ref 4. Ref 5 is more substantial. But a single reference isn't sufficient for WP:BLP. The references in the article are atrocious and typical of an agency managed article. scope_creepTalk 19:58, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to clean up the article, feel free -- it's an old article that I started making edits to and admittedly needs work. However, claiming it's not notable is absurd. Did you actually do a search for sources? Note that ref 1 is not an interview but a profile CNBC that cites two previous interviews she did which constitutes significant coverage. Yes, the FT link is to multiple articles about her which constitute significant coverage (admittedly, the first two are passing on their own). Ref 3 is again an article about her (in 2017) that references a prior interview she gave in 2015, it is also significant coverage. Ref 4 is a full article about her and the fact that you can't read it does not mean it's not sigcov. And we already agree that ref 5 constitutes significant coverage.
I'm confused if you did a search for sources yourself and, if so, included Japanese sources as per WP:BEFORE B7 "search for native-language sources if the subject has a name in a non-Latin alphabet (such as Japanese or Greek)"? DCsansei (talk) 22:28, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you post three genuine WP:SECONDARY sources I will withdraw it. Not profiles, not interviews, not PR, not passing mention, not any AI generated articles. That is all any person needs for the Afd to close is to supply WP:THREE refs. Sometime it is very hard to do. scope_creepTalk 06:22, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Nothing listed above is an AI article; not sure what that comment was supposed to apply to. Substantial independent coverage from reliable publications is included. Coverage in Japanese also exists (e.g. this program from TV Tokyo, this book from Heibonsha, this book from Bungeishunjū, etc.). Dekimasuよ! 10:56, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep, lazy nom, obvious lack of WP:BEFORE. --Cavarrone 22:15, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I will do a review of the references in the next couple of days. I do intend to get those two books described. One of them is certainly trade book published by interested parties that is not necessarily independent. It not that don't trust you as an admin but to say there is substanial coverage when the article doesn't have single valid reference, is problematic. @Cavarrone: That was lazy drive-by Afd !vote, dude. scope_creepTalk 22:23, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • You already did a review of the sources here, which was arguably inaccurate (describing legitimate articles as "interviews" and significant coverage as passing mentions, dismissing sources just because you can't read them and so on) and was effectively rebutted by DCsansei's analysis, which you just choose to ignore in your counter-reply. So my friendly suggestion is to just drop the stick, "dude". --Cavarrone 23:15, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No I didn't. It was the article I was talking about, but you haven't even looked at the article have you. Interviews don't prove notability, nor does agency generated PR profiles, or passing mentions, all typical of the type of coverage you see on the type of individual here that use marketing and PR agencies to manage their own PR brand. I see nothing so far of value. I have two references to check. I've no confidence that this article is any different from the hundreds of other articles with the exact same type of trash sources, that I've seen at Afd, in the last 10 years. Anyway, why would say, "drop the stick" when this is the same type of Afd as any other one. When you have said "Lazy nom" when that article has got zero valid sources for a WP:BLP, that make me think that something is going here that I can't see. Why would say that?. I'm curious. scope_creepTalk 00:17, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I suggested you to "drop the stick" because DCsansei provided some good sources, you claimed they were not good and DCsansei successfully rebutted your claims. Then Dekimasu even provided further sources. This AfD should had been withdrawn a long time ago and do not require further bludgeoning, as there is no chance the article will be deleted, and the AfD itself could had avoided by a proper WP:BEFORE. Cavarrone 11:04, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am not sure I understand which book is supposed to have been a "trade book published by interested sources" (I think that comment was directed at me). The Heibonsha book is a standard mass-market book from a highly reputable publisher, written by a Jiji Press economics reporter. The Bungeishunju book is a standard mass-market book from a reputable publisher, written by a well-known freelance nonfiction writer who used to be an editor at Shukan Shinchō. Expert sources and involved sources are certainly different; the standard that's being used here would seem to render most books published in Japan unreliable. I could have tried to find more book sources, but I thought this was sufficient. Dekimasuよ! 04:18, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Dekimasu: I wouldn't say that. I suspect the Gbook references are good, but I like to be absolutely sure, if possible. I know your are admin who makes it their business to supply high quality sources for difficult subjects. On these types of Afd, there is often an enormous amount of interested parties who are often paid by folk who make up the moneyed classes like the subject. In previous Afds, on these types of subjects, which I've done they often appear in the Afd and will argue black is white, to preserve the article. Billionaires who by the their definition are very private individuals, but often need to have a brand to help them make money, can pay any amount to preserve their Wikipedia brand. That has been shown in the past, multiple times. When I did the translations of the information on the two book references, one looked like a trade journal. In America publishing, you often see trade books that are amalgamations of company information. They are all surface and no depth. That kind of book may not be found in Japanese culture and it may be my lack of experience that I don't know that. But I want to be sure if possible. scope_creepTalk 09:27, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 23:43, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Park Northpoint[edit]

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

Article has been unsourced since its creation almost twelve years ago. After a cursory look, I cannot find any sources. It's not clear this thing even exists any more, let alone is notable. AntiDionysius (talk) 17:50, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 23:48, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tush (band)[edit]

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

Does not appear to meet WP:Band criteria. It's one claim to fame was that the guitarist Phil Collen played for them for a short time. It's been unsourced since March 2008. I did just add a singular primary source from Phil Collen's autobiography. Annwfwn (talk) 17:45, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and England. Skynxnex (talk) 18:30, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Thanks to the nominator for adding the reference to the Def Leppard biography, but that does not really matter because the band is not notable. They are only mentioned occasionally, and very briefly, as an early gig for Phil Collen and those sources are about him and not the band. He was not even a significant part of the band's history. Via a search for the other band members, all I can find are occasional social media posts and blogs from the now 60-something members and club attendees claiming that they have a connection to someone famous. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:26, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 page's undeletion. ✗plicit 23:49, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ernest Gold (disambiguation)[edit]

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

Only two entries, and I can't find any others. A hatnote is in place on Ernest Gold. Leschnei (talk) 17:01, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 23:49, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bally Haly Golf & Curling Club[edit]

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

I couldn't establish that this meets WP:N or has a good WP:ATD. Boleyn (talk) 16:51, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:19, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Balgzand Gas Plant[edit]

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

I couldn't find sources to show this meets WP:N. Boleyn (talk) 16:50, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I'm surprised there were not more sources for this, even the gas fields have more sources than this. I will cite lack of Reliable sources, Lack of Secondary sources. And add, that it's just an industrial facility. We probably don't want to have articles on every factory that exists.James.folsom (talk) 23:39, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Per nom. Questionable notability with no secondary sources with SIGCOV. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 10:59, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Setting aside any concerns that are not in the purview of AfD, the consensus of the discussion is that the subject has not been shown to meet the WP:NCORP requirements. RL0919 (talk) 21:12, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Aquaveo[edit]

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

Fails WP:NCOMPANY – a small, privately held company (LLC), occupying a small office somewhere in Utah and producing niche software. Article only includes affiliated references or ones that don't even mention the company's name, proving perhaps that the company exists but falling short of offering evidence of its encyclopaedic notability. Accounts of article creator and contributors have been alleged to be affiliated with the company. (Redacted) — kashmīrī TALK 16:52, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Software. — kashmīrī TALK 16:52, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Environment and Utah. Skynxnex (talk) 17:06, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I don't know about the creator of the article, or any of the other contributors, but I haven't ever been paid to work on the article. It's just found within one of many topics I find interesting (I've edited a fair number of river and lake articles over the years, and Aquaveo's software is used by a lot of people writing academic papers analyzing rivers and lakes). All of my contributions have been working to improve the article by adding references, removing marketing speak, and expanding it based on references I found (pretty much what I do for every other article I work on). As it stands right now, it's pretty much on the border of notability, and it could go either way. The Deseret News article is definitely a solid source. As the nom noted, most of the others are more informational references that (taken together) might push it over into notability, but also may not. So, I could go either way. If it is decided to delete the article, I'd request it be userfied so I can work on it. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 16:43, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I should also note that being small, privately-held, in Utah, and producing niche software do not, in and of themselves, disqualify any company per WP:COMPANY. Those attributes are irrelevant to notability. As my previous comment noted, the only thing relevant is whether the company has been given significant coverage in multiple, third-party (independent) secondary sources. The Deseret News article is one such source. None of the others used in the article are likely helpful there. So, at least one additional such source would likely need to be found. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 18:18, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It has to be asked whether Deseret, a single reference from 2016 1999, is a sufficient evidence of WP:SUSTAINED notability; especially that it... does not mention Aquaveo. I guess the argument will be that it's insufficient. Please note that this is an article about a company and its notability per WP:NCOMPANY, not about any of its products which may or may not be notable per WP:NSOFTWARE. — kashmīrī TALK 19:11, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The Deseret News article talks about "Environmental Modeling Systems", which is a previous name of Aquaveo, as mentioned in the article here. "Environmental Modeling Systems" isn't a product, but a former company name. I made no comments about its products, so please don't try to put words in my mouth. I'm very well aware that notable products don't equate to notable companies. And I never argued that a single reference in DN is sufficient evidence to make Aquaveo notable (in fact, I said the opposite). ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 19:19, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, the 25-year-old article in local newspaper indeed mentions Environmental Modeling Systems, i.e., the business that was taken over by Aquaveo a decade later. Wikipedia still needs sources on Auqaveo specifically that would offer evidence of in-depth, lasting coverage of the company. Will you be able to find them? — kashmīrī TALK 19:45, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    As far as I can tell, EMS wasn't taken over, but rather became Aquaveo since, as far as I can tell, everyone who was working with EMS went on to work at Aquaveo and EMS ceased to exist when Aquaveo started up. As for "Will you be able to find them?", it's not on only me to find sources. I'm not even arguing one way or another. However, as nominator, it's on you to do your due diligence to make sure there aren't any articles or other reliable, third-party sources that could be used in the article. I've already given you my thoughts (only the DN article helps toward establishing notability). Please stop harassing me, especially when I'm not even necessarily disagreeing with you. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 20:06, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Nihonjoe: Please note that on the English Wikipedia, Harrasment is covered by policy. It is strictly defined and not necessarily synonymous with broader global English-language usage. If you think Kashmiri has harassed you, then WP:DWH applies; dispute resolution is suggested. Conversely, WP:AOHA also states that, Making accusations of harassment can be inflammatory... It can be seen as a personal attack if harassment is alleged without clear evidence that the others' action is actually harassment. So, moving forward, please lodge your accusations against Kashmiri at a noticeboard, or retract them as unfounded. Perhaps an apology is in order; your conscience must dictate. Happy editing! ——Serial 20:20, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Serial Number 54129: Please note that on the English Wikipedia, writing a hostile comment and ending it with "Happy editing!" is considered by some[who?] to be somewhat impolite. jp×g🗯️ 02:15, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @JPxG We're having a case of an administrator who has for years edited while having an obvious COI, when finally caught avoided answering questions and baselessly accused others of harassment – and the only thing that you, a fellow admin, show concern about in all of that is that someone may not have been sufficiently polite to him? Seriously? — kashmīrī TALK 08:49, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Kashmiri: It's actually been something a lot of admins have been discussing for a little while now. Polite signatures can come off pretty badly when giving someone a warning despite being made with the best possible intentions. Some people, especially noobies or those who aren't familiar with a user with a signature like that, can take it the wrong way. That's all, not a big deal. My comments on the accusation you're making will be at the relevant board.
    ... Happy editing? Hey man im josh (talk) 00:22, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah, ok, so one of those discussion about how to survive without offending someone somewhere? Damn this young generation... — kashmīrī TALK 15:11, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Pretty much, yeah. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:40, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Z – the Offended Generation. Good luck, man. — kashmīrī TALK 21:33, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Do you have a source for "everyone who was working with EMS went on to work at Aquaveo and EMS ceased to exist when Aquaveo started up"? This needs verification and please see WP:BURDEN. - The literary leader of the age ✉ 23:05, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    As I wrote above, As far as I can tell.... The few people mentioned as working at EMS in the DN article (and anything else I've found) also worked at Aquaveo when it first started. My comments certainly do not need sources as they are my own comments. WP:BURDEN applies to articles, not discussions such as this since I'm not claiming anything that needs any sort of proof. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 23:17, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I haven't ever been paid to work on the article @Nihonjoe: I don't think that was exactly the question. It's relevant to the outcome of the AfD, so I'm going to ask you directly: Are you, or have you ever been, employed by Aquaveo? Sojourner in the earth (talk) 21:30, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, though not until well after I made the majority of my edits there. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 22:10, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    After reviewing the dates, it appears I was mistaken in my remembering of when those edits were made. They were made shortly after I began working at Aquaveo, though (as mentioned before), I was never paid for making those edits or asked to make them by anyone at Aquaveo. Additionally, while WP:COI strongly discourages editing by those with a potential COI, it does not forbid it as long as the edits are done within the guidelines and policies governing editing of any article here. All of my editing of any article on Wikipedia is by my own choice and at my own whims. I haven't ever been paid to edit any article here. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 18:10, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    "by my own choice and at my own whims" and for your own benefit, because it's your own employer whose article you improved (from here to here), along with your employer's products, SMS, GMS, and WMS. Did you similarly improve articles about your employer's competitors and competing products? No? That's fine, you're totally allowed to, by your own choice and at your own whims, only improve articles about your employer and your employer's products, but as you know, you have to disclose it when you do that. And as you also know, it doesn't matter if your employer paid you or asked you, because you benefit from it either way. That's why WP:COI is not the same page as WP:PAID. Levivich (talk) 21:56, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    How is it for my own benefit? I seriously doubt, given the niche category of software, that any of my edits have done anything to financially (or otherwise) benefit me or Aquaveo. In the time since my first edits there, I've edited thousands and thousands of times, and barely touched those articles. They were all created long before I had anything to do with them. All of my edits to them were trying to clean up the mess they were before I did anything there. I certainly haven't "only improve[d] articles about your employer and your employer's products" since my first edits there in 2015. Those adits likely aren't even 1% of what I've edited during that time. I seriously doubt any of the articles about Aquaveo or its products has helped them (or me) in any way). ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 17:30, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    To be blunt, I don't believe someone with your level of experience and sophistication is unaware that a high-quality Wikipedia article helps boost a company's reputation, which helps boost a company's financials, which is good for the company's employees. By "only," I meant "only your employer and not their competitors," I didn't mean that this is the only thing you've done on Wikipedia. Anyway, I was happy to read your post at AN, thanks for that. Levivich (talk) 20:53, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for confirming. Sort of dead end if the article ends up userfied... — kashmīrī TALK 22:19, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    There has been an off-wiki challenge of this timeline. You might want to revisit that, just in case. Carrite (talk) 04:36, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I feel like this topic would be best discussed with @PhilKnight: or the arbcom email instead of on a public articles for deletion page. Sagflaps (talk) 18:51, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, just a general note, significant contributions to Aquaveo and related hydrology software WMS (hydrology software) have been made by @Edit42: and @42of8:, though it appears neither account is active. Sagflaps (talk) 20:46, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't know who those editors are. I have never edited as either of those accounts, I did not create either of those accounts, and I don't know who did. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 18:10, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Nihonjoe Would you be able to provide the approximate date when your COI started if you recall it? Thanks :) — kashmīrī TALK 21:16, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    No. I don't think it's appropriate for you to be digging into my personal life, thank you. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 21:43, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    No worries. I thought you'd prefer to assist the community in identifying edits made while having a COI, as this tends to work out better on Wikipedia long term, especially if accompanied by a plausible explanation or self-reverts. Ultimately, it's a question of trust in your judgment and words. But, naturally, don't feel compelled. Cheers, — kashmīrī TALK 22:35, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Feel free to scrutinize any of my edits. Outside of those when I first began editing in 2005 and was learning the ropes, I've done my best to be very neutral in all of them. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 23:29, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    As you wish. You surely know it's not about WP:NPOV (nor about WP:PAID) but about WP:COI. Cheers, — kashmīrī TALK 23:57, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (or userfy per Nihonjoe's request). The Deseret News source is decent, but I can't find any additional sources that I'd consider as contributing to notability. I've tried searching under all the company's previous names. Also tried searching newspaper archives; the only result was this passing mention (TWL access only). I'm open to reconsidering if better sources are found. Sojourner in the earth (talk) 21:23, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Fails WP:NCORP, which requires multiple significant and reliable sources. I tried looking under both company names and could not find any other than the Deseret News one. popodameron ⁠talk 22:28, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Only one source potentially contributes to notability here and it's about another company that was taken over by the subject company. Fails WP:NCORP and WP:SUSTAINED. - The literary leader of the age ✉ 23:07, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - This deletion nomination is a proxy for taking action (be it no more than a warning or a slap on the wrist) for an editor holding advanced permissions allegedly doing undisclosed COI editing. This is unfortunate. My reading of the sources shown in the footnotes, without taking the first step onto the internet to sniff around, is that this is a GNG-pass. It is a well-constructed and useful piece as well. Let's not throw the baby out the window just because daddy may or may not have been less than forthcoming. Carrite (talk) 18:09, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Are you alleging that this is a bad-faith nomination? — kashmīrī TALK 18:13, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, I'm sure you believe what you believe and it is a close call. But it's clearly taking the form of a proxy for something else. Carrite (talk) 18:15, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, and merge the spin out articles here. This isn’t a hugely notable company, but it’s an academic spin out and there’s enough coverage of it and its products to make something of. We should at least try that first, rather than have teh dramahz. Guy (help! - typo?) 12:49, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, the vast majority of content has been created by employees if off-wiki evidence is to be trusted. Who do you want to maintain this article for this micro business for which the last and only in-depth sourcing worth its name dates to 1999? — kashmīrī TALK 15:08, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - doesn't pass NCORP and nobody has even tried to put forward NCORP sources. Levivich (talk) 13:56, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Does not meet NCORP, which is ultimately the only thing that matters in keeping this article in mainspace.
JoelleJay (talk) 20:29, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Terrisa Bukovinac. History is preserved under redirect, which can be used by those folks who want to expand the article. (non-admin closure) The Herald (Benison) (talk) 02:52, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Progressive Anti-Abortion Uprising[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. No source article covers the history or "biographical" information about THIS ORGANIZATION; the sources only cover ONE EVENT WP:1E; the organization itsself is only briefly mentioned in the sources, most of which are poor sources (WP:NATIONALREVIEW), or WP:PRIMARY sources like the justice department releases, or self-sourced.

THE EVENT **MAY** be notable, but NOT the ORGANIZATION. ---Avatar317(talk) 19:54, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

STRONG KEEP: I strongly disagree with the proposal to delete this article. The event that discovered the five late-term fetuses is absolutely notable (I appreciate the proposer for recognizing that), and if the event was the only thing related to this organization, then I would probably agree that we can instead have an article specifically for that event. However, there are two very notable events related to this organization. Other than the discovery of the 5 late-term fetuses and hundreds of early-term ones, there is also a separate case where members of this organization were arrested for violations of the FACE Act, which has garnered a LOT of notability. They bombarded and blocked abortion clinics, and are equally, if not more notable than Democrats for Life of America.
I agree that some of the sourcing must be fixed, but I ask that the person who proposed this recognize the fact that there are numerous events that have made this organization notable. I also ask that the proposer give this article a chance to have its sources improved before it is nominated for such a deletion.
I understand the proposers concern and argument, but I ask that the proposer consider mine as well. DocZach (talk) 20:31, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have just updated the article to remove the Natioof-olitical-warnal Review citations. DocZach (talk) 20:42, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
STRONG KEEP: The issue of abortion is an ongoing tug-of-political-war in the United States. And as illustrated above, the Progressive Anti-Abortion Uprising is no less important than all the other articles of various aspects of the issue. — Maile (talk) 00:46, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Notability WP:N has nothing to do with what you think is important. It has to do with whether or not the subject is covered in Reliable Sources. ---Avatar317(talk) 01:22, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
SPEEDY KEEP: The subject is covered in reliable sources, and there are over two MAJOR events that this organization is known for. Maile didn't say it's what he thinks is important, he said that the PAAU article is simply not of less importance to other relevant articles on the issue. For example, there's less notability and sources for the Center for Reproductive Rights article, yet that article is still allowed to remain.
Your proposal is incorrect because you claim that the sources only cover ONE EVENT, when in-fact, there are at least two major events covered by reliable sources. The FACE Act incident, and the discovery of the bodies are SEPARATE incidents and events.
The poor source you claimed was in the article was removed and replaced, and therefore, because [1] the proposal is false in that it claims there is only one event covered, and [2] the sources in dispute were fixed/removed/replaced, this proposal should should be closed and a SPEEDY KEEP should be enacted.
Per Wikipedia:Speedy keep, number one and number three apply here to justify a speedy closure of this nomination to maintain the article's existence. The proposal is erroneous in that it falsely claims the organization is only known for one event and that the sources only reference one specific event (which is false). And furthermore, the proposer claims that there is no "biographical" information of this organization, which is FALSE.
THERE IS A BIOGRAPHICAL DESCRIPTION OF PAAU RIGHT HERE, CONTRARY TO THE PROPOSER'S CLAIM:
  • NEW YORK TIMES: "Kristin Turner, the communications director for Progressive Anti-Abortion Uprising. Some relative newcomers to the anti-abortion movement include young women whose activism is not connected to religious belief. [...] Progressive Anti-Abortion Uprising, whose goals include educating the public about 'the exploitative influence of the Abortion Industrial Complex through an anti-capitalist lens.' [...] Progressive Anti-Abortion Uprising, founded last year, emphasizes “direct action,” including “pink-rose rescues,” in which activists enter abortion clinics to distribute roses attached to anti-abortion information." https://www.nytimes.com/2022/07/03/us/pro-life-young-women-roe-abortion.html
DocZach (talk) 02:07, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment To editors coming to this deletion discussion now and after, please stop Bolding and CAPITALIZING words. As an admin that has closed hundreds of AFDs, this wordplay is just distracting and doesn't make your opinion any more important than other editor's opinions. It's not how flashy your words are but the argument you are putting forth. So, please, no more bolding or ALLCAPs in responses here. Thank you. Liz Read! Talk! 07:25, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment: My apologies. I am used to emphasizing the important points of my arguments with formatting, so that's my bad. @Liz DocZach (talk) 08:53, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I see extant sourcing in the article covering multiple individual events. Taken as a whole, this appears to be sufficient coverage to form the basis of an article on the group itself. There are POV/copyediting issues like the mission statement in the lead sentence, but those are cleanup items that don't drive a need for deletion. VQuakr (talk) 23:09, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - There's some coverage that isn't limited to the "115 fetuses" incident, so it's possible it scrapes by GNG. Is there a potential merge target? I almost !voted delete per WP:TNT because the article was a POV disaster, but I just tried to fix some of it so it's less an extension of the group's own website. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 15:37, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Rhododendrites: At risk of partly duplicating my comments below, the group's founder (Terrisa Bukovinac) does have an article that was kept at AfD. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 18:32, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:TNT as above. The article creator seems intent on forcing the POV and BLP problems into the article. I see now that it was even declined by MaxnaCarta at AfC specifically for POV reasons, but the article creator just moved it into mainspace anyway. If other users were substantially involved, I wouldn't push for deletion, but since it's such a borderline notability case and the article is in the state it is, IMO we should just blow it up. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 14:07, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per VQuakr. --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 18:40, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect Delete - The topic of abortion is notable, and it has an article. An Organisation dedicated to deal with a notable topic is not necessarily notable. This is akin to me founding an Apple iphone club and then claiming notability for an article because I was involved in the theft of iphones from a warehouse and am called on for comment. The coverage does not cover this organisation indepth. Not every pro/anti abortion organisation is notable. They must meet NORG like any other. The events the organisation is tied to aren't relevant. What is relevant that there is significant, sustained coverage detailing the organisation in-depth. There isn't any. It's trivial mentions and quotations - these do not constitute significant coverage. — MaxnaCarta  ( 💬 • 📝 ) 00:20, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Updating my vote to a redirect as an ATD — MaxnaCarta  ( 💬 • 📝 ) 02:02, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I'd like to remind everyone that this article qualifies for a SPEEDY KEEP, considering the fact that the proposal itself is deceptive and incorrect. It claims there is only one event, when that is obviously false if the proposer took a minute to read the article. And furthermore, the proposer lied about there being no biographical coverage. @Rhododendrites, your idea of a POV issue seems quite strange to me, and I need you to explain further. And in regards to @MaxnaCarta, the events the organization is tied to is absolutely part of what notability consists of, and I already provided sources showing in-depth explanations of the organization itself. So your question about "What is relevant that there is significant, sustained coverage detailing the organisation in-depth" was already answered, please look above. DocZach (talk) 07:34, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It absolutely does not qualify as a speedy keep, no matter how many times you bold and capitalise the two words. I also take issue with you calling the nomination deceptive. It is not. AGF. At any rate, I believe the nomination is absolutely spot on. The event is notable, the organisation is not. Also, merely the event being notable doesn’t necessitate a standalone article per WP:PAGEDECIDE. You should have listened to the two declines made at AFC before moving it to main space. — MaxnaCarta  ( 💬 • 📝 ) 07:49, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To second this: the nomination clearly does not meet any of the narrow criteria listed at WP:SKCRIT. @DocZach: please have a look at WP:REPETITION. Repeating yourself makes it less, not more, likely a reasoning will be accepted. Also the POV issues are quite blatant and have been immediately apparent to every uninvolved editor that's looked at the article, myself included: as of right now there's even a mission statement in the 2nd sentence of the lead! VQuakr (talk) 18:51, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have removed the mission statement from the second sentence of the lead. DocZach (talk) 19:50, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sources: So from the RS's currently in the article, we have two sources that provide slightly more information about the group than this example quote typical of all these sources, which only mention the group as a side comment in the 5 fetus event, for example "...Lauren Handy, a well-known local antiabortion protester and director of activism for Progressive Anti-Abortion Uprising."

1) The NYT mentioned above, with some small comments about the org, and 2) Vice [22] mentions PAAU 15 times but never profiles the organization, other than to say that it is one organization re-doing the "rescue" idea, uses TikTok, and is small: Progressive Anti-Abortion Uprising is still not one of the major players in the anti-abortion world; it has just over 4,300 followers on TikTok. (The similarly youth-focused Students for Life has over 54,000 followers.)

Can any editor who supports keeping this article provide quotes from Reliable Sources that provide more info about this organization to show WP:NORG: "significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject."?

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Avatar317 (talk • contribs) 01:36, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. The relevant notability guideline here is WP:NGO:
  1. The scope of their activities is national or international in scale.
  2. The organization has received significant coverage in multiple reliable sources that are independent of the organization.
In addition to the sourcing in the article and discussed here, I'm also seeing significant coverage from KFF Health News (KFF being Kaiser Family Foundation after a rebrand, and also republished by The Daily Beast). The piece is focused solely on the group, and talks extensively talks about the group, its strategy and tactics, its leadership, and to some extent its public reception. This doesn't seem like a WP:1E-sort of thing, so the only question that took me a while is whether this meets criterion No. 1 of the NGO guideline. And for this reason, I'm refraining from leaving a bold !vote, since I'm not quite able to get a good handle on whether this group is active outside of the DMV area or if this is a local group that happens to be active in the nation's capital.
On a separate note, I do note that the group's founder (Terrisa Bukovinac) has an article, so in the event that we feel that this NGO is non-notable we might want to merge some content to the article on the founder. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 05:52, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Aoidh (talk) 16:41, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Adding to my !vote above: For the record, I'm not opposed to redirecting to Terrisa Bukovinac. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 18:38, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree, a redirect to Bukovinac is probably a better option than keeping a stand alone article about the marginally-notable organization. VQuakr (talk) 21:26, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was snow keep‎. There is a strong consensus to keep the article. The early closure of this discussion is done in accordance with WP:SNOW. (non-admin closure) gobonobo + c 11:20, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rachel Dolezal[edit]

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

I think the page should be deleted for the same reasons we don't allow creation of a page related to Christine Weston Chandler aka Chris Chan. Personally I think both of those people are very similar in the ways they are covered, and objectively we can agree that Dolezal's notability is that of infamy. I think an encyclopedia shouldn't at least contribute to the contemporary ridicule of a person that wouldn't get news coverage if they didn't do the silly stuff they did. VectorVoyager (talk) 16:10, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Snow keep Hundreds of reliable, independent, significant coverage sources. For that exact reason, it's absurd to compare Dolezal to the person you've mentioned. It's nowhere near the same kind of repercussion. Skyshiftertalk 17:27, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the arguments already presented in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rachel Dolezal. This person is undoubtedly notable for her activism and personal quest for being recognized with a racial/ethnic identity different from the one she was born with. Darwin Ahoy! 17:29, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: lmao oh boy, that's really all I can say. Best argument for deleting is BLP1E, I guess? But she was a fundamentally public person even before that as the local head of the NAACP.
Also if Chandler ever gets covered secondarily (outside of individual antics) by like, the New York Times, or a reliable study on internet subcultures, an article will be made, AVOIDVICTIM be damned (though if that ever happened I predict everyone would be dragged into it kicking and screaming). Primary problem outside of that is there is no good secondary coverage outside of petty crimes, while the media Dolezal's case, due to the race aspect, started a whole debate over transracialism and whatnot, lots of commentary (though I guess you can probably still make the BLP1E case?)
She is notable for doing one thing I suppose. Not much else or long standing notability. PARAKANYAA (talk) 17:30, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Many credible sources that have and are currently reporting on the subject of the article. Notoriety is a not a reason for deletion. An encyclopedia is not a place to keep only pages of the morally pure "heroes" as we decide it. -- Sleyece (talk) 18:29, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Sleyece: what about AVOIDVICTIM? The media screwed up her life. She couldn't find any jobs that she resorted to prostitution, and Wikipedia only contributed to that infamy. I think we need to avoid picking up on citizens.VectorVoyager (talk) 16:29, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
She's not a victim. She defrauded the NAACP, then started an OnlyFans account when they caught her. -- Sleyece (talk) 01:54, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This subject actively sought notoriety through deceit, and the publicity (good or bad) that came with it. The other subject mentioned did not and is actively harassed. That's all I'll say besides that the nominator needs to learn what a good comparison is, because this is certainly not that. Nate • (chatter) 21:40, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - pretty clearly does not meet the criteria of WP:BLP1E and I don't lend much credence to the comparison with Christine which seems to be the main argument of the nominator. AlexandraAVX (talk) 11:32, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This subject has clearly gotten coverage through a large number of WP:RS. Also, the OP's statement "objectively we can agree that Dolezal's notability is that of infamy" implies that this article, is, in fact, notable. Crystalholm (talk) 01:21, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Rachel Dolezal is internationally (in)famous. This seems like it will be a snow keep by the end of the day. ceranthor 17:29, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 23:53, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mulgrave Tank railway station[edit]

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

I couldn't find sources to show it meets WP:N. Possible WP:ATD is merge/redirect to List of closed railway stations in Sydney or Richmond railway line, though I am not sure if that would be helpful to readers. Boleyn (talk) 16:08, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:22, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of scholars of St Augustine[edit]

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

Fails WP:NLIST. Most of the scholars in the list are redlinked, and Augustine is such a big name that I'm not convinced this list really adds much value. Searching "List of scholars of" returns no other Church Father afforded this treatment. Category:Augustine scholars provides a suitable navigational function for readers interested in scholars notable enough to justify standalone articles, while this article encourages WP:OR and WP:PROMO. IgnatiusofLondon (talk) 16:05, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per WP:NLIST. Remsense诉 23:43, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm confused by the statement that Augustine is such a big name that I'm not convinced this list really adds much value. Would a list make more sense for more obscure scholars? Surely it is Augustine's bigness that would justify the list? This list could be reworkd into an Augustinian studies article. Srnec (talk) 14:41, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It's rather that I think the list will perpetually be incomplete. You can expect many Christian theologians to have at one time or another written on or extensively studied Augustine. Augustianian studies would be an improvement, but I wonder if it's superfluous to the articles documented in the series Template:Augustinianism IgnatiusofLondon (talk) 17:18, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Per nom. Also NOTDIR. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 11:00, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Mojo Hand (talk) 17:14, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Klefki[edit]

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

To be honest, this feels like an attempt to ignore the previous deletion discussion in 2021 - I don't see any new WP:SIGCOV added since the article was last redirected, only a lot of very trivial mentions. Both of the Kotaku articles are written in a heavily blog-style way, which WP:VG/S warns about: "editors are cautioned of blog/geeky posts that have little news or reporting significance". (One example of the tone: "Meanwhile, you look back at, like, the original 3 starters and they're just a bunch of turtles. Turtles! Dude. C'mon.") It borders on the nonsensical. Therefore I think the previous discussion result still applies 3 years later. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 16:05, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Science fiction and fantasy, and Video games. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 16:05, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I find the argument of "the tone is too unserious" (strong paraphrasing) very rarely applied to this degree, and I would argue that it most definitely does not apply here. The example used at WP:VG/S is this: [23] Specifically, the discussion here is where the consensus came from, where a user argues "My only concern is that Kotaku will also still run geek'ed out articles (eg, anything tagged "fanart" for example)". Rather than this article being an attempt to ignore the previous AfD, I feel that this AfD's argument is an attempt to ignore the context behind the discussion in order to get an article deleted that you personally feel does not suit GNG. From an article that was AfD'd in the past, Deathclaw, is this source, which you used and defended : [24] I would contend that this runs afoul of the consensus on Kotaku's use, where the author is just reposting stuff about a mod, as opposed to the source you take issue with, where the author gives their own opinion on the subject.
  • As an aside, you have been around enough that you should understand that it is appropriate to notify all editors that would reasonably expect to be notified as part of this AfD. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 16:34, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment While I'm not going to vote on this particular article as of yet, I am going to comment on the nominator's particularly aggressive tone as being a bit much, and while I'm assuming good faith I feel saying stuff like "this feels like an attempt to ignore the previous deletion discussion in 2021" is not. Additionally I feel that bringing up the previous AfD is a bit unfair, as comparing the two articles there has been significant improvement, while the heavy focus on the previous AfD in the nomination gives the indication "it's just the same article".--Kung Fu Man (talk) 17:37, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Additional comment Expanding on this, the primary argument in the above, that this article by Patricia Hernandez is a "geeky blog post", it provides three things to the subject in question: an examination of the character, a statement regarding it's popularity and her reaction to that, and an examination of it in a broader real world sense both compared to other designs in the series and folklore. While there's definitely a "tongue in cheek" element of some of the commentary, nonetheless she is making a comparison, and Zx you yourself have argued for outright significantly tongue in cheek sources from this publication in other AfD discussions. A consistent mindset given the frequency of your nominations would be nice.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 17:44, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Honestly, I'd say this is a more concerning example of gaming the system. I would agree that the Sigma source is fine, but the fact that Zx regards it as acceptable despite being significantly more tongue in cheek makes me feel that he is arbitrarily applying consensus on Kotaku in this case depending on whether he opposes or supports deletion, which is an extremely serious issue with an AfD nomination. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 18:03, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I think it's pretty clear there is nothing arbitrary about my deletion nominations, which is a big insinuation. In Sigma's case, the article isn't dependent on that source to prove notability. In the case of Klefki, those are arguably the only reliable sources mentioning Klefki in a significant way that could count towards notability. NME is a simple announcement; TheGamer is about object Pokemon in general, a discrete subject. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 00:56, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Zx you used one half joking comment about turtles in the light of simplistic design to discredit a whole article but somehow argument an article built around "these two characters are named Sigma, let's compare them" as an article you argued for as a valid source. Can you reasonably not see a problem there?--Kung Fu Man (talk) 01:32, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I think that claiming that an editor ignored a prior AfD is a big insinuation. Additionally, if this was the only example, maybe you would have a point, but as has been shown, you do have a pattern of defending geeky blog posts from Kotaku. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 02:25, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Given the massive amount of pop-culture references in Overwatch, including retro video games, comparing Sigma to Sigma is not necessarily as goofy as it appears, despite your arguments it is essentially the same and I am a hypocrite. And my problem was not just that the turtles comment was humorous, it's just outright ludicrous. Charmander is a lizard; you have to squint really, really hard to even see Bulbasaur as somewhat being similar to a turtle. It doesn't bode well for the author who wrote it. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 06:25, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I had a long write-up about the fact that you're impugning the writer based on a factual inaccuracy (I can't imagine how few sources would be usable if we held all authors to this standard), but I think I'll save it, because the fact that you're honestly framing the Overwatch article as not being very tongue-in-cheek is absolutely shocking. The author literally frames it as an investigation of if they're the same person, a framing that is patently absurd if you were presenting it seriously. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 07:55, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - There seems a lot of comment here on the nom., but what is important is the sources. Looking at these sources, many are clearly primary, so could someone suggest the WP:THREE best sources you would like me to take a look at. Thanks. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 18:13, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Here are what I would consider the strongest sources: [25] [26] [27] [28] - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 18:22, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • There is also this source, where the interviewer asks about its creation, with the implication being that the question came about as a result of the negative reception. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 18:28, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep On top of what was there before, there have been several more sources added to the article since. I'd say that it's more than enough to justify Klefki's existence. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 22:34, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to List of generation VI Pokémon#Klefki - Asked for WP:THREE and got five. Let's look at them. [29] is Kotaku, a gamer news site although also described as a blog. Despite being a blog, it appears to have editorial oversight and can be given a pass on reliability. But the review opens with "...new Pokémon designs... are they any good?" This then is a WP:PRIMARY source and primary sources do not count towards notability. Per WP:GNG, sources should be secondary. The fact that some new thing is written about in specialist review sites that write on the subject when it is new tells us nothing about notability, and neither can this be considered sustained coverage. So that one won't do. [30] is also Kotaku. The writer is different and not an editor, but the same comments apply. Primary sourcing. So what of the others? [31] has "Fans have discovered that ‘Pokémon Klefki’ is available in multiple regions". This is also primary, in a generally reliable source per Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources. Then we have [32]. This one is, at least, speaking about a subject and concept. It is talking about "Object Pokemon". Klefki is not the subject of the article but mentioned as an example of Object Pokemon. This article might be some evidence for an article on the class of Pokemon that are objects, and Klefki would be a valid redirect there, but it does not contain significant coverage of Klefki itself. Finally [33] starts off with "The latest core entry in the Pokémon franchise is the biggest step forward the series has taken in many years." This sounds good, but actually it is not talking about Klefki. Klefki just gets passing mention as part of a discussion of improvements. Additionally this is another primary source. So, in short, there is nothing here that speaks to an enduring notability of Klefki as a subject in itself. Pokemon is notable but notability is not inherited. Nothing in these sources shows why Klefki as a concept or character is independently notable of Pokemon. I would happily consider an alternative redirect if there were a notable object pokemon subject page. I can't find one though, so the original redirect as an outcome of the first AFD appears correct. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 09:37, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I am not in agreement that Kotaku is a primary source. Neither of their articles are written by or hosted on sources directly involved or close to an event. The policy says "insider," and the examples are a scientist's comments of their own results and a first-hand eye witness comment, neither of which could be comparable to critic commentary on a subject. What part of this section of policy are you arguing Kotaku fits under? - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 09:45, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I think you may be confusing independence with primary sourcing. If someone writes about some new thing when it is new and because it is new, it is a primary source. Have a read of WP:PRIMARY and also WP:PRIMARYNEWS. Note, however, what PRIMARYNEWS says about book reviews. That is why I gave more weight to [34] - but as I pointed out, the secondary coverage there was on the concept of object pokemon, and not Klefki. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 10:10, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Firstly, the argument that it was written about because it was new does not apply to the second Kotaku article, which was written six years after the release of its game of origin. Secondly, I would contend that the first Kotaku citation is an example of a "book review." It may have been written as a response to X and Y's newness, but it's also in-depth commentary by the author of an aspect of the game. Looking at WP:SECONDARY, the article fits this much better: "A secondary source provides thought and reflection based on primary sources, generally at least one step removed from an event. It contains analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis of the facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas taken from primary sources." In the example, it suggests a military historian's talk about the life experiences of their own experiences as an example where a secondary source may be a primary source. In this case, the author is providing "analysis, evaluation, interpretation" and "synthesis of the facts," rather than being used to recount anything about herself. I strongly disagree with this interpretation of primary and secondary sourcing. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 10:36, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Are we talking about the same article? The Kotaku article is primary. Ask yourself, what is it in that article that suggests Klefki is an independently notable thing? Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 12:03, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The fact that the author elected to go into significant detail about it. Or, more on the nose, the fact that the author describes Klefki as a notable Pokemon, and says so in such a way that makes clear that it stands out from most other Pokemon. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 12:07, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It says it is notable for being ridiculous. But that is not WP:N that is the opinion of the author writing in a primary source as to why, at the time of introduction, this was getting attention. I have spent quite a bit of time looking at what you selected as the five best sources, and I think I have said all that needs saying on these. My view above stands. I'll leave it there, thanks. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 12:25, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    No strong opinion on whether this article should be spun out, but I don't think this (Sirfurboy's interpretation) is the standard interpretation of WP:PRIMARY as it applies to notability-conferring sources. Reviews contain primary information on the opinions of the reviewer, but secondary information on the thing under review. See the footnote in the cited guideline, saying that reviews are evidence of notability:
    Having multiple coverages in book reviews is considered one of the notability criteria for books; book reviews should be considered as supporting sources in articles about books. ~ A412 talk! 19:27, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I both linked to PRIMARYNEWS and signalled what it said about how a book review can be secondary, and by analogy, why one of the above can be understood to be secondary. I also pointed out why the others are primary. An article starting "...new Pokémon designs... are they any good?" is primary. Books can be deemed notable provided they have suitable reviews, yes. But this is not a comparable particular. We are not talking about a game (analagous to a book) but to a specific character, and thus comparable to a book character. The notability guideline for books (NBOOKS) is not analagous. We are looking at WP:GNG here. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 20:18, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not drawing the analogies to book reviews because I think NBOOKS is analogous to video game characters, I'm citing them because I don't think your position reflects consensus on whether review pieces on newly released things are primary, which by my reading, they are not. This time from PRIMARYNEWS: "Book reviews are generally secondary sources if they provide information beyond a basic description of the book's contents". Perhaps we disagree whether the Kotaku source does "provide information beyond a basic description", but I think it clearly does. ~ A412 talk! 21:12, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That is exactly what I highlighted when I said Note, however, what PRIMARYNEWS says about book reviews. That is why I gave more weight to [12]. So yes, if you think a review of whats new Pokemon designs that describes one called Klefki, with a basic description of what Klefki is is a secondary source, then we are very much in disagreement about what constitutes a secondary source. The review is this one [35]. It is all description and no analysis. This is someone describing a new character in a game. No analysis. It is reporting. It is a primary source. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 21:59, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The author analyzed its possible origins. The concept that Klefki is a tsukumogami is an original concept proposed by her, as a response to the discourse over whether Klefki was an unoriginal design. Hernandez does not report, for example, that Klefki is a more interesting design than the original starters. This is all clearly analysis. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 23:15, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Just another editor chiming in that, while I can see varying arguments on whether or not its significant coverage, the claim that Kotaku is somehow a primary source for a Pokemon is way, way off. Sergecross73 msg me 19:05, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The piece is literally reporting on the latest Pokemon characters and describing what has been released. Please take a look at WP:PRIMARYNEWS. In what way is that secondary? Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 19:12, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The question was answered previously, I do not know why you have not responded. Once again, the notion that Klefki is a tsukumogami is NOT "describing what has been released," it is an original analysis of the subject. I have no earthly idea why you are holding this position, but I worry that you are drastically misunderstanding what the source says. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 19:16, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Have you read this whole discussion? Your assertion is widely (unanimously even?) being rejected as incorrect. This is not a news event, it's a fictional character. If Nintendo or Pokemon Company -the subject's creator - were writing the article on their website, it would be primary coverage. Or if Kotaku were just reposting a Nintendo press release, it would be primary. But Kotaku's own writing on Pokemon is not primary, as they have no actual connection with the subject. Sergecross73 msg me 20:27, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This is not a news event, it's a fictional character. And this is why I pointed to what PRIMARYNEWS says about book reviews, reviews of works of fiction. Book reviews are secondary when they provide information beyond a basic description of the book's contents. Book reviews are often a mix of primary and secondary material. We don't seem to provide an academic discussion of sourcing of Pokemon characters, but this is making the exact and comparable point about fictional characters. And for the level of review that one expects to find to show the notability of a fictional character, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Savely Govorkov.
    As the review in question about the new pokemon character is just a description of the pokemon a report that people are talking about it, more description of its battle prowess, and sandwiched in all that, 4 words that might pass for analysis: "it's kind of ridiculous," this is a primary source. I am not saying all reviews are primary. I specifically said the opposite from the start. I am saying this one, based on its content and its proximity to the release, contains no secondary analysis (unless you want to credit "its kind of ridiculous"). It is reporting of something that is new. It is a primary source. I am entirely unconcerned that people may be disagreeing with my view here. The simple fact of the matter is there is no secondary analysis in that article. It is not a secondary source. Further, the lack of connection with the subject you mention is a red herring here. That makes this independent and sources also have to be independent, but see, for instance, WP:Secondary does not mean independent. It must be secondary and independent. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 21:13, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm sorry, but I don't believe your application, or the bar you've set is consistent with common community interpretation. Sergecross73 msg me 21:53, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with Sergecross wholeheartedly here. Judging by unanimous opinion that the argument is very strange, I'm encouraging you to consider that your own interpretation of what a primary source is may be incorrect. You also seem to have completely misunderstood the contents of the article, given that, once again, the article at multiple points discusses the character in terms and ideas not inherent or official to the character. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 22:08, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry to jump in, but I'd like to point out that all of this back-and-forth is going to make it harder for the closer to make a determination. Everybody has made their point by now, and in my opinion, it's best if we let other people consider what's here, look at the article, and make their own judgment. Toughpigs (talk) 22:13, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I think we're still okay, as we're still trending pretty strongly towards "keep" at the moment, but I don't plan on commenting further regardless. Sergecross73 msg me 00:17, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: I largely agree with Cukie Gherkin that this is not the same article that was merged three years ago, and that these are not primary sources. The "strongest sources" that Cukie provided in here (particularly, both Kotaku sources and the Game Informer source) show that Klefki has enough notability for a standalone article, as does the Screen Rant source cited in the article, and possibly more. MoonJet (talk) 16:26, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: The Kotaku review that's under discussion ([36]) seems reasonably strong to me. It is clearly commentary and not just description. I am not convinced by Sirfurboy's argument that apparently everything in the world is primary, and I am not convinced by the nominator's argument that the review should be discounted because it contains a silly sentence. Toughpigs (talk) 23:23, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: I'm going to be honest, I was surprised this got made at first because I had tried to make an article for either of the well loathed object mons of gen 5, but there wasn't anything as biting. But I was even more surprised when I did check the sources and I feel this article is more than justified due to the commentary for Klefki. I think what would set this article apart from other "object pokemon" is that whilst yes it features in listicles here, it also has the articles about this pokemon specifically, which I can't really say for a pokemon like Vanillish. Especially the Kotaku source, which as Touchpigs has mentioned above, seems quite in-depth in terms of commentary, even if slightly blog like. These sources I do not believe to be primary at all, that's not how I would ever view an article like this before at all. That is all, CaptainGalaxy 00:38, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: While there is a lot of commentary on the "object" Pokemon from this generation of Pokemon games, particularity stuff like the ice cream or garbage bag and whatnot, I feel Klefki stands out a bit for how much commentary there was, but also because the criticism reached so much it resulted in a question directed towards Sugimori. I feel that shows some degree of real world impact, albeit how light, and Klefki works as an example of contrasting the later generations of Pokemon to their earlier counterparts, even if it is a "Death by 1000 cuts" situation.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 23:26, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I don't think it's a "home run" for notability, but per my and others comments above, I think it's it enough to clear the minimum bar of the GNG, and like others, reject the notion of some of the third party sourcing like Kotaku being a primary source. Sergecross73 msg me 00:17, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: I didn't record a bolded vote earlier, but per my rationale in my threaded comment that Kotaku, and other sources, represent independent secondary sources (even if I'm not thrilled with the quality of said sources). ~ A412 talk! 07:48, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The sources presented makes Klefki meet WP:GNG. The Kotaku source is obviously secondary and independent. Skyshiftertalk 12:29, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 23:53, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Grand Isle, Plaquemines Parish, Louisiana[edit]

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

I couldn't find source to prove this meets WP:NPLACE / WP:GNG. Possible WP:ATD is merge/redirect to Plaquemines Parish, Louisiana but I am not sure if it would be helpful to a reader. Boleyn (talk) 15:27, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) Toadette (Let's discuss together!) 07:06, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tales of Aravorn: Seasons of the Wolf[edit]

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

RPGamer and Digitally Downloaded gave it full reviews. The TechRaptor review is from early January 2015. They have stated that "we had near-nonexistent editorial policies" until January 2015 and removed large amounts of content from 2013-16 that was low-quality, but this review might have been missed in the sweep. RPGFan, a reliable source, has included it in several listicles that don't provide enough for notability. QuietCicada chirp 15:25, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. QuietCicada chirp 15:25, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep Not all listicles are useless. In this case, they're clearly not intended as clickbait and have genuine useful insights into games. I think they are on par with the game getting a review from RPGFan. It isn't the strongest sourcing but it does squeak past notability. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 15:43, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:27, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. In general, if I was bringing a new article on a video game into the mainspace, I'd look for 3 solid sources, and if we grant the nominator's argument, we basically have two (RPGamer & Digitally Downloaded). TechRaptor pre-2020 is indeed a weak source, but the review seems unobjectionable enough. Basically, we have two-and-a-half good sources, and I don't think it's worth being a super stickler here. It's a borderline notability topic, sure, but in general probably best to err on the side of keeping here. SnowFire (talk) 04:06, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 08:31, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

House of Romay[edit]

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

It is important to acknowledge that the sources listed on the page are dead and have nothing to do with the House of Romay, and therefore, they cannot provide any evidence or support for the information presented on the page. These sources do not validate or prove the claims made within the content. Furthermore, please see major news sources that discredit the information presented on the page and existence of the House of Romay.

Below are the sources discrediting the information on the page.

List

https://laexpresion.com.mx/2023/11/15/desacredita-la-existencia-de-la-casa-de-romay-y-el-conde-de-monterroso-por-la-real-academia-matritense-de-heraldica-y-genealogia-ricardo-de-romay/

https://galiciadiario.com/web/frontend_cargar_noticia.php?id_noticia=121300

https://nybreaking.com/the-rise-of-fabricated-aristocracy-house-of-romay-and-ricardo-de-romay/

https://ultimasnoticiasenred.com.mx/local/falsa-nobleza-desmentida-la-casa-de-romay-y-el-senor-de-cadro-por-la-real-academia-matritense-de-heraldica-y-genealogia-en-relacion-con-ricardo-de-romay/

https://www.terra.com.ve/2023/12/fraude-nobiliario-expuesto-la-verdad.html

https://www.http.uk.net/2023/12/falsos-aristocratas-desacreditando-la.html

https://www.imakinaria.com/2023/12/fraude-y-mentira-de-la-falsa.html

Even from WikiCommons:

https://commons.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Diego_de_Romay_Basail-_Fraudsters_and_Obsession_with_Aristocracy.jpg

More official documents can be provided upon request. This page is spreading misinformation through irrelevant and unreliable sources. --Daliaxer (talk) 17:30, 18 February 2024 (UTC) (talk • contribs)[reply]


  • Comment Spanish WP [37] says "The Romay family ( Galician : Casa do Romay ) is a fictional Spanish house in northern Spain. According to an investigation carried out by the newspaper El Universal , it was created to carry out fraud and falsification of noble titles, where several families are committing fraud by making fraudulent use of said titles. 1 ​2" If that is correct, and the subject meets WP:N, some changes are needed. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:22, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Similar kind of socking and edit-warring is going on over there too. Someone who can Spanish will have to identify a couple of reliable sources on the topic and give our article a proper reboot. I suggest that such an editor, if short of time, should comment out the current article and add a good sentence or two to display for the readers in the meantime. — Usedtobecool ☎️ 16:51, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- The very sources put forth to show this is a fraud also show that it meets the GNG. As my colleague Gråbergs Gråa Sång notes what's called for is not deletion but a rewrite reflecting the fact that the subject is fictional. Central and Adams (talk) 16:33, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The page does not meet WP:N or WP:GNG. Below is the brief explanation of each source used in the page so far all of which have been unreliable.
source analysis

Source 1: is a blog that should be removed as it is unreliable and written by someone who advertises his services. It doesn't provide any evidence or mention of the House of Romay or their nobility.

Source 2: dead link. Unable to verify any information regarding the House of Romay or their nobility.

Source 3: A book written in 2006 that briefly mentions Vasco de Romay, who was the husband of Doña Ginebra de Araujo. However, it doesn't provide any evidence of the House of Romay being noble or prominent.

Source 4: Only states that Diego de Romay constructed the body of ships and façade of a church in 1670. No evidence or mention of the House of Romay being noble.

Sources 5: A book written in 1997 where no information regarding the House of Romay or their nobility was found.

Sources 6: A book written in 1984 that doesn't mention anything about the House of Romay or their nobility.

Sources 7: A book written in 2003 that doesn't mention anything about the House of Romay or their nobility.

Source 8: A dictionary-like book that describes Romay as a field of red, gold, and silver, with its paws holding two fig tree leaves. However, it doesn't provide any evidence of the House of Romay being noble or prominent.

--Daliaxer (talk) 16:57, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    • Striking duplicate !vote -- your nom already registered your preference for deletion. You don't get to weigh in twice.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Central and Adams (talk • contribs)
  • Delete This article has been written by Diego de Romay, who is a known scammer according to major news outlets. The article proves nothing and has no sources that can substantiate and validate the information present in it.

Following are the sources that do not validate the content present in this article:

--Elene13 (talk) 17:25, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Major Mexican newspaper does six page investigation discrediting them and calling them frauds:[38]

More sources discrediting the Romay Family as fake:

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 39.50.141.129 (talk)
  • Delete Other than being a source of misinformation, this article compounded with that of its Spanish counterpart doesn't just invoke WP:N and WP:GNG as already highlighted but also goes as far as to encourage original research at this point. This cat-and-mouse chase only ends when this article gets recreated by someone at some point and passes through current regulatory standards. Besides, the majority of the refs at this point, refer to the lack of credibility regarding their own existence. Virtualmistik (talk) 22:15, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • Notability isn't based on the sources in the article, it's based on the sources in the world. Encouraging original research isn't a deletion criterion. It's perfectly fine if the sources say that the subject is fictional. We have plenty of articles on fictional subjects. Central and Adams (talk) 22:24, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note I have modified comments from multiple editors, changing spacing and indenting in a few comments and collapsing the lists of external links to make this more readable. I have unstruct the !votes from Elene and the IP. Participations in this AFD are suspicious but they need to be blocked before the votes are struck if the votes are to be disqualified. Signed a few unsigned posts. Usedtobecool ☎️ 02:55, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The entire article contains incorrect information and cites unreliable or dead sources. Many articles have exposed them as liars. Including the Ministry of Justice and Spanish Nobility have discredited them.

There is a whole book on them being fake:

https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/204252845-fake-aristocrats

Letters from Ministry of Justice in Spain and Spanish Nobility discrediting them:

https://commons.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Diego_de_Romay-Basail_-_The_Fake_Aristocrat_and_the_Nonexistent_House_of_Romay.jpg

https://commons.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Diego_de_Romay-Basail_-_debunked_by_Spanish_Nobility_and_Ministry_of_Justice_in_Spain.jpg

And other sources:

https://laexpresion.com.mx/2023/11/15/desacredita-la-existencia-de-la-casa-de-romay-y-el-conde-de-monterroso-por-la-real-academia-matritense-de-heraldica-y-genealogia-ricardo-de-romay/

https://galiciadiario.com/web/frontend_cargar_noticia.php?id_noticia=121300

https://www.ukinsider.co.uk/education/discrediting-the-existence-of-the-house-of-romay-and-its-false-noble-titles-ricardo-de-romay/

https://nybreaking.com/the-rise-of-fabricated-aristocracy-house-of-romay-and-ricardo-de-romay/

https://ultimasnoticiasenred.com.mx/local/falsa-nobleza-desmentida-la-casa-de-romay-y-el-senor-de-cadro-por-la-real-academia-matritense-de-heraldica-y-genealogia-en-relacion-con-ricardo-de-romay/ Mopertcasocp (talk) 02:05, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • TNT delete - my assessment of the available sources is that we currently have no credible citations that discuss the House of Romay as a real noble house. Unfortunately, the available sources calling it a hoax are also weak: a collection of articles in tabloid and local papers which are far from high quality RS for history. The one (relatively) higher quality source cited would be the article in El Universal. Unfortunately, the article appears to have been unpublished, as despite having been put online only this month (see internal search results) it is currently inaccessible. Without a single solid secondary source on either side of the hoax debate, deletion seems to be our only option. If El Universal ever republishes a relevant piece, or if this draws the attention of other high-circulation newspapers and/or academic publications, we may be able to write an article then. signed, Rosguill talk 14:35, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Maybe hang it on the wall too depending on outcome of this AFD.

Nevermind (see immediately below) ASmallMapleLeaf (talk) 20:14, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete solely based on lack of notoriety, but disagree on hoax. These articles, as pointed above, are all very disreputable publications, without sources and an evident personal tone. The only reputable one, El Universal, took it down less than a week after being published. Besides that I invite people to look at the Talk page, where I originally posted the findings of a light research based on some vandalisms by user @Giganoto48. The page was then protected to allow discussion, and user @Mopertcasocp began attacking me for posting my findings, accusing me of being the subject and other very personal remarks -- I naturally walked away. I now see that every user here pushing for this family to be presented as a fraud in this debate have apparently been blocked as sock puppets of @Mopertcasocp, see: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Elene13. Do review the research in the Talk Page a while back, before I stopped helping this page, which includes National Archive of Spain and National Nobility Archive information on the Romay family, including two family trees etc. So, it is most certainly not a hoax, and I get the feeling this notion is a personal attack to make them look as such? Who knows. That said, it is however perhaps not meeting WP:GNG, so deletion is a possibility. Benzeneshamus (talk) 18:35, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I will paste the info I had gathered before, for easier reference:
    Spain's National Archive grants digital access to its database. I did a quick search and found the following documents held in Spain's National Archive:
    1) "Genealogical Tree of the Romay family: from Juan de Romay down to Antonia de Romay (married to Lorenzo de Puga)" (http://pares.mcu.es/ParesBusquedas20/catalogo/description/12670510?nm, Government of Spain, Historical Archive of the Nobility)
    2) "Genealogical Tree of the Romay family: from Basco de Romay to Catalina Sarmiento de Valladares, II Marchioness of Valladares (married to García Ozores López de Lemos Noguerol, IV Count of Amarante).(http://pares.mcu.es/ParesBusquedas20/catalogo/description/12671470?nm Government of Spain, Historical Archive of the Nobility)
    Clearly not an invention and distinguished enough to have two family trees in the Historical Archive of the Nobility. I don't see any claims of a living person on this current page claiming any titles, which confuses me as that seems to be the main issue. I do agree that they perhaps are not relevant enough for inclusion in wikipedia, which is why I voted "delete".
    The two emails, one from the National Archive in the Ministry of Justice and the other from Diputación de la Grandeza (which from what I read is not the "Spanish Nobility", that is a group of nobles, but an official regulatory body that catalogues titles and their holders), are simply replying to a query asking if the Romay family holds certain titles in Spain. The answer is a clear no from both, but it doesn't make any reference, let alone comment on anyone pretending, nor does it discredit the family's relevance or history. Perhaps some of you don't speak Spanish, but please review. What confuses me, is that several users here, @Daliaxer@Mopertcasocp @Virtualmistik @Elene13, (all now blocked sock puppets) appear to push that the letters discredit the family and call it a fraud.
    @Jpgordon has now protected the page in an edit that I believe to be quite unethical and potentially defamatory, stating that the family "was created for the purpose of fraud and forgery" in the introduction. Surely a non potentially defamatory version should be protected instead, until the evidence is reviews by all?
    Benzeneshamus (talk) 18:50, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    See WP:THEWRONGVERSION. --jpgordon𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇 19:09, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Indeed, that is why I did not edit it to allow for the arguments I presented above. I believe they are ample and sufficient to indicate this version should not be protected. Benzeneshamus (talk) 19:30, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Apologies about the revert, I am always concerned when an editor takes a sledgehammer and erases a large part of the article, and in this case missed out on potentially defamatory content that @Benzeneshamus removed when I analysed his edits. I was concerned about erasure of sources, and it was definitely not my intention to back up a WP:NOTHERE user welding a sockpuppet network. Also, excellent work, that is one of the best efforts I've seen from any editor to verify a hoax is true or not. I applaud you 👏 ASmallMapleLeaf (talk) 20:24, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Not a hoax, but not notable either way. DrowssapSMM 15:21, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Currently working on Netflix series titled 'Lord Swindler'. The sheer creativity displayed in concocting numerous names, titles, ancestors, palaces, and narratives is truly commendable and deserving to watch. To claim oneself as the 47th Count or 44th Lord, despite the fact that Spain's oldest title only dates back to the 22nd, is a testament to the vivid imagination at play here. As I delve into some of the earlier versions of this page from 2019, I stumbled upon edits by user @DiegodeRomay that said:
    “The Romay family is recognized by their ancestors, who were kings of Spain and France, and who are currently one of the most important and powerful families in Spain.”
    “Don Ricardo de Romay y Hernandez-Chazaro, 44th Count of Monterroso, 47th Señor de Cadro and Monterroso, who succeeded the head of the family in 2018 and is one of the most influential people in Spain. He lives with his family at the Palace of Cadro. Its construction dates from the 13th century, its tower from the 15th century and the rest of the palace from the 18th century. The name "Don Juan de Romay, Count of Monterroso and Señor de Cadro" is inscribed on the main entrance.”
    This whole hoax is insane and twisted. Who in their right mind would claim that Ricardo lives in the Palace and belongs to one of the most current influential Spanish families? There was a whole investigation done on this family and every sentence they have ever said was not true. The sheer audacity to come up with so many made-up names and outrageous stories is mind-blowing. This whole fabricated saga is so wild that it definitely deserves its own movie. I'm writing this up into a script just waiting on more testimonies from witnesses. So please don’t delete this page! @HouseofRomayhoax should be made or merged.
    @ASmallMapleLeaf@Benzeneshamus@Central and Adams@Cyberbot I@Gråbergs Gråa Sång@DrowssapSMM Mariechristineh (talk) 21:18, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This major academy in Spain calls the House of Romay “nonsense”, the “Real Academia Matritense de Heráldica y Genealogía en España” (https://es.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Real_Academia_Matritense_de_Heráldica_y_Genealogía) referring to them as "disparate," which means "nonsense" on page 25: http://www.ramhg.es/images/stories/pdf/boletin/boletin-126-127.pdf
    The House of Romay claims to be from Galicia, Spain and the local newspaper in Galicia debunks them:
    https://galiciadiario.com/web/frontend_cargar_noticia.php?id_noticia=121300
    Yes, I agree that the sources supporting the hoax of House of Romay's claims are weak. However, it is important to note that this family is considered irrelevant to major newspapers, which makes finding larger sources challenging. The Romay name is not a known name in Mexico or Spain, and newspapers like El Universal have shown little interest in preserving articles related to this matter. For example, this topic only made it to a weekly "tendencias" section in El Universal. This was the article: https://web.archive.org/web/20240209193517/https://www.eluniversal.com.mx/tendencias/mexicanos-que-utilizan-titulos-espanoles-nobiliarios-falsos-casa-de-romay/?outputType=amp
    I believe we should create a page discussing the “House of Romay hoax”. Here’s why: Please review all the topics on the talk page to see how every single sentence was a lie designed to deceive others into believing they had noble and royal origins. Additionally, take a look at the old versions of this page going back to a few years to see how it was excessively exaggerated and fabricated, even going so far as to claim fictional characters ran the Royal Habsburg-Romay House and that the Romay family owns the Magdalena Palace inherited in 1995 (palace owned by Spanish royal family) and Palace of the Kings of Navarre of Olite since 1937 (a national monument).
    There is a whole book on this Romay hoax on Amazon: https://www.amazon.com/Fake-Aristocrats-Investigation-Nonexistent-Ancestors-ebook/dp/B0CQT9TN2S?dplnkId=b153d89e-0b97-4557-8c42-31053d5f4c66&nodl=1
    @Benzeneshamus, Regarding the two letters mentioned, one of them is indeed from the official Spanish nobility website’s email and the other is from the Ministry of Justice of Spain. If you visit the contact pages of both official websites and submit a message, you will receive a reply from these two emails. Official Spanish nobility website: https://www.diputaciondelagrandezaytitulosdelreino.es/contacto/. And Ministry of Justice in Spain: https://www.mjusticia.gob.es/BUSCADIR/ServletControlador?apartado=buscadorGeneral&tipo=RC&lang=en_gb
    Both of them claimed the Romay family did not have noble titles or any noble origins:
    https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Diego_de_Romay-Basail_-_The_Fake_Aristocrat_and_the_Nonexistent_House_of_Romay.jpg
    https://commons.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Diego_de_Romay-Basail_-_debunked_by_Spanish_Nobility_and_Ministry_of_Justice_in_Spain.jpg
    An example of falsehoods still remaining on the page is:
    “Jose Sarmiento Valladares Arines de Romay” (1643-1708), 1st Duke of Atrisco, 40th Viceroy of New Spain
    “Romay” is not the Duke of Atrisco's second last name. This has been said in many news articles. Don José Sarmiento Valladares was the son of Gregorio Sarmiento de Valladares and Juana Sarmiento y Niño de Castro. He was the grandson of Luis Sarmiento de Valladares and Inés de Arines Troncoso y Romay, and the great-grandson of Juan de Arines Troncoso and Ginebra Núñez de Romay. Don José Sarmiento Valladares, who was a viceroy and knight of the Order of Santiago, never used the surname Romay of his great-grandmother, which would be his sixth last name. Additionally, there is no evidence that the great grandmother belonged to a house called House of Romay.
    Also this individual was not a “Romay” who also still remains on the page:
    José Alfonso Correa Cortés de Mendoza Ozores de Sotomayor y Romay, Count. He was the son of Don Alonso Correa Ozores de Sotomayor Alemparte Oya y Silva, Lord of Casa do Pegullal, and Dona Leonor Cortés de Mendoza y Sotomayor. He was also the maternal grandson of Don Juan Cortés de Mendoza and Dona Aldonza de Romay y Varela. His sixth last name was Romay.
    There are no known nobles with the surname Romay. While the Duke of Atrisco and José Alfonso Correa Cortés de Mendoza did have the name Romay through the female line, their connection to the Romay lineage was separated by six degrees. It is also worth noting that the military rank of Captain, held by Ramon Romay, does not confer noble status. Additionally, given that Romay is a fairly common surname, it is uncertain whether these three individuals were even distantly related. There is no historical evidence to support their affiliation to a noble house called Romay.
    Local sources:
    https://laexpresion.com.mx/2023/11/15/desacredita-la-existencia-de-la-casa-de-romay-y-el-conde-de-monterroso-por-la-real-academia-matritense-de-heraldica-y-genealogia-ricardo-de-romay/
    https://nybreaking.com/the-rise-of-fabricated-aristocracy-house-of-romay-and-ricardo-de-romay/
    https://ultimasnoticiasenred.com.mx/local/falsa-nobleza-desmentida-la-casa-de-romay-y-el-senor-de-cadro-por-la-real-academia-matritense-de-heraldica-y-genealogia-en-relacion-con-ricardo-de-romay/
    https://www.ukinsider.co.uk/education/discrediting-the-existence-of-the-house-of-romay-and-its-false-noble-titles-ricardo-de-romay/
    @ASmallMapleLeaf@Benzeneshamus@Central and Adams@Cyberbot I@Gråbergs Gråa Sång@DrowssapSMM @Mariechristineh Limbonesao (talk) 01:46, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I find it concerning that the archived El Universal article was published with a collective Redacción byline, whereas all other articles in the same Tendencias section of the paper, even exceedingly trivial ones like horoscopes ([39]), have clearly-identified authors. I think this further emphasizes that there is something out of the ordinary with this article and it should not be considered a reliable source until El Universal decides to republish it. The other links are all sources previously considered and described as tabloids. signed, Rosguill talk 14:39, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The answer to that question is simple. The horoscopes article won't get you killed in Mexico. Over the past few years, the Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ) documented the tragic killings of at least 52 journalists in Mexico. Therefore, there are strict laws protecting the rights of journalists and freedom of speech. In cases where articles are deemed controversial, they are usually published anonymously or under the name "redacción". To delve deeper into this matter, I contacted El Universal today and conducted an interview with an editor who has been in touch with the Romay family (who will now be featured in my Netflix series). According to the editor, the Romay family has allegedly sent dozens of threatening emails and claims of "defamation". It is worth mentioning that Mexico does not have any defamation laws. So their threats to no where. Furthermore, the aforementioned article did not contain any insults or defamatory remarks directed towards the Romay family. Instead, it was an academic and genealogical investigation supported by dates, facts, and credible sources, aimed at debunking the noble titles and existence of the House of Romay. It seems that the Romay family has gone to great lengths to conceal their falsehoods. Even hiring a reputation company in London, who has no idea about Mexican laws and rights. Moreover, the article also did not constitute invasion of privacy, as the Romay family willingly made their lives public by creating Wikipedia pages in an attempt to deceive others into thinking they had noble and royal origins and lived in palaces. So they put themselves in this whole hoax. Mariechristineh (talk) 03:58, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Star Jones#truTV. Star Mississippi 02:11, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Star Jones (TV series)[edit]

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

Appears to fail WP:NTV and WP:GNG. Tagged for notability since 2019 DonaldD23 talk to me 13:08, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 14:10, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Blue Eagle, Minnesota[edit]

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

Not finding evidence of the existence of this "ghost town" as asserted in this unsourced article. Does not meet WP:GNG or WP:GEOLAND. Cielquiparle (talk) 12:56, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Minnesota. Cielquiparle (talk) 12:56, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: I found a mention of a Blue Eagle Mill in Westbrook: [40]. Otherwise nothing. No source, no article. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 15:25, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neither the history from the 2013 versions of this article, which gets street and avenue confused, nor the "personal knowledge" history from the 2014 versions of this article are verifiable. This has had its content blanked twice, and even been deleted once already, for being unverifiable. I have looked and come up empty. There is no documentation to be found confirming anything in the edit history of this article, and the editors who wrote it offered nothing. Add me to the list of editors who over the years have found this article to be unverifiable. Delete. Uncle G (talk) 16:14, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Only the faintest whispers of Blue Eagle exist. The MNopedia article on the "Currie Line Railroad" written by a member of the Cotton County Historical Society says "Five miles farther west, the village of Blue Eagle had begun in 1870. The arrival of the Currie Line caused the small village’s demise. It was replaced with the village of Westbrook..."[41] That rail line opened in 1900. The 2014 Cottonwood County Visitors Guide[42] says "Thirty years before Westbrook was settled, pioneers established a nearby village known as Blue Eagle. When the Chicago, St. Paul, Minneapolis and Omaha Railroad came to plot out a town site, it got into a dispute with a landowner. As a result, a new town was platted." That story is consistent with the 2014 personal history edit of this article[43]. No hits on newspapers.com or newspaperarchive.com of relevance. On the MN newspaper database, The Windom Reporter (local county seat newspaper) had a sentence on February 15, 1900, "I would like to know where that town of Blue Eagle is you newspaper men tell us about," which I take to be a suggestion that Blue Eagle isn't much of a "town". Alas that's the only 1900 issue online, so we can't see what the reporters were talking about. But the 1896 plat map of the county doesn't show anything marked as Blue Eagle. The best we can say it that it was a place name in use at some point.--Milowent • hasspoken 18:43, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I've noticed that in the late 18th century it didn't take much for people to call a place a village. It seems like any place important will most often be called a town or a city. I'd imagine there was a trading post or general store there. This one fails on lack of reliable sources.James.folsom (talk) 00:12, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 programs broadcast by E! (Canadian TV channel)#Former programming. ✗plicit 14:32, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Best! Movies! Ever![edit]

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

No refs on the pafe for many years. Nothing to suggest this is a notable programme that meets the inclusion criteria JMWt (talk) 12:44, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Canada. JMWt (talk) 12:44, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:35, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I can't even find a media mention of this devil of programme - let alone anything that would support having an article. Normally I'd suggest redirecting to the originating network - but I've got nothing to even show it was ever broadcast. Nfitz (talk) 20:23, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to List of programs broadcast by E! (Canadian TV channel)#Former programming Utterly generic 'top 10' countdown program which existed only to fill timeslots and fill IMDb bios; it's Canadian so I would guess the only coverage was of the 'short TV Guide blurb' variety. Nate • (chatter) 21:47, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I see no discussion of the show there, just a mention in a long list. More importantly, I see not a single reference confirming the show was broadcast by that channel. Is there anything (better than the local TV listings)? In this case, I don't think too many will be using this common catchphrase as a Google search term. Nfitz (talk) 18:29, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment E! was formerly known as Star! until 2011, which isn't made clear by the list of itself. Nate • (chatter) 00:12, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Here are two sources I found about Best! Movies! Ever! that provide a few sentences of coverage about Best! Movies! Ever!:
    1. Courtice, Craig; Hutsul, Christopher; Crouse, Richard (2007-03-16). "This calls for a Sparta light". National Post. Archived from the original on 2024-02-20. Retrieved 2024-02-20 – via Newspapers.com.

      The article notes: "Richard Crouse, host of Rogers Television's Reel to Real, Canada's longest running movie review show. He appears on Best! Movies! Ever! on Star TV every Wednesday at 8 p.m. His Web site is www.richardcrouse.ca"

    2. Ahern, Victoria (2007-03-09). "Film Friday on the small screen". Telegraph-Journal. ProQuest 423292542.

      The article notes: "And for some girls-night-in fodder, check out back-to-back Hollywood marriages and makeovers, starting with Best! Movies! Ever! Best Weddings, a look at the top 10 matrimonial moments in Tinseltown. That's followed by Best! Movies! Ever! Best Makeovers, which counts down the top 10 makeovers in a Hollywood movie. (Fashion Television Channel)"

    Cunard (talk) 09:45, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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)‎ — Preceding unsigned comment added by RogerNotable (talk • contribs) 14:30, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Phyllis Mary Nicol[edit]

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

This article is well sourced, but badly written, at least it should be draftified. Additionally I would raise serious questions about the notability of the subject. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RogerNotable (talk • contribs) 12:22, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep The subject has an entry in the Australian Dictionary of Biography. That is the national dictionary and that makes her automatically notable. As for cleanup, WP:AFD is not cleanup. scope_creepTalk 09:18, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- Clearly notable based just on the sources already in the article. If nom dislikes the current version the solution is ordinary editing. As my colleague scope creep very rightly notes, AFD is not cleanup.Central and Adams (talk) 16:38, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep passes WP:GNG/WP:BIO - any cleanup issues should be tagged rather then pushed to possible get forgotten in draft. KylieTastic (talk) 16:55, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Authors, Women, Science, and Australia. Skynxnex (talk) 17:04, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The prose is indeed awful, unencyclopedic, and at times nonsensical, but there is a presumption of notability afforded by ANYBIO so the solution here is to fix through editing rather than deletion.
JoelleJay (talk) 18:13, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I encourage @RogerNotable to withdraw this nomination. Since you are a new editor, I encourage you to try improve the article. Working on content is important for getting a good grasp of when to make an AfD nomination or instead work on improving an article. As others have noted, AfD is only to discuss the notability of an article, not cleanup issues. If you do decide to work on this article, I'd be happy to review your work when you are done; just leave a note on my talk page. voorts (talk/contributions) 19:23, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 11:54, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Georges Mvoue[edit]

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

Badly sourced BLP on a subject that doesn't demonstrate WP:SPORTBASIC #5 let alone anything more. I found nothing under "Georges Mvoué/Mvoue" or "Georges Emvoue". Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 11:40, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 11:55, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gleeds[edit]

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

Non-notable consulting company. The only sources appear to be trade publications, and all of the reporting appears to be run-of-the-mill. voorts (talk/contributions) 03:50, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previous WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 04:42, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 10:50, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Would expect to find more sources but there's just not a lot out there. Lacking significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. Article in present state is overly promotional and unencyclopedic with listing of office locations etc. AusLondonder (talk) 00:02, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 13:57, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ondrej Sobola[edit]

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

This exists only because it was written by his descendant Marek Sobola, who also wrote most of the sources. No credible independent sources. Biruitorul Talk 07:52, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 10:49, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete nothing in terms of coverage that would support a WP:GNG pass. Being the "inspiration" for an organization that might not even be notable itself falls well short of any notability standard. Best, GPL93 (talk) 13:19, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 11:55, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Suelyn Farel[edit]

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

Not finding any decent coverage in reliable sources; fails WP:GNG. At best, we could redirect to her husband Julien Farel, but that is a puff piece of someone with marginal notability. Edwardx (talk) 09:28, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 09:32, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete There is a lot of PR styles stories on Farel, mock interviews about her 1000 dollar per haircut salon and there is a lot on the husband. There is a couple of interviews but nothing of substance. scope_creepTalk 08:47, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 10:45, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 11:56, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Manacaud[edit]

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

None of the sources mention it by the name "Battle of Manacaud." Furthermore, the article does not meet the criteria of WP:GNG and lacks sufficient coverage in WP:RS. Only a few sources, mostly failing WP:RAJ and WP:AGEMATTERS, mention it in fragmented lines. Imperial[AFCND] 10:40, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Tehonk (talk) 02:26, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Sadustu Tau (talk) 13:22, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Draftify. The one and only source on this page is by Indian historian A. Sreedhara Menon and this source only has 9 lines of paragraph which shows that such a battle did occur but that's about it. It's just an overview from source and not enough detail. Everything else on the article page cannot be verified and seems self opinionated. Why I did vote for Draftify as well is to let the editor rework on the page by referencing more reliable sources while this nomination is in progress. RangersRus (talk) 15:31, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I tried to find sources for this article and barely found few, most of them are not WP:RS, falls under WP:RAJ or AGEMATTERS. And the fact that there is no Mughal records about this makes it more concerning. Imperial[AFCND] 16:24, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Putting this out of its misery: WP:SNOW applies. There's an almost universal acceptance that the subject passes WP:NPOL, and following the addition of new material, opposition has been withdrawn. No consensus is likely to emerge in favor of the nomination. ——Serial 20:29, 21 February 2024 (UTC) (non-admin closure)[reply]

Michael O'Brien (New Hampshire politician)[edit]

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

Non-notable Lower house politician—no in-depth coverage from independent RS. X (talk) 08:29, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep "Members of the state legislatures are presumed notable." from WP:NPOL and there is information that he is from reliable sources, [44] [45] [46] (although I have to say they were far too hard to find and if he wasn't in the NH house it would be an easy delete) Shaws username . talk . 14:24, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- Clearcut case per NPOL. Central and Adams (talk) 16:41, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Meets WP:NPOL. He is a member of the New Hampshire House of Representatives. MoviesandTelevisionFan (talk) 19:11, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per previous votes. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 23:36, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hold our horses - NPOL exists because there's a presumption of coverage. New Hampshire has one legislator for every 3,300 people, which is one of the lowest if not the lowest in the entire world. Are we sure he has coverage as a result? There's nothing in the article apart from his legislative profile and the sources found here aren't about him. SportingFlyer T·C 10:37, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It can't be true that NPOL exists because there's a presumption of coverage. If there were coverage the GNG would suffice. NPOL must exist because sometimes there's not coverage but the subject is notable anyway. The presumption of notability in NPOL is not a rebuttable presumption. It's a guarantee of notability. That this is the case is clear from the discussion of local officials and unelected candidates at the bottom of the guideline, where it states:

    Just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability

    If elected state level officials weren't guaranteed notability by NPOL it wouldn't be necessary to explicitly state that local officials were not. Central and Adams (talk) 13:43, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That's not what "presumed" means - the dictionary definition is literally "to take for granted as being true in the absence of proof to the contrary." We typically presume politicians will be notable because they should easily have received significant coverage, even if we can't find coverage of them. I'm not convinced that's the case here. SportingFlyer T·C 21:41, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It literally is what one sense of the word "presume" is. I don't know what dictionary you're using, but the OED notes what you quoted as only one of two meanings, the other being "To assume; to take for granted; to presuppose; to anticipate, count upon, or expect". Which sense is intended is, as with all polysemous words, determined by context, which is why I argued from the context that the meaning here is as I stated. You're talking about the definition of a rebuttable presumption. My argument is that the sense meant here is an irrebuttable presumption. Central and Adams (talk) 22:24, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Central and AdamsGreetings. You said, NPOL must exist because sometimes there's not coverage but the subject is notable anyway.
    -If a person is indeed notable, then why won't they get proper coverage? To my understanding, notability is vehemently based on coverage. How can a person be notable and not have coverage? What is notability based on if not on coverage? We give people freebies if they've won some reputable awards or an academic or a notable politician, but I don't think you'd find many person not having coverage meeting any of these criteria properly. I'd like your take on that. (PS: Agreeing with @SportingFlyer on this) We typically presume politicians will be notable because they should easily have received significant coverage, even if we can't find coverage of them. I'm not convinced that's the case here. . X (talk) 08:20, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If notability is based solely on coverage then why would we need any notability guidelines other than the GNG? The very fact that NPOL contains a presumption of notability shows that it must apply in the absence of coverage. If there were coverage it wouldn't be necessary to have a presumption of notability. If all NPOL meant were that politicians are notable unless there's no coverage it would say the same thing as the GNG, so why would it exist? Central and Adams (talk) 09:48, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    We really only do have the GNG. We have presumptions because it makes it easier to figure out what can and can't be covered, but in the past few years we have generally tied the presumptions very close to the GNG. The NPOL presumption exists because if you're a member of a state legislature, it is almost certain you will have been written about in reliable secondary sources, which is helpful for say someone who was a member of a historical legislature who we can't access sources for. In O'Brien's case, he's an active legislator, but one source is just the state website, the other source in the article just shows he's an alderman (the only thing on him on that website is his address) and a ballotpedia page, which is a wiki. Because of the fact there's no secondary information we can use to build this page out, and also due to WP:BLP concerns, it's probably best if this were redirected somewhere, and the information in the article merged there until we can write a stand-alone article. Also, I think this would be pretty close to being New Hampshire-specific, considering how few people vote on state legislators there. Most other MPs have much larger constituencies and as such have much more written about them. SportingFlyer T·C 16:21, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Not sure why you say there's no secondary information. It took me about ten minutes to find a ton of it, which I added to the article. But I still maintain that even if this weren't possible to do the dude would still pass NPOL. Also, it's not true that we really only do have the GNG. WP:N says explicitly that a subject is notable if it passes either the GNG or a subject specific guideline. Central and Adams (talk) 17:03, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That's not how it's been interpreted recently for most guidelines anymore, but there are a few exceptions. The new coverage removes any objections I've had, though. SportingFlyer T·C 17:08, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As a member of New Hampshire House of Representatives, meets WP:NPOL. As long as it is verifiable the individual holds the office, state legislators are worthy of a stand alone article. There will be information about the subject in the official pages of the NH legislature - including votes taken and bills introduced and sponsored. There are records of election results. All of this is good, verifiable information that can build a strong article, even if there is limited newspaper coverage now. --Enos733 (talk) 19:50, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Clearly meets WP:NPOL, as others have mentioned. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:12, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep passes WP:NPOL. If some believe GNG isn't met, then NPOL's validity must be challenged to the community as a whole like WP:NSPORTS was. Best, GPL93 (talk) 19:12, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 08:16, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

William H. Nelson[edit]

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

Poorly sourced BLP. Subject does not appear to be notable enough for a standalone article. Fails WP:GNG. CycloneYoris talk! 08:00, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Medicine. CycloneYoris talk! 08:00, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: California, New York, and Utah. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:39, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is most likely a promotional resume (ex: "Were he keeping score, he says, his career has had more high points than lows. He's received prestigious awards and Intermountain has been honored a number of times as an example of a well-run health-care system"). None of the 3 refs are notability-lending and even if they were the tone merits a WP:TNT-delete anyway. Best, GPL93 (talk) 13:13, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Varanasi–Rae Bareli–Lucknow line. Liz Read! Talk! 08:15, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bachhrawan railway station[edit]

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

Station seems non-notable as WP:NRAIL, many trains pass/stop, but ZERO originate or terminate here. Station, not junction. User4edits (talk) 07:57, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 08:13, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Infinity (database)[edit]

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

Unsourced database. No evidence of notability. There are some links to Github but as that is the databses own page they don't caount as references. CambridgeBayWeather (solidly non-human), Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 07:57, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure what "notability" means. The project was open sourced on gitHub last December and has gathered 1.1K stars ever since. What else evidances should we provide? Could you provide some suggestions? Vissidarte24 (talk) 08:17, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Does https://medium.com/@infiniflowai/ai-native-database-powering-the-next-gen-rag-for-llm-da70cabcac1a count as a reference? Vissidarte24 (talk) 08:21, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
https://www.repubblica.it/tecnologia/2024/01/07/news/modelli_di_linguaggio_cosa_sono_perche_se_ne_parla_tanto_e_che_futuro_avranno-421823928/ This report also counts for a reference. Vissidarte24 (talk) 08:29, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This reference is helpful, but I think it's still only a passing mention, so not enough to establish notability. StereoFolic (talk) 13:03, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I've updated the external references in an attempt to solve the notability issue. Vissidarte24 (talk) 09:57, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Note also that the author added this to Vector_database#List_of_vector_databases; if deleted here I recommend also deleting its mention there. StereoFolic (talk) 13:05, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: a promotional page about a non-notable product from a non-notable company, written by a SPA and likely COI. Owen× ☎ 15:01, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 08:12, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Anshul Tewari[edit]

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

individual is not notable, organisation may be, but the article's references derive notability from his org. See also: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Youth Ki Awaaz (2nd nomination) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Youth Ki Awaaz User4edits (talk) 07:10, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per nom. Tehonk (talk) 20:25, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 08:11, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dev Rathour[edit]

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

It doesn't seem like this meets WP:MUSICBIO or WP:GNG. The sources mostly seem unreliable, and the ones that appear reliable look more like paid promotional pieces than genuine editorial articles. GSS 💬 06:51, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. There isn't much disagreement regarding whether there is coverage that demonstrates this topic's notability. However, there is disagreement as to whether the article as it exists should be scrapped and rewritten on the basis of having been created by a now-blocked sockpuppet. In the course of discussion, there is no consensus as to whether the article currently suffers from neutrality issues, with some editors arguing that these are egregious and others arguing that the article is well-written as-is, with disagreement on these points within the keep-!voting side of the discussion. signed, Rosguill talk 15:15, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Qatari soft power[edit]

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

The page created by author Ghalbeyakh lacks credibility as the content added by the author on this page is completely a case of misinformation as the topics added by him on this page are incomplete and doesn't give the full disclosure of the matters or claims added. The page is clearly created to attack the reputation of the mentioned country. And not only this page the author seems to have a propaganda of defaming Qatar as he edited multiple pages to spread misinformation. Isouf Qaleed (talk) 07:00, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Automated comment: This AfD cannot be processed correctly because of an issue with the header. Please make sure the header has only 1 article, and doesn't have any HTML encoded characters.—cyberbot ITalk to my owner:Online 07:07, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism, Finance, Business, Education, Sports, and Qatar. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 07:40, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The topic seems to be a valid one, and the article seems to be supported by a number of independent, third-party sources that appear to be valid themselves, although this could be rebutted in individual instances. The article might have some neutrality issues, but that could be addressed by finding more sources to address the claims made by others. We don't usually delete articles merely because some of the sources present only one viewpoint. I note that this nomination for deletion is parallel to that for Italian soft power, a much shorter article created by the same author, and nominated for deletion using this deletion discussion as justification. That's probably what the nominator is referring to as "edit[ing] multiple pages to spread misinformation". P Aculeius (talk) 12:12, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Does it even matter who the author of the article is? Because it seems that the deletion discussion is against the author and not against the article. Its an important article and there are enough reliable sources. Medellinir (talk) 12:43, 3 February 2024 (UTC) Blocked sock. MarioGom (talk) 09:07, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I've recently been studying soft power in various countries and decided to write this article as part of my research. I've gone ahead and written up this article, using third-party sources I thought were reliable. I know it is not ready yet, but I decided to upload it in its current form anyway so other editors who are knowledgeable in this topic could contribute. I'm hopeful that with collaborative input, we can further develop this article. Ghalbeyakh (talk) 17:25, 3 February 2024 (UTC) Blocked sock. MarioGom (talk) 09:07, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep. Comprehensively sourced. \\ Loksmythe // (talk) 20:37, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The topic of Qatar's use of soft power is extremely notable, and easily passes the general notability guideline. If we want to have some sources listed here for sake of positivism, I'd link these three works, all of which are scholarly or from reputable think tanks (Brookings Institution), in addition to The New York Times writing about it (particularly in post-blockade times). Deletion is not cleanup, and the nomination seems to be a misguided attempt to resolve a content dispute. I'd strongly urge the nominator to withdraw this. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 21:09, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I am aware this was created by a now-banned user, but I do think that this is a well-written article, and banned users are not the only users with substantial contributions. As such, I oppose speedy deletion, or deletion altogether. Draftification would be more than sufficient to deal with any potential bias, as it could be edited there and re-submitted through AfC. We shouldn't throw the baby out with the bathwater. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 23:35, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep - The article is notable, has news coverage, and does not have much primary sources. ''Flux55'' (talk) 22:20, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Scratch that, Speedy delete. As SirFurBot stated, unless the article is fixed, it will have to be completely remade to fit Wikipedia's neutrality guidelines. ''Flux55'' (talk) 21:39, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete - G5 - created by a banned user. Yes, there are edits by a few other users, but these appear to be attempting to remove material to fix the article rather than additions. And yes, I agree that soft power of a country is likely to be sufficiently treated in sources that it merits an article. I am not opposed to some article, but that should not be this article. The problem with keeping this article is that the monster of a creation will very likely always retain the structure that the paid sockpuppet chose for it. The early decisions on a page tend to stick, and so this page will tend to present the subject as the sock wanted it, even though editors will try to deal with clearly problematic sections. Thus if speedy delete is declined, this one needs WP:TNT. Blow it up and let a neutral editor write on this subject. Don't reward paid sock puppetry. I note that there is heavy socking on this AfD too. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 19:43, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    On further reflection and looking at all of the very considerable number of sockpuppets identified, it appears they were all identified after the page was created. Although the user was clearly socking long before, G5 won't apply here. I am therefore content with draftify as a WP:ATD. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 09:31, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: as I understand it, the author was banned for using a sockpuppet, I think to oppose deleting this and a related article. That doesn't really affect the quality of the article or its sources. Issues with the article's neutrality are not arguments for deletion; others have already pointed out sources, just as good as those in the article at the time of its nomination, that could be used to balance its point of view better. The main argument for deleting it is that it's defamatory toward Qatar, and while it may be based primarily on sources with a negative viewpoint, it doesn't read as defamatory. That claim reads like a demand that the article not contain any facts or cite any opinions that are critical of the country, and that's just nonsense; certainly not a valid basis for deleting the article. P Aculeius (talk) 18:47, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 (talk) 22:19, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

*Speedy Delete: Delete per nom. But I must confess that I am truly amazed by the magnitude and intricacy involved in crafting this Wikipedia page. A perfect example of a state-sponsored Wikipedia page for influencing global opinion. Charlie (talk) 04:28, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean, state-sponsored? There's no evidence of that. If anything here bears the hallmarks of state sponsorship, it's the nomination for deletion! But there's no evidence of that either—just outrage at a topic critical of a country that the nominator doesn't think should be criticized! And that's not a valid reason for deletion. In fact nothing said so far in this discussion justifies deletion. If the discussion in the article comes across as one-sided, then add more sources to present a more neutral point of view, per Wikipedia policy. The status of the editor who created the article is irrelevant to whether the article should be kept or deleted; please base arguments on the topic and the article's contents. An emotional claim that the article "defames" a country by citing independent, third-party sources critical of it is not a proper basis for deletion. P Aculeius (talk) 13:03, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I will recuse myself from this voting process because there seems to be a mix of promotional language and a potentially confrontational or attacking tone within the text, which complicates my comprehension process. Charlie (talk) 12:57, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete: The neutrality of this article on Wikipedia is questionable as it appears to contain negative content that could be seen as defamatory towards a particular country. Additionally, there are concerns that the article has been manipulated by selectively including only partial information. Although the article may rely heavily on sources with a negative perspective. Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.252.188.127 (talk • contribs)
This is a very suspicious comment coming from an anonymous user with no recent editing history, and apparently no grasp of Wikipedia policy (for instance, signing comments, or citing specific policies rather than a blanket reference to all of them). Just as in the original nomination, there are no specifics: what information is "partial" or "incomplete"? Is anything in the article incorrect or unverifiable? We don't delete articles because some (or all) of the sources cited have a negative view of something. The remedy for NPOV issues is to add other sources for balance; the remedy for "partial information" is to add more. This comment presents no valid, policy-based rationale for deletion. P Aculeius (talk) 14:24, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete: In the "Overview" section, criticism is mentioned regarding sports washing during the FIFA World Cup 2022 in Qatar. However, it does not include FIFA President Gianni Infantino's statement. Additionally, some missing arguments showcasing that Qatar's human rights record is comparatively better than Russia and China (who faced less criticism for similar issues when hosting major sporting events). This evidence highlights a one-sided portrayal of based nature of the author. As there are numerous unaddressed aspects in this article, it is difficult to contribute to each statement. Therefore, I support the deletion of this page. Morgan1811 (talk) 09:09, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    None of these are valid reasons for deleting an article. They are reasons for improving it by adding content and sources that you think will provide a more neutral point of view. "This criticism is unjustified because others are more deserving of criticism" is not an argument for deletion, because the validity of sources and their contents does not depend on a comparison of what could be said about other subjects. P Aculeius (talk) 12:39, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This page falls under G3 (Pure vandalism and blatant hoaxes) as the whole page seems misinforming about Qatar. Morgan1811 (talk) 11:06, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    As it's obviously neither vandalism nor a hoax, this rationale for deleting the article is invalid. P Aculeius (talk) 13:58, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This can be categorized as pure vandalism, as the created page intentionally deceives readers and/or editors by providing manipulative and misleading content. Morgan1811 (talk) 10:14, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That's not what "vandalism" means. The claim that the content is "manipulative" doesn't make sense; there is nothing wrong with stating facts or citing what sources have said merely because they might persuade someone to believe something. The only argument here is that the article is one-sided, and that's not a reason for deleting it. That's a reason for improving it. P Aculeius (talk) 14:35, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: So far, policy-based consensus is that the topic is likely notable, but the question remains whether the current content should be deleted for having been written by a now-blocked sockfarm.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:39, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep I read several articles on the subject and thanks to this article I was able to see a more comprehensive picture. It is necessary to add more content to the article, but there is no doubt that the article must remain. It doesn't matter who created it, what truly matters is the current quality of the content within it.Rajoub570 (talk) 11:48, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete: Wikipedia has a policy of removing defamatory content as soon as it is discovered. Defamatory content, sometimes referred to as libelous material, has a reasonable chance of harming the reputation of an individual or organization and may put Wikipedia in legal trouble. And neutrality of this article as we can see is questionable, there are many parts where the now blocked user has added the information which is no doubt fully sourced but may have been created or edited in return for undisclosed payments, which is a violation of Wikipedia's terms of use. Isouf Qaleed (talk) 12:35, 12 February 2024 (UTC) ‪[reply]
    As the nominator, your delete !vote is assumed. You don't need to state it. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 12:46, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As you are only allowed one !vote per AfD, I have taken the liberty of striking through this one. IgnatiusofLondon (talk) 13:33, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Can you name which person this is defaming? If there is content that defames a person, it should be removed, but I frankly don't see any upon another read-through. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 04:18, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
OK let me explain for instance this paragraph from this article "The 2022 FIFA World Cup in Qatar was accused of being "sportswashing," using sports events to improve a country's image. Qatar faced criticism for its alleged mistreatment of migrant workers and was accused of using the World Cup to divert attention from these issues. Qatar's investments in sports extend beyond the World Cup, with significant stakes in football clubs and sports broadcasting.[3][4][5]"
The article contain only this much information which can mislead the readers perception about a country. "There’s a further information from the Wikipedia itself from page 2022 FIFA World Cup SECTION Bidding corruption allegations, 2014 “In 2014, FIFA appointed Michael Garcia as its independent ethics investigator to look into bribery allegations against Russia and Qatar. Garcia investigated all nine bids and eleven countries involved in the 2018 and 2022 bids.[387]
At the end of the investigation, Garcia submitted a 430-page report. The FIFA governing body then appointed a German judge, Hans Joachim Eckert, who reviewed and presented a 42-page summary of the report two months later. The report cleared Qatar and Russia of bribery allegations, stating that Qatar "pulled Aspire into the orbit of the bid in significant ways" but did not "compromise the integrity" of the overall bid process.[388]
Michael Garcia reacted almost immediately, stating that the report is "materially incomplete" and contains "erroneous representations of the facts and conclusions".[388]
In 2017, a German journalist Peter Rossberg claimed to have obtained the report and wrote that it "does not provide proof that the 2018 or 2022 World Cup was bought" and stated that he would publish the full report. This forced FIFA to release the original report. The full report did not provide any evidence of corruption against the host of the 2022 World Cup but stated that bidders tested the rules of conduct to the limit.[389]”
According to Sharan Burrow, general secretary of the International Trade Union Confederation, prior to the tournament, "the new Kafala system tranche of law will put an end to Kafala and establish a contemporary industrial relations system."[356]
and this paragraph is from section Migrant workers
FIFA President Gianni Infantino has defended Qatar's decision to host the tournament.[357]Others have asserted that Qatar has a better human rights record than Russia and China, which were subjected to less harsh criticism for the same problems when hosting important athletic events in the years before the tournament.[358]
There are many instances where this article lack further and proper information which can mislead the readers and there are numerous pages containing the proper information that's why I don't think so that this page is required, as at first place this is created by the user already blocked because of vandalism. Isouf Qaleed (talk) 06:11, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Those are reasons to add additional sources placing what you feel are one-sided claims in context, not reasons for deleting the article. They do not "defame" a person; they present criticisms of state actions or motives, which may or may not be rebutted by other sources—some of which you're citing here, but not, evidently, adding to the article. It would be inappropriate to delete an article merely because some of its claims support criticism of a government. That's a content issue that should be resolved by adding more sources and context.
Also, the assertion that the article's creator was blocked due to vandalism seems to be incorrect: as I read it, he was blocked for abusing sockpuppets. However, unless the reasons for the block are germane to the content of this article, they shouldn't determine whether the article is kept or deleted. Misconduct by editors is not usually grounds for deleting all of their contributions to the encyclopedia, nor is whether the editor's point of view toward the subject of the article was positive or negative. While neutrality is a core policy of Wikipedia, editors are free to cite sources that are critical of an article's subject: neutrality does not mean that the sources cited must not have any opinion. Any editor may add sources that might present a more balanced view.
This article should not be deleted unless it is about a non-notable or non-encyclopedic topic, or so badly written that it cannot be salvaged; and none of these appears even remotely to be the case. The topic is notable and encyclopedic, and can easily be improved as explained above. P Aculeius (talk) 13:23, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm with P Aculeius here. Of course, this is a topic that will excite different viewpoints. On such topics, Wikipedia provides the strongest possible entry when editors with competing viewpoints collaborate towards the shared article, not drag articles through processes like AfD.
@Isouf Qaleed: Sirfurboy above suggested draftifying the article, so that editors can work on it in an incubated space, especially on more problematic sections that violate the impartiality expected of Wikipedia articles. Once the article is ready, it can then be returned to the mainspace. How do you feel about this suggestion? IgnatiusofLondon (talk) 13:49, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I know you didn't ask me, but I think the article is fine where it is, and can be worked on in mainspace. I understand if other editors disagree. P Aculeius (talk) 14:00, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(I agree – or more accurately – I think if we had each expended the same time and energy on the article as we have done the AfD, we wouldn't be still here discussing it.) IgnatiusofLondon (talk) 14:35, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 06:33, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. The topic is notable, encyclopedic, and the article can be salvaged. The reasons for deleting it aren't valid, they are reasons to improve the article, which I agree needs to be one. However, AfD discussions aren't for cleanup. Cortador (talk) 10:31, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: The article probably passes WP:GNG. However, I'm going to vote delete on WP:IAR grounds. This is part of an undisclosed paid editing operation (WP:Sockpuppet investigations/TronFactor) that seems to involve the ongoing compromise of accounts. We should disincentivize hacking operations in Wikipedia, and not reward this group, which is an ongoing threat to the project. We should treat this in a way analogous to WP:G5. MarioGom (talk) 10:40, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The article unquestionably is about a notable topic. But the sockpuppet investigation doesn't mention anything about undisclosed paid editing. And creating sockpuppets doesn't involve "hacking". Is there any discussion or evidence of undisclosed paid editing in this case? I can see from the tone of the article that the author possibly had an axe to grind, but there does seem to be at least a good faith attempt at moderation or the inclusion of sources that both are and aren't critical of Qatar's use of "soft power". I'm definitely an inclusionist, so it was always going to be hard to convince me to vote "delete". But if there's evidence that the original author was paid to write an article and tilt its point of view in a certain direction, I'd like to know what it is. P Aculeius (talk) 10:53, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Did you read the investigation? The sockfarm had some very old and unused accounts that were either hijacked or else were sleeper socks for a decade. It took hours of admin time to work through. This is not some guy popping in a new subject for no reason. Significant sockfarm resources were deployed, probably in the full knowledge that we would likely be reluctant to delete something that looks like a complete sourced page. It should not be in mainspace, and deletion remains my strong preference. Don't underestimate the intelligence of those spending that much resource to game the system. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 11:02, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Indeed. Other than the behavioral evidence, at least two checkusers noted there appears to be technical evidence of account compromise. This is spelt out in the investigation I linked and I have also reported this to WMF Trust & Safety team. MarioGom (talk) 11:22, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The words "undisclosed paid editing" do not occur in the sockpuppet investigation, so it seems reasonable to ask for an explanation and evidence. That some of the sockpuppets are old and have gone unused for years doesn't really tell me anything about payments. The idea that some accounts were "hijacked" by others could be plausible, but even if demonstrated—and I'm not sure that's possible, it doesn't go toward anything in this article.
    This article is about a notable subject, and it appears to be well-sourced. Although the author may have used several sockpuppets to link to it, none of the contributors to this article appear to be other aliases of that author, and substantial editing has been done by other editors, while the original author and his known sockpuppets are blocked. Nothing about the article seems to be beyond the reach of ordinary editing to improve or correct. Were the articles that the sockpuppets linked to it wrongly linked, or is the only issue that someone used sockpuppets to create the links?
    I see a lot of inferences and assumptions being made about the author and his motivations, but even if we suppose they're all true, there is nothing unsalvageable about the content this article. This is not the fruit of the poisonous tree: an article can be started for the wrong reasons, by someone who ignores policies such as verifiability or neutral point of view, and still be worth keeping and improving—as a number of non-sock editors have already done. Dynamiting an article just to prove a point about the author really would be throwing the baby out with the bathwater. P Aculeius (talk) 17:18, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article looks like criticism of Qatar (note there is Criticism of Israel, perhaps merge or rename. IgelRM (talk) 18:58, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Although much of the article is critical of Qatar—it's about the use of "soft power" by Qatar, which isn't simply a list of grievances. In fact, it would be hard to justify an article that solely consists of grievances, even though I can understand why some might exist. But this article isn't solely critical; some of what it says is neutral at worst. If its focus stays on "soft power", then it might contain positive things, or at least mention praise by some sources for the way it exerts "soft power". For instance, by acting as a peace broker in the current Israel-Hamas conflict. I think that would get lost if the title were changed to indicate only criticism, or if the article were merged into something else (and what, BTW, might we want to merge it with?). P Aculeius (talk) 22:03, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Soft power#Examples would be a direct merge, but I see that would certainly need significant shortening. I suppose Criticism of Israel is more of a section split out by article length. But the Soft power article currently barely mentions Qatar. I somewhat struggle with soft power name, diplomacy would be neutral while soft power seems to have a generally negative connotation. I see there are also Italian and Chinese soft power articles but both don't seem to justify there separate existence in my opinion. IgelRM (talk) 23:17, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Article just needs a clean up to remove potential bias but otherwise passes GNG Mr Vili talk 14:10, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Kill Screen. Liz Read! Talk! 05:16, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kill Screen Festival[edit]

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

An annual conference held from 2013 to 2016. Notability appears tied to Kill Screen magazine, merge into section there? IgelRM (talk) 13:29, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rcsprinter123 (notify) 17:19, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge. Just because something is has independent notability (which here is fairly loose), it doesn't mean it requires its own article. Having them both split would be detrimental to both articles, and Some1 also makes a good point about how the festival is held infrequently anyways. λ NegativeMP1 06:36, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Most of the festivals in Category:Festivals in New York City could conceivably be merged to whoever put on the festival. For example, The New Yorker Festival could be merged to The New Yorker. But given one is an organization and the other is an event, I don't see how it is "detrimental". In my opinion, an article like this should only be merged if it's a sentence or two with zero room for expansion. Otherwise, merging removes the possibility of any future development of an article by in essence implying it's not notable to any editors who may wish to work on it. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 06:51, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    As nominator I also think we should focus on Notability (events) and not whether a merger would make sense. IgelRM (talk) 18:55, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 06:32, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. BusterD (talk) 19:19, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rosemary Lillu[edit]

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

Per the previous nomination Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rosemary Lillu, BLP fails WP:GNG. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 07:36, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Even if the source is reliable, the article is an interview that lacks sufficient analysis/commentary to be considered a secondary source. (I believe it was discussed in-depth in the previous AfD.) Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 16:17, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, in the previous afd you discarded the TOI as non-reliable not as non-secondary. Also, it will probably be difficult not to repeat things that were said then since it was closed as no-consensus. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 16:47, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I believe reliability comes first. There was no need to determine if it was a primary/secondary source(during the previous AfD) when I deemed it unreliable per WP:TOI. Also, the mentioned article is not a film review but an interview. Despite being generally unreliable per WP:TOI, if you feel it needs to be evaluated on a case-by-case basis and consider it reliable in this case, it still does not count towards GNG due to being an interview with not enough commentary/ analysis. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 17:37, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you but this not my personal opinion: it seems to be the (no) consensus at Perennial Sources (WP:TOI) and among members of Indian task force. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 17:50, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And just one thing: The full quote of the WP:TOI you are citing goes "The Times of India is considered to have a reliability between no consensus and generally unreliable. It has a bias in favor of the Indian government and is known to accept payments from persons and entities in exchange for positive coverage." And the source is "yellow" (that is, just under reliable....). (That's very very far from being "generally unreliable" and the Indian task force clarifies why.) Best. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 17:53, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I understand your point and I want to clarify that interviews with not enough commentary or analysis are not considered secondary sources. Therefore, they do not contribute towards GNG. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 18:18, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Out of courtesy pinging other participants to today's previous Afd @The Wordsmith:@Liz, Daniel, Seraphimblade, Rublamb, and Mischellemougly:.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 15:52, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: There are enough reliable sources to meet notability. Note that interviews can count toward notability where there are several interviews. Rublamb (talk) 16:12, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Rublamb: Can you please mention here the specific Wikipedia guideline or policy(not essay) that states interviews can contribute to notability, particularly when there are multiple interviews? Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 16:22, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Sure. From WP:INTERVIEWS: "A multitude of interviews with a breadth of styles shows a wide range of attention being given to the subject and can be considered as evidence of notability." Rublamb (talk) 17:07, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That is an essay, not a policy or guideline. Daniel (talk) 17:12, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment:
Source assessment table:
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
https://www.thehindu.com/todays-paper/tp-features/tp-metroplus/a-filmy-dream/article29474707.ece Yes Is an interview but with enough analysis/commentary. Yes Yes ✔ Yes
https://web.archive.org/web/20230911014500/https://www.deshabhimani.com/women/rosemary/1116116 No Article is an interview with not enough analysis/commentary. Yes Yes ✘ No
https://malayalam.samayam.com/malayalam-cinema/celebrity-news/designer-rosemary-lillu-opens-up-about-her-line-art-tribute-to-mohanlals-romantic-movies/articleshow/77263370.cms?story=11 No Article is an interview with not enough analysis/commentary. Yes Yes ✘ No
https://www.vanitha.in/celluloid/movies/rosemary-lillu-designer-fb-post.html Yes Yes No Article is about a Facebook note posted by the subject ✘ No
https://www.aninews.in/news/business/business/shortstube-ads-bags-google-partner-badge-status-becomes-a-part-of-the-first-ever-indian-youtube-marketing-partner-agencies-listed-on-google20221021121816/ Yes Yes No Passing mention ✘ No
https://cinemadaddy.com/rosemary-lillu-the-lady-who-conquers-mollywood-with-her-art/ Yes No Posted by "WEBADMIN". No editorial oversight. Similar to other unreliable entertainment websites from India Yes ✘ No
https://www.asianetnews.com/special-entertainment/rose-mary-lillu-about-poster-design-qrwuj3 Yes Yes No Article is about a Facebook note posted by the subject ✘ No
https://reviewbyparivartan.com/neru-box-office-collection-day-10-sacnilk/ Yes No Blog website that discusses the Neru Box Office Collection Day 10 from another unreliable website 'Sacnilk' No passing mention ✘ 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}}.
I would like to note here that there are no policies backing the above 'keep' votes. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 13:11, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: For policy based input
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 18:31, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep : 2 new secondary sources has been introduced into the article. One from The Hindu and the other from Malayala Manorama.The Manorama article is a 6 sentence article written from journalist point of view. Clearly passed Notability. Mischellemougly (talk) 16:08, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for adding the Hindu article, it contributes to the GNG. Six lines on Malayala Manorama do not provide significant coverage but rather a summary of what the article/interview is about. We would still require one more reliable and independent source with significant coverage. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 20:37, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment : Even though I am convinced with the news sources provided in the article meeting notability, just to convince Jeraxmoira🐉, I have introduced another detailed secondary news article from Times of India Malayalam into the page, which is written only from journalist point of view and its around a 500-600 word article. Further passes Notability Mischellemougly (talk) 05:32, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In an AfD, you need to convince other editors rather than yourself. The latest source you added reads like an interview and falls under the category of primary rather than a secondary source. Interviews by the subject are not secondary but primary. I believe, till now, we only have the subject's interviews as sources with significant coverage WP:PRIMARY: Do not base an entire article on primary sources, and be cautious about basing large passages on them. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 09:38, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment : The new Times of India Malayalam that was introduced recently is not an interview article. Its entirely written from journalist point of view. Here the journalist is Bibin Babu and the article doesnt even ask any question or quotes anything that the subject said. Its entirely based on facts about the subject from journalist point of view and is purely a secondary news source. Mischellemougly (talk) 14:02, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am not familiar with the language and Google Translate shows a paragraph in the first person with a prompt for each paragraph. Also interprets 'she' as 'he.' If what you are saying is true, and if someone familiar with the language can confirm the same, then I believe you have WP:THREE now. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 20:12, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I am very much familiar with the malayalam language and thats why I said its not an interview article and its a secondary news source. The english translator by google is translating it very wrong. As you said it interprets "She" as "he" , but the true fact is no she or he is mentioned in that particular part in malayalam. It is actually written as a statement by the journalist. The article is fully from jounalist point of view. Mischellemougly (talk) 15:31, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: BLP, per nom and above source eval, fails GNG and NBIO. Sources in article and BEFORE found nothing with WP:SIGCOV from WP:IS WP:RS addressing the subject directly and indepth. [47] does not have independent SIGCOV showing WP:N. The other ref mentioned above [48] is an promo interview, "Rosemary opens up to Samayam Malayalam about how she came up with such an idea". BLPs require strong sourcing.  // Timothy :: talk  19:34, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 14:02, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment : There are more reliable and secondary news sources other than the 2 mentioned above by Timothy, which was mentioned in my keep tag and agreed upon by the nominator itself. Mischellemougly (talk) 04:29, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I want to clarify that I didn't agree with you. I only mentioned that you may have WP:THREE. My nomination remains unchanged, favoring deletion. Similarly, the source eval is only reflects my assessment. Both WP:THREE and WP:Interview are essays, not official policies and I believe interviews are considered as primary sources by policy. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 05:26, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment : Your previous comments justifies one article passes GNG and you mentioned the other Malayalam language article (Times of India Malayalam) which you are unaware of as you are not well versed in that language. Both the articles are neither interviews. Both written by jounalists and are secondary sources fully written based on journalist point of view. Mischellemougly (talk) 07:42, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My comments and source eval are based on my understanding of the sources provided and does not reflect the views of other editors. While I still agree that the one mentioned on the eval passes GNG from my understanding of WP:INTERVIEW, it is not backed by any direct policy, so other editors may have differing opinions. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 09:41, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 05:23, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. I disagree with Jeraxmoira and think that the Manorama source provides significant coverage, but searches for her name in both English and Malayam find nothing other than what has already been mentioned in this AfD. Maybe if one of the two sources was a really detailed magazine profile, I'd vote keep, but two marginally usable newspaper sources isn't enough to establish notabiliy. Mach61 (talk) 13:50, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus‎. ✗plicit 11:57, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Stefano De Marchi[edit]

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

This biographical article's sources probably don't indicate notability of the subject (not do they show significant coverage), likely fails WP:GNG, and is written more like an essay; there are already draft versions including Draft:Stefano De Marchi and Draft:Prof. Stefano De Marchi. – 64andtim (talk) 14:57, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rcsprinter123 (visit) 17:12, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 05:18, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Meitei culture. Further discussion into merge can be discussed in the talk page, if appropriate, outside AfD. (non-admin closure) The Herald (Benison) (talk) 08:55, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Birds in Meitei culture[edit]

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

Author's WP:SYNTHESIS PepperBeast (talk) 13:21, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • no Disagree According to WP:SYNTHESIS, in case of A + B = C, there should have explicit A and B but C cannot be explicit. I don't find any type of statement that is claiming to be such things that are not published. Many things are significantly represented in many mythologies. To summarize those things in a article have many examples, such as Birds in Chinese mythology, Ravens in Native American mythology, etc. I am just curious, why it seems to be WP:SYNTHESIS. Nokib Sarkar Poke 18:02, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment: Per Nokib Sarkar, can you point out which ideas you believe are synthesis, PepperBeast? I don't see it either just yet. Darkfrog24 (talk) 23:55, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In our discussion of Plants in Meitei culture, PB established that they believe the author synthesized a connection among all birds with Meitei culture and that what we'd need is sources saying "Birds in Meitei culture" is a discrete idea that has already been recognized by sources. While I was looking for sources on plants in Meitei culture, I was in Google Books. Here's what I got for birds: Google Books.
Not as clear as with plants or ethnobotany, but it's not nothing at all. Darkfrog24 (talk) 15:19, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not seeing any sources in the first two pages that might be relevant here, could you clarify which, if any, you feel is relevant? Brusquedandelion (talk) 01:28, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Merge. Not every element of Meitei culture needs to have its own separate article when there is already page on Meitei culture where these segments can be merged to. Additionally, unless independent sources are discussing "Birds in Meitei culture" as a conjunct, such an article does not seem to be in the spirit of the notability rules/guidelines. Brusquedandelion (talk) 01:32, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep : All the information are cited by independent reliable sources in English and Indian languages, which anyone can scrutinize. There's no synthesis of anyone. Everything is supported by the citations. --Haoreima (talk) 17:49, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The nominator should answer counter-claims to the SYNTH claim. Geschichte (talk) 08:46, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The nominator has not seen any sources on the topic of Birds in Meitei Culture or similar, and believes that the author of the article has patched it together from disconnected elements of Meitei folklore. If multiple, independent, reliable sources can be found on the topic of Birds in Meitei culture, then this is a reasonable article topic. Otherwise, it's just sparkling synthesis. PepperBeast (talk) 16:48, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 05:16, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge to Meitei culture; had a look and I just don't see the sources. This isn't about birds in Meitei culture, it's just a bunch of Meitei folk tales and myths that happen to involve some kind of bird. The OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument is also rather weak; the Chinese mythology article is about a much more prominent mythology with (more importantly) more sources, and the ravens one is about a specific kind of creation tale as far as I can tell. AryKun (talk) 13:01, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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! 05:10, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Beata Szałwińska[edit]

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

Nominated for deletion on pl wiki due to concerns over WP:NBIO. Sourcing in our article is likewise very poor. I've asked User:Gerda Arendt for comment and she did not find much (comment diff). Best sources we have is an interview in major Polish radio station [49], I don't think any English sources are better (minor websites/promotional rewrites of press releaes/etc.). Discography does not seem to meet NMUSIC threshold, some claims of awards here and on pl wiki are poorly referenced and vague (what award(s)?). Seems like a promotion of a minor artist that falls under WP:TOOSOON to be in encyclopedia yet. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 01:19, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 04:46, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. PhantomSteve/talk¦contribs\ 20:32, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Balsamic Moon[edit]

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

I am unable to find reliable sources to support qualification under the general notability guideline. Innisfree987 (talk) 23:30, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I'm seeing a reasonable amount of coverage in books from perfectly respectable publishers. It has an entry in DK's "Complete Idiot's Guide to Astrology, for instance.— Moriwen (talk) 23:38, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We consider the complete idiot’s guide a reliable source? Innisfree987 (talk) 06:15, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Depends. Bearian (talk) 15:29, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Would appreciate if you could elaborate. It’s not that I didn’t look at sources before nominating, it’s that they all seemed fringe rather than credibly fact-checked work. Innisfree987 (talk) 15:47, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Need clearer consensus for keep !votes.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 01:00, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 04:44, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Not discussed in sources outside the fringe bubble. XOR'easter (talk) 03:31, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. @Innisfree987, if the guide is published by Dorling Kindersley then I'd say it's more reliable than not. Did a cursory search (though I should be working) and the term does come up in terms of astrology... so it's fringe, but astrology was a big deal back in the day. Okay, to conclude lean keep. --Ouro (blah blah) 15:09, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - discussed in many books - per WP:BEFORE. Bearian (talk) 15:29, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Marxist–Leninist Communist Party of Belgium. Liz Read! Talk! 04:38, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Revolutionary Communist Party (Belgium)[edit]

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

Tagged as wholly uncited since 2009 and as lacking notability since 2012. Article contains almost no content. Present content makes it impossible to know wether the subject party has ever existed. Vif12vf/Tiberius (talk) 04:26, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and Belgium. Vif12vf/Tiberius (talk) 04:26, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:54, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The article was created by a user who thought that political groups were given an automatic pass and excempt from WP:NOTEVERYTHING. In Fr:wiki, it is covered by a mention at https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mouvement_mao%C3%AFste_en_Belgique. It seems to be mentioned here. The party contested an election but ended dead last Geschichte (talk) 09:38, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Which election was this? Vif12vf/Tiberius (talk) 20:33, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Geschichte I think you meant to say: this article was created by a veteran, prolific contributor to Wikipedia, who's been recognised as an Editor of the Week, and who has made invaluable contributions writing articles about political parties throughout the world. :) FWIW you've conflated two Belgian parties with the same name - the PCR of the 1940s which was Trotskyist with the PCR of the 1980s which was Maoist. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 22:26, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment A collection of the party's newspaper (L'Exploité) from 1973 to 2000 is held at the Amsab Institute of Social History in Gent (published by the RCP's forerunner the PCBML from 1973 to 1976), three mentions of the party in Pascal Delwit's history of the PTB, from the French language article on Maosim in Belgium Manuel Abramowicz's "The Radical Left in French-speaking Belgium - Electoral, social and political impact (1965-2004)" (which appears to only be available off-line) it's more than reasonable to assume there is discussion of the RCP in that text, so there's good grounds for WP:NEXIST. That said, I'm not necessarily arguing for keep here, but I'm against delete, a merge/redirect might be appropriate to Maoism in Belgium. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 03:34, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into Marxist–Leninist Communist Party of Belgium as a premature SPINOFF. The Revolutionary Communist Party (Belgium) was a split of the Marxist–Leninist Communist Party of Belgium that is mentioned in the parent. Since there is so little content in Revolutionary Communist Party (Belgium), all of the content can be merged into the parent, easing the "user experience from hell" of having to navigate through many articles with snippets of information. The Communist Struggle (Marxist–Leninist) can also be merged into the parent. All with favorable prejudice on notability, as necessary and long overdue actions of information governance. gidonb (talk) 19:38, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with this approach. Vif12vf/Tiberius (talk) 22:28, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your support and for nominating, Vif12vf/Tiberius! gidonb (talk) 22:40, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Goldsztajn, my proposal does justice to your findings of NEXIST and your desire for a merge. Can you support? gidonb (talk) 22:52, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thumbs up icon Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 23:05, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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! 04:36, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sønderborg railway station[edit]

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

Doesn't seem to be notable enough. Knowledgegatherer23 (Say Hello) 23:04, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 00:09, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 00:09, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Stations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 00:11, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This has a much more developed article on the Danish Wikipedia, and I'd be astounded if a 120-year-old railway station in a significant European city didn't have lots of sources available for it. I would be surprised though if the majority of those sources were in English. Thryduulf (talk) 12:32, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the rationale here is rather weak and doesn't explain why the article doesn't seem notable or what WP:BEFORE was carried out. A station that has been rebuilt twice will have had coverage of the reconstruction in local press and thus will be notable. Garuda3 (talk) 15:27, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: the Danish article is longer, but contains no sources. Not voting delete because I haven't done further digging, but I don't think keep is the right outcome here unless sources are found. -- asilvering (talk) 00:56, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 03:52, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 02:07, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Survived and Punished[edit]

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

Does not appear to pass the notability criteria of a non-commercial organisation. On Google News, when I search "survived and punished" "prison" I get 14 results. These sources are good, but only pass mentions of the organisation rather than being articles specifically about the organisation. This article also isn't sourced well. I count 7/10 sources that are about women in prison rather than the organisation. —Panamitsu (talk) 02:05, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Paid for content does not need to be retained. If NNE survives AfD, this can be redirected as a matter of editorial discretion. Star Mississippi 01:57, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jay Jiang Yu[edit]

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

Sources are entirely press releases, and can't find much online. TLA (talk) 01:44, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This Wikipedia article is crucial because it provides key information for those interested in the subject EliteBrandRealm (talk) 02:28, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Kind regards. @I'm tla . This topic is about one of the founders of one of the micro nuclear energy reactor company Nano Nuclear Energy in New York, I found sources that appear on the internet. This topic is relevant to being on Wikipedia, I invest time and try to improve Wikipedia. I invite you to carefully review the article. Eugenio Montilla (talk) 02:28, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@I'm tla . References: https://www.eluniversaldigital.net/actualidad/jay-jiang-yu-trayectoria-profesional-y-reconocimientos-destacados/
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/nano-nuclear-energy-joins-nuclear-130000904.html
https://world-nuclear-news.org/Articles/US-micro-reactor-company-sets-up-HALEU-subsidiary
https://www.niauk.org/nano-nuclear-energy-makes-key-submission-to-doe/
https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1923891/000153412222000011/xslFormDX01/primary_doc.xml
https://www.vanguardngr.com/2021/03/in-conversation-with-entrepreneur-jay-jiang-yu/
https://fashionweekdaily.com/being-the-hardest-worker-in-the-room-has-contributed-heavily-to-my-success-says-jay-jiang-yu/
https://www.globenewswire.com/en/news-release/2021/11/29/2342547/0/en/Founder-Jay-Jiang-Yu-Named-as-One-of-the-Outstanding-50-Asian-Americans-in-Business-on-the-Award-s-20th-Anniversary-Issues-Comments-on-LunarNYC-Basketball-Program-s-Trifecta-of-Win.html
https://elgraficodelsur.com/la-trayectoria-y-reconocimientos-profesional-de-jay-jiang-yu-con-una-innovacion-empresarial-y-compromiso-social/ Eugenio Montilla (talk) 03:16, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
1. is clearly not a WP:RELIABLE source
2. is a press release
3. is not a WP:RELIABLE source and reads like a press release
4. is a press release
5. is not WP:INDEPENDENT, it's an incorporation document
6. see WP:WikiProject Nigeria/Nigerian sources
7. "DN News Desk"
8. is a press release
9. is clearly not a WP:RELIABLE source TLA (talk) 03:21, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @I'm tla. These are the references that I find on the internet that deal with this relevant topic, not about me or my project, but about an article edited by my own words and hands. I spent time doing this to help Wikipedia. Eugenio Montilla (talk) 03:29, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment: Nano Nuclear Energy is also up for deletion. Eugenio Montilla, regardless, this AfD will continue to be discussed. TLA (talk) 03:37, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@I'm tla : Nano Nuclear Energy is an official member of the US Nuclear Industry Council (USNIC) and the Nuclear Instituteorganization based in the United Kingdom. Was selected as a founding member of the U.S. Department of Energy's HALEU (High Assay Low Enriched Uranium). Eugenio Montilla (talk) 04:14, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus‎. Star Mississippi 01:55, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Allegiance: War of Factions[edit]

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

WP:BEFORE revealed no online coverage, and even very few index links. In the WM library, appears only in games catalogues e.g. “Greater Games Industry Catalog • #6 Fall 2008: L.” Greater Games Industry Catalog, no. 6, Oct. 2008, pp. 136–42. EBSCOhost, link. We don't have an article for the publisher, so no obvious WP:ATD. Suriname0 (talk) 20:39, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rcsprinter123 (remark) 17:06, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment There is also a review in Paizo's Undefeated magazine #9. I don't think I have that issue, but am checking. Guinness323 (talk) 19:48, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep I can't imagine the Undefeated review won't count toward WP:N, so it sounds like we are over the GNG bar of multiple reliable independent sources. Hobit (talk) 13:47, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 01:04, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2024_February_18&oldid=1210994124"