Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 February 6

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< February 05 February 07 >

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 02:29, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gate.io[edit]

Gate.io (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)

Orphan article. Over 50 references, but how many of those actually constitute significant coverage in reliable sources? I'm not sure I've seen enough here to be convinced this passes WP:GNG. Uhooep (talk) 15:32, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:51, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: I didn't have time to review all sources, but every one that I did check was an obvious laundered press release, i.e. churnalism. Nothing independent of the source and frankly nothing that wasn't WP:MILL, just routine notices of a company doing company stuff. Nothing notable to see here. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 01:33, 7 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 23:35, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Madeleine Wade[edit]

Madeleine Wade (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 actress with no significant coverage in reliable sources. The only significant coverage cited in the article are interviews, which lack independence; the rest of the articles cited are trivial mentions. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:14, 30 January 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 23:47, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I don't think it is enough for GNG. Ben Azura (talk) 20:52, 11 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. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 03:26, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Luo Xi (banker)[edit]

Luo Xi (banker) (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 WP:SIGCOV. External links are not WP:INDEPENDENT, either. Maybe someone who has a grasp on Mandarin Chinese can speak upon this. TLA (talk) 02:52, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Finance, and China. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:26, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep Seems like a banker with controversy, which IMO goes beyond BLP1E with some SIGCOV from appointment and dismissal news which are unlikely press releases (with speculation that the dismissal is related to the controversy)
    [1] News about the controversy that "PICC Group once required all employees to recite Chairman Luo Xi's quotes, though such activities have been suspended", by Lianhe Zaobao (Newspaper)
    [2] News about Luo Xi appointed as Secretary of Party Committee and Chairman at PICC Group by Caixin (reliable per Wikipedia:New_page_patrol_source_guide#China). Blocked by paywall, but there is a 5-sentence of intro about their bank career visible.
    [3] News report when Xi Luo was dismissed from the Secretary of Party Committee position by The Paper (newspaper): 5-paragraph of SIGCOV about their career
    [4] Another news report about the dismissal by Caixin, with speculation that the dismissal is related to the controversy. Unfortunately still blocked by paywall, but there's a 2-paragraph intro about their career visible. --94rain Talk 01:06, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. The subject passes Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Basic criteria, which says:

    People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject.

    • If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not usually sufficient to establish notability.
    Sources
    1. Liu, Jingyuan 刘敬元; Deng, Xiongying 邓雄鹰 (2020-09-08). 人保一把手空缺2个月后迎来新任，60岁太平罗熹接棒，如何掌舵"新中国保险长子"？ [The top leader of the People's Insurance Company of China has been vacant for 2 months and a new one has been appointed. Taiping Group's 60-year-old Luo Xi takes over. How will he be at the helm of the "eldest son of New China Insurance"?]. Securities Times (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2024-01-18. Retrieved 2024-01-18.

      This is the same article as the one found by 94rain (talk · contribs) but is a non-paywalled copy of the article from the source that originally published it. The article notes: "纵观其履历，罗熹在农行任职时间最久，达22年，在工行工作4年，在中国出口信用保险公司工作3年，在华润集团工作将近3年，执掌太平集团2年时间。在任职太平集团一把手期间，罗熹还任太平保险集团（香港）公司、太平保险控股董事长，并兼任太平人寿、太平资产等多个太平子公司董事长。"

      From Google Translate: "Looking at his resume, Luo Xi has worked at the Agricultural Bank of China for the longest time, reaching 22 years. He has worked at ICBC for 4 years, at China Export and Credit Insurance Corporation for 3 years, at China Resources Group for nearly 3 years, and at the helm of Taiping Group for 2 years. While serving as the top leader of Taiping Group, Luo Xi also served as the chairman of Taiping Insurance Group (Hong Kong) Company and Taiping Insurance Holdings, and concurrently served as the chairman of several Taiping subsidiaries such as Taiping Life Insurance and Taiping Assets."

    2. The sources found by 94rain (talk · contribs).
    There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Luo Xi (simplified Chinese: 罗熹; traditional Chinese: 羅熹) to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

    Cunard (talk) 11:02, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 17:41, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per excellent sources found by Cunard. But plus expand. Current version is evil to me. Thanks 1.46.159.106 (talk) 05:25, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:MILL and WP:BLP. There are thousands of VPs at banks across the world, and likewise many with scandals. I don't see how this guy rates as notable. Bearian (talk) 17:31, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The article needs to be updated. The article was written in 2013 when they were a VP, but they then became the Chairman and was later dismissed (An insignificant note: Vice_president#In_financial_services_companies does not apply to banks in China but instead it works in a way similar as what is mentioned in Vice_president#In_other_organizations). It's true that "Not every chairman with scandal can have an article" but I don't see how MILL would apply in this case. I welcome arguments about how the sources do or do not meet ANYBIO or how BLP1E is not addressed by them. 94rain Talk 18:05, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Luo Xi received a very detailed profile in the Securities Times in September 2020, which is one of the four major securities newspapers in China. This is a very strong source that demonstrates he is notable. His dismissal from the Secretary of Party Committee position owing to a controversy happened 2.5 years later in 2023 and led to more biographical coverage about him. Luo Xi passes Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Basic criteria. Cunard (talk) 10:47, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 03:00, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The WordsmithTalk to me 23:42, 6 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 14:50, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Hazaras[edit]

The Hazaras (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)

Delete and redirect to Hazaras. Fails WP:NBOOKS. As part of WP:BEFORE, checked sourcing on interlanguage links as well but failed to turn up sources or coverage that would meet notability. Longhornsg (talk) 06:36, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 08:47, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Longhornsg: all the articles in other languages were created a few years after the English one and they seem a copy of it. I would have initially suggested that, based on the lack on online sources, the book fail to meet notability criteria. On the other hand, it's a rather old (1989) specialized book, which might have been mentioned in offline sources around the time of publishing. It surely makes no sense to have two separate entries for the author, Hassan Poladi, and the book, but I can't decide which of the two pages should be redirected. --Broc (talk) 10:30, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Fails to meet WP:NBOOKS.RomanRaju (talk) 11:23, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. Wikipedia:Notability (books)#Criteria says:

    A book is presumed notable if it verifiably meets, through reliable sources, at least one of the following criteria:

    1. The book has been the subject of two or more non-trivial published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself. This can include published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, other books, television documentaries, bestseller lists, and reviews. This excludes media re-prints of press releases, flap copy, or other publications where the author, its publisher, agent, or other self-interested parties advertise or speak about the book.
    Sources
    1. Canfield, Robert L. (May 1990). Siegfried, Mary Ann (ed.). "The Hazäras, Hassan Poladi, Stockton CA, Mughal Publishing Co., 1989. Pp. xvi + 431, index. (Distributed through Avenue Books, 840 W. Benjamin Holt Drive, Stockton, CA 95207) $19.95". Afghanistan Forum. Vol. 18, no. 3. Asia Society. pp. 34–35. ISSN 0889-2148. Retrieved 2024-01-28 – via Internet Archive.

      From this 1 December 2016 obituaryInternet Archive for Mary Ann Siegfried, the editor of the Afghanistan Forum: ""After two years, she returned home to Ohio via freighter and soon set out for New York City, where she landed a job with the Asia Society. The nonprofit’s mission was to introduce Americans to Asia, “since most people didn’t even know where it was,” she told The Star. Through editing the society’s newsletter on Afghanistan, The Af­ghanistan Forum, for more than 25 years, she became an expert on that country.""

      The book review notes: "Poladi was not a polished scholar and the book has certain weaknesses. He has assembled and attempted to use virtually everything he could find on his subject; hence, the inclusion of some unnecessary material. The comments of poorly informed travelers are treated with the same respect as the measured reports of thorough scholars. Nevertheless, after extensive summaries of such diverse works he usually comes to defensible conclusions of his own, and, despite his evident apologetic purpose, he presents a reasonable and plausible image of the Hazara experience. Indeed, weaknesses aside, this book is a rich mine of information on the Hazaras, for Poladi's inclusion of everything that is known about them makes it an incomparable source on the subject. The book is a kind of final utterance of Hassan Poladi, "a project of the heart," as someone close to him put it, for he passed away in the same year his book was published."

    2. Hahn, Reinhard F. (1991). "Poladi, Hassan, The Hazäras. Stockton, California: Mughal Publishing Company, 1989. ISBN 0-929824-00-8, LCCN 88-092511. 431 pp., with 13 illustrations (4 maps, 2 tables, 2 charts, 5 photographs), 5 appendices. Hard cover. US $19.95. Distributed by Avenue Books (840 W. Benjamin Holt Dr., Stockton, CA 95207, U.S.A.)". Central Asiatic Journal. 35 (1–2): 153–156. JSTOR 41927783. Retrieved 2024-01-28 – via Internet Archive.

      The review notes: "This book is remarkable in a number of regards. Most importantly, being a Hazara from Pakistan, enjoying access to Hazara American informants, and having received his tertiary education in his adopted country America, Poladi is in the unique position to relate the subject matter both as an insider and as a Western-trained scholar. He deserves much credit for his sincere and mostly successful endeavor to depict the Hazara’s world in an unbiased fashion, despite his admitted difficulties in detaching himself emotionally at all times, particularly while dealing with his people’s suffering through slavery and war. The exclusive use of the author's own technical and financial resources — aside from other persons' occasional help (e.g. typing, editing, translating, and library access) — makes The Hazäras the rather impressive result of a virtually single-handed effort."

      The review further notes: "The Härzaras has more than its fair share of grammatical and orthographic errors, inconsistencies and inadequacies. Inclusion of page headers would have facilitated quick reference. Captions in the body of the text ought to have been consistent with those in the List of Illustrations. The sporadic appearance of unexplained abbreviations in the bibliography ought to have been avoided. The subject index ought to have been extended to include all section headings. However, none of this lessens the value of Poladi's work to any significant degree. Being an important addition to the hitherto all too meager store of publications about this interesting nation, The Hazäras definitely deserves the attention of those interested in any Central-Asia-related aspect of Afghan studies."

    3. JDM (Autumn 1989). "The Häzaras, by Hassan Poladi". The Middle East Journal. 43 (4): 725. JSTOR 4328048.

      The short review notes: "The Häzaras, by Hassan Poladi. Stockton, CA: Mughal Publishing, 1989. xvi + 431 pages. Append. Bibl. Index. $19.95. A detailed study of the Hazara people of Afghanistan. Examines social customs, religion, history, language, and economy. Also includes a chronology and commentaries on rulers from 1370. (JDM)"

    There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow The Härzaras to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

    Cunard (talk) 10:54, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To discuss sources Cunard identified
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:42, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The WordsmithTalk to me 23:23, 6 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. Hey man im josh (talk) 23:40, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Marco Cianni[edit]

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

I don't think this meets WP:NPROF, unless the professional memberships are prestigious enough to carry the page on their own. I cleaned this article up a bit and removed non-RSes and sources that don't mention the subject. Some of the refs are still social media or screenshots of certificates or webpages though. BuySomeApples (talk) 23:22, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi
Fellow of the Institution of Engineers Australia is:
'Membership as a Fellow is the highest level of membership with Engineers Australia. It carries with it a recognition of eminence within the engineering profession.'
Fellow of the Royal Institution of Naval Architects is:
'We award Fellows to respected professionals who have demonstrated significant senior experience and achieved the highest standards in their field. It shows you have spent a career working at the forefront of the industry to help push boundaries and drive the profession forward. To hold the status of a RINA Fellow is a prestigious and internationally recognised professional qualification.'
Please look at the Sources again, they all mention Dr MJ Cianni or Dr Marco Cianni ....you need to look further down the article page. Metasolarus (talk) 23:37, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure about the notability of some of these memberships, a fellowship has to be selective/prestigious enough that only notable academics receive it, which for example Engineers Australia doesn't seem to be.[5] Also, it would help if you could find sources that aren't stuff like screenshots or LinkedIn. BuySomeApples (talk) 23:45, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Engineers Australia state: Fellow ' It carries with it a recognition of eminence within the engineering profession.' Metasolarus (talk) 23:57, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
RINA Fellow is a prestigious and internationally recognised professional qualification.' Metasolarus (talk) 23:57, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Source: Fellow Membership (FRINA) - Royal Institution of Naval Architects - RINA Metasolarus (talk) 23:59, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

:::::But he is considered to be a notable person as an academic isn't he? Maybe he is notable just not as an academic. BulgarianCat (talk) 10:10, 12 February 2024 (UTC)WP:SOCKSTRIKE[reply]

Fellow | Engineers Australia Metasolarus (talk) 00:00, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@ spa. Do you have any connect with the subject that you should reveal under WP:COI? Xxanthippe (talk) 02:23, 7 February 2024 (UTC).[reply]
No I do not have any contact with him, but I can contact him via LinkedIn if required? Metasolarus (talk) 02:45, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Why, so can I, or so can any man; But will he come when you do call for him? Xxanthippe (talk) 22:01, 13 February 2024 (UTC).[reply]
In order to be elected Fellow of these professional Institutions, research and implementation is required. Therefore if the detail of this research and implementation I included in the article, that should be sufficient to satisfy the requirements correct? Metasolarus (talk) 02:39, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The fellowships don't meet WP:NPROF, and it is not clear how prestigious they are as others have said.Ldm1954 (talk) 02:41, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    So you are basically saying that you do not recognise Fellowship of the main Australian Professional Engineering Institution, it is little wonder therefore that there is minimal Australian Engineering content. Who can assess Engineers Australia Fellowship ? Metasolarus (talk) 02:51, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete likely WP:COI as most contribs from a single source. Many engineers would progress to Fellow later in their career. There is a more select level above this of honorary fellow. No links to actual RSA fellow accreditation Teraplane (talk) 02:45, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Honorary Fellow does not exist for Engineers Australia or the Royal Institution of Naval Architects Metasolarus (talk) 02:47, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Fellow is the top 3%, so most engineers would not progress to Fellow Metasolarus (talk) 03:09, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    In fact, it does: Engineers Australia Honorary Fellow. That's the selective grade, and Cianni isn't there yet. - MrOllie (talk) 03:13, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Doesn't meet WP:NPROF, and does not have sufficient independent, in-depth reliable sourcing to meet WP:GNG. - MrOllie (talk) 03:00, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It has failed WP:NPROF. it doesn't have sufficient independent coverage Syed Sadique Hussain (talk) 07:41, 8 February 2024 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE[reply]
  • Admin Note Given those already struck and a sock farm dancing around this, I have semi'ed the AfD to avoid further disruption. Star Mississippi 20:51, 13 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! 23:29, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Marcella Runell Hall[edit]

Marcella Runell Hall (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 suggest taking a look at the history of this page. I put a bunch of effort into trying to clear this up, but the amount of peacock editing and bullshit is just irreparable. Claiming to have founded things she's not credited for, lots of self-published sources, lots of awards by organisations she's connected to.

I've already removed the more offensive examples, but I actually think this article is unsaveably promotional and when you take it all away, I don't think there's anything left. For what it's worth, it's noted on the user page of the user who wrote the article that Hall asked them to write the article in the first place.

I've spent the last 30 minutes looking through mounds of shit for sigcov and I'm not seeing it. If anyone thinks there's something there, be my guest. BrigadierG (talk) 23:22, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Does not appear to pass WP:NACADEMIC standards. Her highest rank is dean of students, not even dean of a university school or college, so she doesn’t fulfill the highest-level elected or appointed administrative post; she does not have a significant impact in her scholarly discipline per independent reliable sources; she has no highly prestigious academic awards or honors at a national or international level; she has not been elected member of a highly selective and prestigious scholarly society or association; her work, such that it is, does not affect a substantial number of academic institutions; she does not hold a named chair appointment or distinguished professorship; she has no substantial impact outside academia; and she is not an editor of a major, well-established academic journal. As an “author”, she has not written, but edited, books that do not meet WP:BKCRIT criteria. Of course there is a WP:CONFLICT situation. Quaerens-veritatem (talk)
  • Delete: The above commenters have said it in detail I don't need to repeat. In a college full of notable people (as it happens, my wife got her graduate degree at MHC last year, and we live just across the river), the subject doesn't make much of a mark. Ravenswing 04:36, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Neither her citation counts (even when I bring in the ones under the name Marcella Runell) nor her administrative position are high enough for WP:PROF. I was hoping she might pass through WP:AUTHOR, but although I found one coauthored book [8] and three coedited volumes [9] [10] [11], I failed to find any published reviews of these, needed for that kind of notability. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:39, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I did find something (googleScholar), but WP:TNT seems to be the best option. Idunnox3 (talk) 23:10, 12 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! 23:30, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Greg Laub[edit]

Greg Laub (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)

Restored from a long-ago PROD per request of the subject, but unsourced for the decade before that. BD2412 T 23:12, 6 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! 23:31, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Shaykh Muhammad Sarwar[edit]

Shaykh Muhammad Sarwar (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 Islamic Shia scholar and former representative of Shia marja' Abu-al-Qasim al-Khoei in the United States until 1982, article only lists two sources one of which is an Amazon link to one of his book, fails WP:GNG. Last two works mentioned in the article do not appear to be written by him, and all except for first ones are translations of other works. Lolekek (talk) 23:03, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Islam, and Pakistan. Lolekek (talk) 23:03, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:11, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete essentially this article consists of claims about the subject made by himself, supported by a single inaccessible link to something in a book on a much more general topic. I can see that he is the author of multiple books, but I don’t see any in depth third party coverage either of those books or of him as their author. There is a possibility that this is all simply made up or embellished, but even if it is all true, it hasn’t made him notable. Mccapra (talk) 07:07, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I see no WP:SIGCOV here. Idunnox3 (talk) 23:31, 12 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! 23:32, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Starport: Galactic Empires[edit]

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

Fails to pass General notability guidelines Death Editor 2 (talk) 22:48, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • I wouldn't necessarily say delete it, but rather draftify it. The article currently has only one source which I think is from a more or less, promotional site or something. If the editor has any other sources to add and remove whatever source they have there, then it's safe to put it in the draftspace. Otherwise, I agree. This might have to be deleted.
NoobThreePointOh (talk) 23:38, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, actually, I re-reviewed it, and yes. My opinion has changed, so I agree. Delete. NoobThreePointOh (talk) 01:22, 7 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. This does not preclude a rename or speedy renomination at a time when input might be forthcoming. Star Mississippi 03:57, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2024 Asian Swimming Championships[edit]

2024 Asian Swimming Championships (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 tournament is a youth (Asian Asian Group) tournament, rather than the main continental swimming championship. The previous tournament for the main tournament was in 2016 Tokyo (10th) while the previous edition for the actual tournament in Bangalore, India (10th Asian Age Group). There's a lack of resources to create an article for theAsian Age Group Championships that would satisfy WP:GNG either. Hariboneagle927 (talk) 11:22, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Hariboneagle927 (talk) 11:22, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Asia, and Philippines. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:46, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. This seems to be an upcoming event so the article is probably premature. (Note that four of the previous ten editions have their own articles.) --- Tito Pao (talk) 13:04, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    No this is different. This is the Asian Age Group Championship, there are no articles for the previous edition for event – the four you mentioned are for the senior tournament. It didn't help that initial cites for the tournament did not make the Age Group (youth) distinction. Hariboneagle927 (talk) 13:27, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify. This is quite confusing, so let's give it time to take place and for the article to improve - including finding an article name that incorporates "Age Group". Geschichte (talk) 09:09, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 01:36, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The WordsmithTalk to me 22:54, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a procedure to at least move this page to it's accurate title "2024 Asian Group Championships" while still under AfD, the page has been under a inaccurate title for too long. I have to emphasize that this is a different tournament than the senior Asian Championship yet again. In restrospect, I should have moved this first before nominating for deletion.Hariboneagle927 (talk) 03:22, 14 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. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 03:28, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jack McDaniels[edit]

Jack McDaniels (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 coach/player with only affiliated sources and social media posts used to establish article. After a search I cannot find any non-affiliated sources regarding the subject.

Additionally, it appears the article may have been created by the own individual. Grahaml35 (talk) 19:45, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: It lacks a single credible source and nothing noteworthy in the entire article. FreshTec843 (talk) 01:07, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep based on the explanation above. 14:08, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
Sorry, forgot to sign my last post. Oaktree b (talk) 15:54, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per sources found by Cbl62 and BeanieFan. It appears to be enough SIGCOV to get past GNG. Not by much, but it is a pass. Frank Anchor 17:55, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Looking for more feedback on newly presented sources.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 01:26, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Sources presented so far are all ROTM and fail the WP:GNG. Let'srun (talk) 19:11, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nope. ROTM is an essay and the sources plainly cover McDaniels "directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content" – which is all that is necessary. BeanieFan11 (talk) 19:21, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Which is why I cited the GNG. Having the name appear in the Washington Post doesn't grant anyone inherent notability. Let'srun (talk) 23:00, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Of course a plain WaPo mention doesn't grant auto-notability; but significant coverage in multiple sources does (usually), and more weight generally should be given when one of those sources is one of the US's nationally prominent newspapers. BeanieFan11 (talk) 01:19, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (a bit weak). Isn't the strongest pass, but the fact that we have in-depth stories focusing on McDaniels from three newspapers, including the nationally prominent Washington Post, shows that this meets WP:GNG with sufficient WP:SIGCOV. BeanieFan11 (talk) 19:21, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The WordsmithTalk to me 22:50, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep passes WP:GNG with the above mentioned significant coverage. Alvaldi (talk) 13:30, 7 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! 23:33, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Vision Capital[edit]

Vision Capital (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)

Minor private equity firm without any sigcov that I can find. BrigadierG (talk) 22:45, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jo the fire dragon 🐉「talk」 20:51, 8 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. While a majority of editors have !voted for keep, editors in favor of deletion continue to maintain that strict organizational notability guidelines have not been met. The difference in evaluation comes down to differing assessments over the degree of independence of various examples of coverage cited in this discussion, as well as assessments as to whether coverage is of the organization, of its reports, or of its founders. A few keep !votes also made IAR arguments to the effect that this organization's reports' prominence in coverage relating to Israel-Palestine is sufficient to establish notability despite the fact that this coverage is generally not of significant depth regarding the organization. signed, Rosguill talk 15:31, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Euro-Mediterranean Human Rights Monitor[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NCORP; no coverage which is independent, reliable, and significant,

While there is a small amount of independent coverage of some of the initiatives it has launched and the reports it has published, this is not sufficient to establish notability per both WP:INHERITORG and WP:NCORP#Significant coverage of the company itself; Sources that describe only a specific topic related to an organization should not be regarded as providing significant coverage of that organization.

Note that this article was previously deleted under a different name at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Euro- Mediterranean Human Rights Monitor; it was then recreated by a Euro-Med HRM employee under a number of names (The Euro-Mediterranean Human Rights Monitor, Euro-Med Human Rights Monitor, etc) before finally "sticking" under the current name. The current article has also been edited by at least nine different Euro-Med HRM employees, mostly WP:UPEs.

Source assessment table:
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
https://www.middleeastmonitor.com/20181211-euro-med-hrm-saudi-arabia-has-forcibly-disappeared-3-libyans/ Yes ? No Significant coverage of a report from the Euro-Med HRM, but not of the Euro-Med HRM itself ✘ No
https://www.marsad.ly/en/2021/05/19/euro-med-hrm-calls-for-disclosure-of-maps-for-mine-sites-in-libya/ Yes ? No Significant coverage of a "call" from the Euro-Med HRM, but not of the Euro-Med HRM itself ✘ No
https://www.euromedmonitor.org/en/About No About-self ? Yes ✘ No
https://uia.org/s/or/en/1122281718 ? Unclear where these profiles come from; whether they are from the organization Yes No One sentence of coverage of their aims, and a list of its structure ✘ No
https://www.ohchr.org/en/special-procedures/sr-palestine Yes Yes No No mention of Euro-Med HRM ✘ No
https://reliefweb.int/report/occupied-palestinian-territory/report-special-rapporteur-situation-human-rights-palestinian-8 Yes ? No No mention of Euro-Med HRM ✘ No
https://english.alaraby.co.uk/news/israels-icc-rebuttal-admission-war-crimes-rights-group Yes Yes No Significant coverage of a statement from the Euro-Med HRM, but not of the Euro-Med HRM itself ✘ No
https://mondoweiss.net/2018/07/family-visits-imprisoned/ No Republication of a republication of a Euro-Med HRM press release ~ No Significant coverage of a report from the Euro-Med HRM, but not of the Euro-Med HRM itself ✘ No
https://euromedmonitor.org/en/article/2890/Euro-Med-announces-changes-in-its-administrative-and-executive-structure No About-self ? ? ✘ No
https://www.aa.com.tr/en/middle-east/israel-targets-rights-defenders-un-council-hears/1992437 Yes No WP:RSP for Anadolu Agency (controversial topics, international politics) No Significant coverage of a statement from the Euro-Med HRM, but not of the Euro-Med HRM itself ✘ No
https://ohrh.law.ox.ac.uk/author/ramy-abdu/ ? ? No Focused on Ramy Abdu; no significant coverage of Ramy Abdu or Euro-Med HRM ✘ No
https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/author/ramy-abdu/ ? ? No Focused on Ramy Abdu; no significant coverage of Ramy Abdu or Euro-Med HRM ✘ No
https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/mec/2019/08/27/as-mena-states-grow-increasingly-repressive-businesses-should-lead-reform/ No Published by Ramy Abdu ? No No mention of Euro-Med HRM ✘ No
https://euromedmonitor.org/en/staff No About-self ? ? ✘ No
https://english.wafa.ps/Pages/Details/101164 No Republication of a Euro-Med HRM press release ? No Significant coverage of a report from the Euro-Med HRM, but not of the Euro-Med HRM itself ✘ No
https://imemc.org/article/euro-med-monitor-report-suffocation-and-isolation-15-years-of-israeli-blockade-on-gaza/ No Republication of a Euro-Med HRM press release ? No Significant coverage of a report from the Euro-Med HRM, but not of the Euro-Med HRM itself ✘ No
https://web.archive.org/web/20200407104742/https://www.soc.ucsb.edu/faculty/lisa-hajjar No Faculty page for a member of the Euro-Med HRM Board of Trustees ? No No mention of the Euro-Med HRM ✘ No
https://poli.ucalgary.ca/profiles/tareq-ismael No Faculty page for a member of the Euro-Med HRM Board of Trustees ? No No mention of the Euro-Med HRM ✘ No
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/michael-smith-uae-prison-mps-b1813663.html Yes Yes No Significant coverage of a letter organized by the Euro-Med HRM, but not of the Euro-Med HRM itself ✘ No
https://exeter.academia.edu/TanyaNewburySmith No academia.edu page for a member of the Euro-Med HRM Board of Trustees ? No No mention of the Euro-Med HRM ✘ No
https://euromedmonitor.org/en/authors/3/Maha-Hussaini No About-self ? No Maybe SIGCOV of Maha Hussaini, not sigcov of Euro-Med HRM ✘ No
https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/author/maha-hussaini/ No Author page for a Euro-Med HRM reporter ? No Passing mention of Euro-Med HRM ✘ No
http://www.middleeasteye.net/news/maha-hussaini-martin-adler-prize-win-rory-peck-trust Yes ? No Passing mention of Euro-Med HRM ✘ No
https://www.una-oic.org/page/public/news_details.aspx?id=328294&NL=True No Republication of a Euro-Med HRM press release ? No Significant coverage of an official complaint from the Euro-Med HRM, but not of the Euro-Med HRM itself ✘ No
https://www.un.org/press/en/2021/ngo914.doc.htm No UN press release about the UN granting Consultative Status to several NGO's Yes No Single sentence of coverage about an objection from Libya ✘ No
https://press.un.org/en/2021/ngo923.doc.htm No UN press release about the UN granting Consultative Status to several NGO's Yes No Single sentence of coverage about an objection from Bahrain ✘ No
https://press.un.org/en/2021/ngo927.doc.htm No UN press release about the UN granting Consultative Status to several NGO's Yes No Single sentence of coverage about an objection from Israel ✘ No
https://press.un.org/en/2022/ngo942.doc.htm No UN press release about the UN granting Consultative Status to several NGO's Yes No Single sentence of coverage about an objection from Bahrain ✘ No
https://press.un.org/en/2023/ngo950.doc.htm No UN press release about the UN granting Consultative Status to several NGO's Yes No Single sentence of coverage about an objection from Israel ✘ No
https://press.un.org/en/2023/ngo953.doc.htm No UN press release about the UN granting Consultative Status to several NGO's Yes No Single sentence of coverage about an objection from Israel ✘ No
https://press.un.org/en/2023/ngo959.doc.htm No UN press release about the UN granting Consultative Status to several NGO's Yes No Single sentence of coverage about an objection from Bahrain ✘ No
https://press.un.org/en/2022/ngo933.doc.htm No UN press release about the UN granting Consultative Status to several NGO's Yes No Single sentence of coverage about an objection from Israel ✘ No
https://kvinnatillkvinna.org/about-us/where-we-work/mena/palestine/ No Funded (?) a Euro-Med HRM Project ? No No mention of Euro-Med HRM ✘ No
https://www.al-monitor.com/originals/2017/08/palestine-gaza-civil-society-women-leadership-incubator.html Yes ? No Significant coverage of Women's Leadership Incubator project, passing mention of Euro-Med HRM ✘ No
https://www.launchgood.com/campaign/from_denial_to_defense_youth_for_rights#!/ No A "go fund me" equivilent for a Euro-Med HRM project No No Significant coverage of the project, not of Euro-Med HRM ✘ No
http://www.ju.edu.jo/Lists/NewsLetter/Disp_f.aspx?ID=1175&Issue=August%202016&order=8 No UJ Newsletter about a summer school hosted at UJ ? No Passing mention of the Euro-Med HRM ✘ No
https://thepoliticain.co.uk/middle-east/201/ No Republication of a Euro-Med HRM press release ? No Significant coverage of a summer school set up by Euro-Med HRM, but not of the Euro-Med HRM itself ✘ No
https://www.bnreport.com/en/wikirights-2/ Yes ? No Significant coverage of a program by Euro-Med HRM to edit Wikipedia, no significant coverage of the Euro-Med HRM ✘ No
https://law.ju.edu.jo/Lists/AcademicNews/Test.aspx?ID=78&ContentTypeId=0x0100FB3DD40023178C409CDBAC99DB39D980 No Copy of source 36, this time hosted on UJ's sharepoint ? No ✘ No
https://web.archive.org/web/20211003105920/https://europebriefnews.com/2017/10/25/watering-the-seeds/ Yes No Not discussed at RSN, but I'm convinced that it is not a reliable source. The source is obscure and now defunct, and its "about me" page only said "Europe Brief News (EBN) provides our readers with latest news from across Europe such as news, stories, politics, tourism, travel, food, health diet and many more topics" which does not indicate any level of editorial control or reliability. The specific article also raises questions; it is labeled as "news", but it is reads as an opinion piece.

Note that there is a current organization using the name Europe Brief News that does appear reliable, but they are not the same entity - the current one was founded in 2020.

 ? It could arguably contain WP:SIGCOV, but I'm not convinced; it uses a lot of words but says very little about Euro-Med HRM, and WP:NCORP requires that the coverage is sufficient to "makes it possible to write more than a very brief, incomplete stub about the organization". However, this is a lesser issue than the reliability of the source. ✘ No
https://euromedmonitor.org/en/article/3190 No About-self ? No Significant coverage of a project launched by Euro-Med HRM, no significant coverage of Euro-Med HRM itself ✘ No
https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2022/2/11/career-assassination-dws-scapegoating-of-arab-employees Yes Yes No Passing mention of a press release from Euro-Med HRM ✘ No
https://www.nonviolenceinternational.net/many_faces_wann No Appears written by We Are Not Numbers ? No Significant coverage of We are Not Numbers, a project launched by Euro-Med HRM, but not of Euro-Med HRM itself ✘ No
https://www.middleeasteye.net/features/deported-israels-war-against-palestine-solidarity-activists No Written by the secretary of Euro-Med HRM ? No Passing mention of Euro-Med HRM ✘ No
https://english.wafa.ps/Pages/Details/128695 No Republication of a Euro-Med HRM press release ? No Significant coverage of We are Not Numbers, a project launched by Euro-Med HRM, but not of Euro-Med HRM itself ✘ No
We Are Not Numbers: Junge Stimmen aus Gaza No A book written by We Are Not Numbers ? ? ✘ No
http://mondoweiss.net/2016/07/struggles-triumphs-palestinian/ Yes ? No Significant coverage of We are Not Numbers, a project launched by Euro-Med HRM, but not of Euro-Med HRM itself ✘ No
https://web.archive.org/web/20160824141709/http://www.daysofpalestine.com/news/israel-bans-right-activist-entering-gaza/ Yes ? No Single sentence of coverage of Euro-Med HRM ✘ No
https://www.972mag.com/gaza-fence-stories-hebrew/ Yes ? No No mention of Euro-Med HRM ✘ No
https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2022/9/5/german-court-rules-palestinian-ex-dw-journalist-sacking-unlawful Yes Yes No Passing mention of a Euro-Med HRM investigation ✘ No
https://euromedmonitor.org/en/article/5039/Euro-Med-Monitor%27s-We-Are-Not-Numbers-project-celebrates-graduation-of-new-batch-of-writers No About-self ? No ✘ No
https://euromedmonitor.org/en/article/5562/Euro-Med-Monitor%E2%80%99s-project-We-Are-Not-Numbers-launches-17th-cohort-of-writers No About-self ? No ✘ No
https://news.trust.org/item/20210902130009-tk186/ Yes ? No Two quotes from Euro-Med HRM; syndicated from a Reuters article which is used seperately as a reference ✘ No
https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/they-told-us-they-hate-africans-hundreds-detained-deported-abu-dhabi-2021-09-02/ Yes Yes No Two quotes from Euro-Med HRM ✘ No
https://www.bbc.com/pidgin/tori-58446660 Yes Yes No Two quotes from Euro-Med HRM. Appears to be identical to the two reuters and truth.org sources linked above, except translated into Pidgin ✘ No
https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/1437749/saudi-arabia-human-rights-abuse-minister-disappeared ~ Most of the coverage related to Euro-Med HRM consists of quotes No WP:DAILYEXPRESS No Significant coverage of a report from the Euro-Med HRM, but not of the Euro-Med HRM itself ✘ No
https://reliefweb.int/report/turkey/risks-refugees-disabilities-face-turkey-how-mitigate-risks-and-challenges-shape-apt No Republication of a Euro-Med HRM press release ? No Significant coverage of a report from the Euro-Med HRM, but not of the Euro-Med HRM itself ✘ No
https://europebriefnews.com/2017/12/09/euro-med-monitor/ Yes ? See earlier discussion of Europe Brief New's reliability No Significant coverage of a report from the Euro-Med HRM, but not of the Euro-Med HRM itself ✘ No
https://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/20/world/middleeast/fleeing-gaza-only-to-face-treachery-and-disaster-at-sea-.html Yes Yes No Passing mention of Euro-Med HRM ✘ No
https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/1437749/saudi-arabia-human-rights-abuse-minister-disappeared Yes No WP:DAILYEXPRESS No Passing mention of Euro-Med HRM ✘ No
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/jordan-arrests-hundreds-of-teachers-after-violent-clashes-zzg7ppsvh Yes Yes No Passing mention of Euro-Med HRM ✘ No
https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/gaza-war-survivor-commemorates-victims-paintings-2022-05-26/ Yes Yes No Passing mention of Euro-Med HRM ✘ No
https://palestine.unwomen.org/en/stories/feature-story/2022/05/zainab-al-qolaq-a-survivor-of-an-israeli-airstrike-on-gaza-in-may-2021-tells-her-story ? ? No No mention of Euro-Med HRM ✘ 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}}.
BilledMammal (talk) 05:17, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note that this table was added on 28 January not 21 January and now there are two of them one here and one at the bottom. Selfstudier (talk) 10:28, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It was added on 21 January. And this one covers the sources in the article, the one at the bottom covers the sources presented in this AfD. If you wish, feel free to remove both of these comments per WP:MUTUAL. BilledMammal (talk) 10:36, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Survey[edit]

  • Delete per nominator. JM (talk) 05:22, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 06:44, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 06:44, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Palestine-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 06:45, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The large number of sources obviously indicates notability even if some of them don't count. BilledMammal provides no evidence of the claim of 9 paid editors, and anyway a quick look at the history shows a large number of edits by experienced editors in good standing. Mentions that are not just in passing are frequently used as indicating notability: when an independent source discusses something done by the organization or cites and analyses (even in disagreement) something published by the organization, that counts. Zerotalk 07:27, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Can you specify which sources are independent, reliable, and contain significant coverage of the organisation?
    Regarding the UPE’s, conclusive evidence has been provided privately; I can’t provide it publicly as it would violate WP:OUTING. BilledMammal (talk) 07:32, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Is there a Wikipedia policy about evidence about paid authorship that cannot be provided publicly as being inadmissible in discussions about page deletion? I'm not sure, I'm just asking. Wickster12345 (talk) 07:50, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If we cannot see the evidence how can we determine whether it holds up? Wickster12345 (talk) 07:53, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I have edited the article as well, I am not paid. Can we be pointed to the most recent edit by a COI editor? Selfstudier (talk) 13:52, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Late-2022; they come in waves every year or two editing a large number of articles, including this one, to publicize Euro-Med HRM's activities. There's an ongoing discussion about COI tags and editing on the article's talk page; happy to take this there if you want to discuss further, to avoid getting too deep into a tangential topic. BilledMammal (talk) 14:16, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    None of what you said is clear evidence of paid authorship. Neither the discussion about COI Tags nor the contents of the discussion on the talk page. @BilledMammal Wickster12345 (talk) 19:36, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I disagree that there is sufficient consensus on the basis of established Wikipedia policy that a majority of the cited sources are unreliable in determining notability. Some of the sources listed are, in my opinion, not biased, some are able to establish notability, some are clearly independent of the subject matter, even if not all the sources are all of these three things. Wickster12345 (talk) 07:52, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete insofar as the claims made by @BilledMammal are factually accurate. The re-creation after an AfD in that way is also very concerning. FortunateSons (talk) 10:32, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Actually the 2015 deletion was on the basis of only 3 delete votes and the 2021 AfD was closed as no consensus. So the story is more complex than that. Zerotalk 11:09, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I read those, I am referring to the claims the sources (and secondarily on the paid editors) which appear accurate. I performed a cursory search myself and have not found other (better) sources (except the article by NGO Monitor, whose reliability is disputed per the RS Noticeboard). FortunateSons (talk) 12:17, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: This is a very prominent human rights monitor that is abundantly covered well in excess of the requirements of WP:GNG. There are ample references to it in academic literature, as a casual WP:BEFORE search would have shown - and one has to question if one was in fact performed. In this paper published in The Lancet, the top pedigree medical journal, it is one of two esteemed sources referenced for basic on-the-ground information-gathering alongside UNRWA. In at least two recent instances: [13][14], UNRWA published press releases about Euro-Med's recent fact-finding activities, so this monitor notably operates in an ongoing capacity in UN circles. These reports are needless to say routinely picked up by RS. The evidence for notability is all over the internet, and overwhelming. This nomination is incomprehensible and the aspersions about paid-editing largely unsupported. I'm pretty sure I've edited this page in the last 12 months, and I certainly wasn't paid. The nominator has assessed the sources on the page, but could they clarify if they performed a proper WP:BEFORE or not? I suspect not, and the wise thing to do here would be to withdraw the nomination before it wastes any more community time. Iskandar323 (talk) 12:01, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I conducted a WP:BEFORE. Looking through your links, I don't see any that are independent, reliable, and significant coverage - and I don't believe you are asserting that they are. Perhaps you - or any of the other editors who support keeping the article - can provide WP:THREE sources they believe do meet that criteria so we can assess the opposition to this nomination on the basis of the evidence?
    A small correction to your comment; UNRWA doesn't publish press releases about Euro-Med's recent fact-finding activities, they republish Euro-Med's press releases. BilledMammal (talk) 14:04, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    1) Watchdog Submits Evidence of Israeli Executions of Gaza Civilians to UN, ICC in Common Dreams Selfstudier (talk) 14:31, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    2) Rights at Stake and the COVID-19 Pandemic: Two Special Issues of the Journal of Human Rights Scholarly Citation. Selfstudier (talk) 14:37, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    3) National and International Civilian Protection Strategies in the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict Scholarly Citation. Seems there are many more citations in books, so perhaps the "before" was less than comprehensive. Selfstudier (talk) 14:42, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    1) That's coverage of a report by Euro-Med HRM but I'm not seeing any coverage of the organization itself - if I have missed something, please quote it.
    Per WP:NCORP, such coverage is not sufficient to establish notability of the organization; Sources that describe only a specific topic related to an organization should not be regarded as providing significant coverage of that organization. As an aside, while Common Dreams is not at RSP, discussions at RSN lean towards it being unreliable.
    2) Coverage is The Euro-Mediterranean Human Rights Monitor, a Geneva-based Human Rights NGO, reported that the law legitimized censorship and restricted freedom of expression (Euro-Mediterranean Human Rights Monitor 2020). Not even SIGCOV of their report, let alone SIGCOV of the organization.
    3) Coverage is PA Security also commonly targets opposition. The Euro-Mediterranean Human Rights Monitor documented 1,274 arbitrary detentions in the West Bank in 2015 and 1,089 summonses by Palestinian Security Services. The human rights violations targeted mostly individuals affiliated with Hamas or who opposed PA policies, including about 35 journalists and human rights activists, 476 university students, and 67 teachers/professors (Euro-Med 2016). Again, not even SIGCOV of their report, let alone SIGCOV of the organization. BilledMammal (talk) 14:48, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    4) Israel 'stealing organs' from bodies in Gaza, alleges human rights group Euronews. That's 4, I can keep them coming if you like, although only 3 were asked for.Selfstudier (talk) 15:26, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    5) Allegations of Organ Theft by Israel Add Insult to Injury in Gaza Politics Today Selfstudier (talk) 15:37, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    #4 and #5 are the same as #1; maybe containing SIGCOV of a report from Euro-Med HRM, but not SIGCOV of the organization itself. If I have missed such coverage, please quote it; otherwise, can you please provide WP:THREE sources that comply with the requirements of WP:NCORP? BilledMammal (talk) 15:42, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    1) https://www.crunchbase.com/organization/euro-mediterranean-human-rights-monitor
    2) https://www.lobbyfacts.eu/datacard/euro-med-human-rights-monitor?rid=326186932081-66&sid=142920
    3) https://uia.org/s/or/en/1122281718
    That didn't take long, GNG established, methinks, this is also more than we had the last time this was nominated. Selfstudier (talk) 17:19, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    1. WP:CRUNCHBASE; that source is deprecated
    2. Lobbyfacts collates and mirrors a number of other sites, primarily the EU Transparency Register (which is populated by submissions from the organization), but also Euro-Med HRM's website and a few others. It contains significant coverage of the organization, but does not contain coverage that is both independent and significant.
    3. One sentence of coverage; Advocate for the human rights of all persons across Europe and the MENA region, particularly those who live under occupation, in the throes of war or political unrest and/or have been displaced due to persecution or armed conflict. Further, they normally provide a profile in the words of the organization itself. The coverage is neither significant nor independent.
    Unfortunately, none of these can count towards notability; they are all indisputably unsuitable. Do you have any that are suitable? BilledMammal (talk) 17:34, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Meets GNG, prove otherwise. Selfstudier (talk) 17:47, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I think BilledMammal has already done so above. Thoroughly, as usual. JM (talk) 21:36, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Like the last time? Selfstudier (talk) 22:08, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    A reliable journalistic outfit citing a report by an organization is not an example of a source describ[ing] only a specific topic related to an organization. A report is not a "topic." Brusquedandelion (talk) 02:25, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I see things that have changed for the better since the last nomination by nom a couple years ago but I can't see what is worse? This just seems like a pointy nomination following the conversation at RSN Selfstudier (talk) 13:30, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I noticed the main thing missing in that list of articles mentioning Euro-Med was anything about it. Well I just put in a Google of 'Euro-mediterranean monitor review' and got a number if whoever started off this AfD wants a pointer on how to find something like that. Evaluation might also be a good word but about is liable to just lead back to an organisation. I have looked at it and the article about it and I believe it is definitely notable enough to be in Wikipedia. Here are the links for the first few things I got from the search [15] by Richard A. Falk, [16] by Reliefweb, [17] by Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency. NadVolum (talk) 16:19, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Unfortunately, none of those sources are independent. Falk is the chairman of the Euro-Med HRM, the ReliefWeb article is a republication of a Euro-Med HRM press release, and the Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency is a major donor to the Euro-Med HRM (about a million USD per year) and created the report in that context. is about a different organization with a very similar name.
    Further, the second two don't constitute WP:SIGCOV; they both fail WP:NCORPs requirement that sources that describe only a specific topic related to an organization should not be regarded as providing significant coverage of that organization. BilledMammal (talk) 16:36, 21 January 2024 (UTC) Updated BilledMammal (talk) 18:40, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I didn't notice that EuroMed Rights one, and I'd already discounted EuroMed ones as they were something to do wit science. and thie one was originally the Euro-Mediterranean Human Rights Network. Talk about confusing. NadVolum (talk) 18:55, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh dear how bad. I suppose then you'd also find NGO Monitor's article [18] about it is trivial or unreliable? NadVolum (talk) 18:23, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @NadVolum, Selfstudier, Zero0000, and Iskandar323:
    Looking at the source, it might just scrape by the WP:SIGCOV requirements, through the paragraphs where it says Euro-Med Human Rights Monitor does not publish any financial date on its website, reflecting a complete lack of transparency and accountability and Euro-Med Human Rights Monitor (Euro-Med Monitor) consistently spreads blood libels and conspiracy theories about Israel, and accuses Israel of “apartheid,” genocide,” “ethnic cleansing,” “collective punishment,” and “war crimes.” The rest is limited to quotes from Euro-Med and affiliated individuals and thus doesn't contribute to WP:SIGCOV as the quotes aren't independent coverage.
    I think it's too brief, but reasonable minds might disagree. The larger concern is whether it is reliable and thus suitable to both count towards notability and be used in the article. I'm not convinced that it is, but what do the four of you think? BilledMammal (talk) 18:40, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You certainly should, considering you argued against it being a reliable source on the noticeboard about this question less than 48h ago? Or have you changed your mind? FortunateSons (talk) 20:20, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually I was interested in seeing what kind of response the people who push for NGO Monitor being counted as a reliable site would make when it is used to support having a site they want to remove! This AfD is even less likely to succeed than last time as they provide actual news that is widely cited even if it does have a bias, and they keep their opinion articles well marked. NadVolum (talk) 10:33, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep GNG met and situation improved relative to previous nomination.Selfstudier (talk) 17:21, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. NCORP has pretty clear criteria for what counts as SIGCOV of orgs, and I am not seeing multiple sources meeting all of SIRS. A few sentences is not SIGCOV, and that's all I'm seeing in the NGO Monitor site--everything else is just direct quotes from EMHRM and so not independent. The NGO Monitor coverage also contains some very contentious claims that would require far more than one source to appear in an article at all, let alone be the basis of one. And that's if the site is RS; given the lack of author details or editorial policy and the highly opinionated, activist tone most of its articles have, I'm doubtful it's reliable. JoelleJay (talk) 20:59, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Well actully I wouldn't consider NGO Monitor as a reliable source for anything. The point of a discussion like this is to see if editors consider if an article should be kept even if it has some problems. Not following a guideline is a good reason for nomination but as WP:POLICY says "Editors should attempt to follow guidelines, though they are best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply." So we're here to apply our common sense, Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. NadVolum (talk) 10:13, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    How do we write a neutral article when the only substantive coverage comes from the subject's description of itself? JoelleJay (talk) 19:06, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Why do you believe that the article is not neutral? Selfstudier (talk) 19:15, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Zero, Selfstudier and others. And yes, the article has definitely improved compared to previous noms. --NSH001 (talk) 12:38, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @NSH001: I wouldn't place your faith in other people quite so easily, particularly when folk say silly things like "The large number of sources obviously indicates notability" which is complete nonsense and has no basis in fact.. When articles have that many references it often an indication that the people who are editing it are trying to make it appear notable when it plainly is not. scope_creepTalk 14:25, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I looked at the first 15 references expecting to see a few at least that passed WP:SIRS, which is unfortunate as its a very laudable organisation. It seems it doesn't pass WP:NCORP. scope_creepTalk 14:23, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion appears to have been canvassed (five and a half days ago, as I write), in a partisan manner, at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#Article recreated and heavily edited by UPE's now at AfD. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:29, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It looks pretty neutrally worded. It seems reasonable as a noticeboard considering there's probably lots of people who have a deep interest in the war. I don't know what UPE stands for. What is the problem you see? NadVolum (talk) 20:42, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    UPE - Undisclosed Paid Editor. Yes that is a major slur on the article's editors and canvassing and trying to bias who comes. If they have real reason to believe that they should report to an Admin board or otherwise shut up. NadVolum (talk) 20:50, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    THere is a basis for saying that. The person who set up the page originally was connected to the organisation. They said that but didn't fill in the COI form. The page as it is now seems to have everything they put in removed and replaced with other stuff. NadVolum (talk) 21:07, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Very unlikely to have been paid but still connected so COI holds. NadVolum (talk) 22:43, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If you don't know what it means, how can you assert that it is neutral? "Please see this AfD" is neutrally worded. "Article recreated and heavily edited by UPE's", even if true, is most definitely not. Then there's the choice of venue... Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:32, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I was judging by the standards of other canvassing I've seen which have been pretty blatant. I believe any other suspected ones are by university students on this program [19]. Their edits seem quite reasonable actually so it must be a fairly good course even if most of hem have been heavily edited since. Wikipedia itself organises similar courses [20]. NadVolum (talk) 19:40, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, the ones I've identified have been board members - although it's possible that the ones that I haven't connected to individuals are those students.
Regarding Pigsonthewing's comment, I posted there because the editors who frequent that forum have experience reviewing COI editing, and such experience would be helpful here. I included that summary to make the relevance to that forum clear, and I didn't consider it an issue because it is factual and because COI editing isn't a reason to delete an article - it's merely a reason to review it more carefully. However, I'll be careful to avoid using terms like "UPE" in the future. BilledMammal (talk) 05:52, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Definitely keep- they are currently providing the most accurate casualty data for the war, according to consensus on that page. Irtapil (talk) 05:41, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Iskandar323 et al. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:43, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For ease of review by other editors and the closer, I've created a table of all sources presented in the AfD.
Source assessment table:
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
ample references to it ? A link to Google Scholar search results. No specific source provided. ? A link to Google Scholar search results. No specific source provided. ? A link to Google Scholar search results. No specific source provided. ? Unknown
this paper published in the Lancet No Authors include the founder and chairman of Euro-Med HRM Yes No Coverage is limited to detailing Euro-Med HRM's activities in preparing the report: "The field researchers of Euro-Mediterranean Human Rights Monitor covered 338 (64%) of the total 530 children killed. They focused extensively on mass attacks because it was difficult to cover hundreds of attacks taking place at the same time for 50 days." No WP:SIGCOV of the Euro-Med HRM itself. ✘ No
UNRWA published press releases 1 No Republished press release from Euro-Med HRM ? No Coverage of a primary report from Euro-Med HRM; no significant coverage of Euro-Med HRM itself ✘ No
UNRWA published press releases 2 No Republished press release from Euro-Med HRM ? No Coverage of a statement from Euro-Med HRM; no significant coverage of Euro-Med HRM itself ✘ No
Their reports are routinely picked up by RS Yes Yes No Coverage of a call from Euro-Med HRM to free a Tunisian prisoner; no significant coverage of Euro-Med HRM itself ✘ No
) Watchdog Submits Evidence of Israeli Executions of Gaza Civilians to UN, ICC in Common Dreams Yes ~ While Common Dreams is not at RSP, discussions at RSN lean towards it being unreliable No Coverage of a report from Euro-Med HRM; no significant coverage of Euro-Med HRM itself ✘ No
Rights at Stake and the COVID-19 Pandemic: Two Special Issues of the Journal of Human Rights Scholarly Citation. Yes Yes No Coverage is "The Euro-Mediterranean Human Rights Monitor, a Geneva-based Human Rights NGO, reported that the law legitimized censorship and restricted freedom of expression (Euro-Mediterranean Human Rights Monitor 2020)." Not even SIGCOV of their report, let alone SIGCOV of the organization. ✘ No
National and International Civilian Protection Strategies in the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict Schoarly Citation. Yes Yes No Coverage is "PA Security also commonly targets opposition. The Euro-Mediterranean Human Rights Monitor documented 1,274 arbitrary detentions in the West Bank in 2015 and 1,089 summonses by Palestinian Security Services. The human rights violations targeted mostly individuals affiliated with Hamas or who opposed PA policies, including about 35 journalists and human rights activists, 476 university students, and 67 teachers/professors (Euro-Med 2016)." Not even SIGCOV of their report, let alone SIGCOV of the organization. ✘ No
Israel 'stealing organs' from bodies in Gaza, alleges human rights group Yes Yes No Coverage of an allegation from Euro-Med HRM; no significant coverage of Euro-Med HRM itself ✘ No
Allegations of Organ Theft by Israel Add Insult to Injury in Gaza Yes Yes No Coverage of a report from Euro-Med HRM; no significant coverage of Euro-Med HRM itself ✘ No
https://www.crunchbase.com/organization/euro-mediterranean-human-rights-monitor ? No WP:CRUNCHBASE; source is deprecated ? ✘ No
https://www.lobbyfacts.eu/datacard/euro-med-human-rights-monitor?rid=326186932081-66&sid=142920 No Mirrors other sources, which lack independence. For example, the significant coverage comes directly from the Euro-Med HRM's website, and other coverage comes from the EU transparency register, which is populated by submissions from the organization ? Yes ✘ No
https://uia.org/s/or/en/1122281718 No They normally provide "a profile in the words of the organization itself" ? No Only one sentence of coverage; "Advocate for the human rights of all persons across Europe and the MENA region, particularly those who live under occupation, in the throes of war or political unrest and/or have been displaced due to persecution or armed conflict." ✘ No
3 by Richard A. Falk No Richard A. Falk is the chairman of Euro-Med HRM's Board of Directors ? Yes ✘ No
4 by Reliefweb No Republication of a Euro-Med HRM press release ? Yes ✘ No
5 by Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency Yes Yes No Coverage is of EuroMed Rights, not Euro-Med HRM - different organization, with a very similar name. ✘ No
NGO Monitor's article 6 Yes No Editor who presented the source has !voted for it to be deprecated No Two sentences of coverage containing highly contentious claims. The closest we have to WP:SIGCOV, but not good enough - particularily given how the source is about to be found unreliable at RSN. ✘ 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}}.
If any editor disagrees with my assessment, please say so - and for the ease of review of your claims by other editors and the closer, please provide a quote of the content that you believe constitutes significant coverage of the organization. Please keep WP:INHERITORG and WP:NCORP#Significant coverage of the company itself in mind when doing so. BilledMammal (talk) 05:52, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well since you're repeating yourself my I repeat that is a guideline and "It is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though occasional exceptions may apply." and WP:BUREAUCRACY. Is the aricle well worth having in Wikipedia? That's what AfD discussions like this are about. NadVolum (talk) 12:34, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@BilledMammal your source assessment is missing a column for Secondary, which is important because what a subject/those affiliated say is a primary source (i.e. an insider's view) even when reliably published (i.e. interviews, their statements or based on material provided by them with no analysis, interpretation, or transformation by others, etc.). S0091 (talk) 20:18, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately the template doesn't include a row for that; I'll see about including it. BilledMammal (talk) 01:09, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: number of sources does not show notability - those sources need to be independent of the subject and reliable and have indepth coverage of the subject. None of the sources appear to meet this criteria. PhantomSteve/talk¦contribs\ 09:03, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 14:13, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - Passes GNG. Could use a good pruning, article suffers from bloat. Carrite (talk) 22:53, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:SIGCOV. Based on the analysis of the sources, everything is either a passing mention, or implicates WP:NOTINHERITED, or is not independent of the subject. If some people think I have a conflict of interest, I disclose have long been a very public advocate of a two-party state, and literally wrote Palestinian law. Bearian (talk) 14:28, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Moneyhouse report on EHRM German Wiki page (not in sources tables) clearly satisfies GNG and contrary to what is written in the sources tables, LobbyFacts.eu, is a perfectly respectable source of info about EHRM. Selfstudier (talk) 16:16, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    What they're saying is that no reliable source has dealt with it as a prime subject of interest. There's no real drama or controversy about its projects or publications despite what NGO Monitor says and other sources are only interested in what it says or does, not the organisation itself. I believe the article should be kept according to IAR as having encyclopaediac value, I wouldn't normally call myself an inclusionist but this type argument is what meta:Inclusionism versus meta:Deletionism is about. NadVolum (talk) 17:01, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The coverage in Moneyhouse is not independent. The only sigcov there is in "Commercial register information", which is copied unedited from the swiss commercial register, and it is provided to the commercial register by Euro-Med HRM. BilledMammal (talk) 20:06, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
All information about an organisation comes ultimately from the organisation. Sources don't become non-independent solely because some of their information comes from the original. We rely on intermediate sources, in this case the EU Transparency Register, to process the information. Your argument would also eliminate a news story based on an interview on the basis that the information comes from the interviewee. It is perfectly obvious that this is a perfectly respectable source. Zerotalk 06:33, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I’m not sure you understand; this is content written by Euro-Med HRM. It being republished elsewhere doesn’t make it independent. BilledMammal (talk) 06:56, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If I take an editor post that was deleted for say ARBECR and instead sign my name to it, I take responsibility for it. Get it now? Selfstudier (talk) 09:55, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NCORP, specifically WP:ORGIND, addresses this question directly:

Independence of the content (or intellectual independence): the content must not be produced by interested parties. Often a related party produces a narrative that is then copied, regurgitated, and published in whole or in part by independent parties (as exemplified by churnalism). Independent content, in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject.

The content being republished by an independent party doesn't change the fact that it was produced by an interested party. BilledMammal (talk) 10:29, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
OK, you don't get it, that's fine. Selfstudier (talk) 11:00, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well there isn't anything that describes the organisation itself except that NGO Monitor or itself or blogs and they're not reliable sources. It has to stand on its own merits as being widely used by reliable sources and for its activities. That last Delete !vote above, I looked becaused they talked about COI, actually seems to support human rights articles for organisations that have far less written about them - I noticed Humanitarian Law Project and The Hague Justice Portal. That portal is much less likely to ever have stuff written about it but it is important and widely used. Their support for it cited WP:HEYMANN. It looksd like straightforward human rights organisations have problems that way - perhaps they should have more scandals! NadVolum (talk) 11:45, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The two reputable sources I gave actually do describe the organization itself for the purposes of GNG. Selfstudier (talk) 12:15, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, they republish Euro-Med HRM's description of itself. Per the section of WP:NCORP that I quoted that isn't considered independent coverage and thus doesn't count towards GNG. BilledMammal (talk) 12:37, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In your opinion. Selfstudier (talk) 12:40, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at the EU Transparency Register's linked "Guidelines for applicants and registrants" it states The information in the Register is provided by the registrants themselves, on the understanding that they are ultimately responsible for its accuracy. The Secretariat monitors the quality of the Register’s content and reserves the right to de-register ineligible registrants, including those found not to observe the code of conduct. Their disclaimer says information is not necessarily comprehensive, complete, accurate or up to date.
Lobbyfacts acknowledges in their disclaimer about the EU Transparency Register As stated on its website, information on the official EU Register is provided by registrants themselves, making it the sole responsibility of those organisations. It is recognised that some entries in the official register are inaccurate, incomplete or otherwise misleading. Based on this information, the EU Transparency Register and those relying on them are not reliable sources because the register does not have reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. S0091 (talk) 16:38, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Lancet is another example of a clearly independent source, by virtue of the peer-review process. An academic working at a university could write a paper specifically about their own activities at that university and by virtue of the peer-review process the resulting content would still be independently vetted by virtue of the peer-review process. This does not apply to all published literature ofc, but it certainly applies to peer review. Iskandar323 (talk) 19:30, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I can't comment about Lancet specifically because I do not have access but what you describe is a reliably published primary source, so reliable but not helpful for notability. S0091 (talk) 19:49, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In this case, the arguably involved author is not the lead author and only one of four contributors, and the topic is not the author, but pertains to research findings, so the work as a whole is perfectly secondary (+ peer review). Iskandar323 (talk) 20:04, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wow. JoelleJay (talk) 19:02, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:IAR It was correct to nominate this for deletion and it probably doesn't meet a strict interpretation of wp:notability guidlines. But wih the preponderance of sourcing and information, and that having this article exist is more likely to serve the reader than the organization/ one which readers might seek to be informed on, I think that it's an article that should exist in Wikipedia. North8000 (talk) 13:28, 30 January 2024 (UTC).[reply]
    To serve our readers it's not enough to present an overview of the organization; we need to present a neutral overview of the organization.
    Unfortunately, that isn't possible if our only significant coverage comes from non-independent sources - and would be a violation of WP:V, which says Base articles on reliable, independent, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. BilledMammal (talk) 13:38, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @BilledMammal: Again, you were correct to take this to AFD. And per my previous post, I agree that it has not been established that this meets the wp:notability guidlines as written. As a preface, I could come up with strong arguments in either direction on this. I would also have several quibbles with the arguments in your past post. Setting all of that aside, at this venue, this is simplly a "should this article exist?" question, and I gave my opinion on that. I gave my rationale as wp:iar and the usefulness of the article. Another way to state my argument in wp:notability terms is that per the criteria described in Wikipedia:How Wikipedia notability works this topic is very enclyclopedic and has some importance / impact, making it something that people would be likely to seek an enclyclopedia rticle on, and pushing the wp:notability equation up into the edge case zone. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 18:52, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect and merge with Ramy Abdu. I simply can't find fault with the case BilledMammal has made. Yes, the org's reports are widely mentioned, including in scholarly literature, but there is indeed an almost complete lack of significant and independent coverage of the organisation itself in reliable sources. Happy to reconsider if or when new sources come to light, but we do have rules for a reason. We should follow them. --Andreas JN466 12:44, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't belong under the founder Ramy Abdu and the content would look silly there. And it wouldn't fit under the current leader Richard A. Falk either. In fact much of the stuff from it wouldn't even mention them. NadVolum (talk) 23:08, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The WordsmithTalk to me 22:41, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I see HonestReporting has a longer spiel about them at CNN & Other Media Give Voice to Anti-Israel “Human Rights” Organization. NadVolum (talk) 14:51, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Excluding sources that lack independence, that is probably the most significant coverage I have seen on this organization. We would need multiple such sources to keep the article, but before we count it - and thus add it to the article at a level of prominence that would be appropriate for one of the few sources that are both independent and contain significant coverage of the article - do any editors have any objections to it, such as on grounds of reliability?
    @Selfstudier, Zero0000, and Iskandar323: Comments? BilledMammal (talk) 05:50, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    They seem to try and avoid the lie direct. We were just raising the question, we're so glad we were wrong - but that's a lot better than NGO Monitor.. NadVolum (talk) 12:59, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @NadVolum: To be clear, you support using this source prominently in the article? BilledMammal (talk) 06:01, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Well I do actually support putting it in, but I see it as a biased source that should be attributed and used with caution. To be quite clear since you like policies, and going to the opposite extreme from what you seem to be implying, see WP:N for what is required. In that '"Reliable" means that sources need editorial integrity to allow verifiable evaluation of notability, per the reliable source guideline', I agree they satisfy that for the purpose of establishing notability. There's no requirement for a lack of bias in doing that and they do seem to have some editorial integrity as I noted just above. Later we have 'Notability guidelines do not apply to content within articles or lists', and 'Notability requires only the existence of suitable independent, reliable sources, not their immediate presence or citation in an article'. According to that just sticking a notability citation on the talk page so it could be found easily would be more than enough. NadVolum (talk) 09:03, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep - RS about them exist!. I think people are not doing their homework. There are significant RS (reliable or relevant sources) out there talking about EMHRM, — they are important enough to be mentioned and described in:
None of the above are trivial. Keizers (talk) 19:45, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Looking through those, I'm not seeing significant coverage of the organization - some of them contain coverage of a specific topic related to the organization, but per WP:NCORP#Significant coverage of the company itself that is not sufficient to count towards notability.
Could you provide quotes of the content that you believe consitutes significant coverage of the organization?
I note that the ReliefWeb article is not independent, as it is written by Euro-Med HRM, and NGO Monitor has already been dismissed as unreliable - and I suspect that the editors arguing to keep this article would also reject the UN Watch article. BilledMammal (talk) 05:50, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not seeing significant coverage of the organization

Did you not read the UN Watch article? How do you construe UN Watch claiming Euro-Med Human Rights Monitor’s leadership routinely posts antisemitic and pro-Hamas content online as being coverage of a specific topic related to the organization? And what topic might that be, may I ask?
When Doha News says

The Geneva-based human rights group has been at the forefront of exposing Israel’s crimes against humanity committed in occupied Palestinian territories

and when they further report that

Israeli institutions... have attempted to spoil Euro-Med’s standing

...exactly what do you think they are talking about, if not about Euro-Med itself? What "other topic" are you alleging they're really covering, to which any mention of Euro-Med is merely ancillary?

I suspect that the editors arguing to keep this article would also reject the UN Watch article.

Reject it how? We are not flat earthers; we agree the article exists, we are not rejecting its existence. That we disagree with the article is besides the point. If tomorrow the entirety of the Israeli consent manufacturing machine started raving 24/7 about how (insert random human rights organization) is actually Hamas and Hitler in a trench coat, as they regularly do from time to time, we might not agree with them, and we would surely find them to be eminently dishonest, yet, nevertheless, the mere fact of such coverage would likely cause the object of their rage to meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines. Even if there weren't other coverage- and in this case, there most assuredly is. Brusquedandelion (talk) 02:56, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The UN Watch article doesn't contain significant coverage of the organization. Correct me if I am wrong, but as far as I can tell all it says about the organization is that it's officials, who include Richard Falk and Ramy Abdu, are notoriously biased and antisemitic, and routinely posts antisemitic and pro-Hamas content online. That isn't significant coverage of the organization.
The Doha News article has similar issues; the only independent coverage of the organization, as opposed to coverage of a specific topic related to the organization, in that article is the two quotes you provided, and 29 words don't amount to WP:SIGCOV.
As for rejecting the UN Watch article, I've already seen one of the editors arguing to !keep this article argue it is unreliable, and I suspect if I tried to add it to the article it would quickly be reverted - I suspect they won't reply, but let's ping them to ask: @Selfstudier, Zero0000, and Iskandar323: Any objection to including content from UN Watch in the article - and if no objection, any objection to including it with the level of promience that one of the few WP:SIRS sources on the topic would warrant, assuming you don't dispute that it contains SIRS converage? BilledMammal (talk) 06:01, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Doha one looks like it was written by a journalist and is about the organisation. NadVolum (talk) 12:22, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Jerusalem Post is clearly RS about EMHRM and Doha News while not objective, also clearly writes about the importance of the organization. And ReliefWeb is reliable because the site is operated by the UN and clearly thinks EMHRM is important enough to mention. I am not a guru on Wiki policy but there must be some WP:COMMON SENSE applied here? Third party journalism about the organization cannot be the only yardstick of notability.Keizers (talk) 16:06, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The various reasons have been given above with links to the various policies. Community discussions like this are part of the commmon sense mechanism of Wikipedia, it can agree a consensus exception from a rule. Those rules - policies and guidelines however are the result of a lot of prior editing decisions and discussions so good reasons have to be given for exceptions. The rest of what you say is your presentation of that type of reason. NadVolum (talk) 21:54, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oi! You've been on Wikipedia since 2006! You'll know far more about all that than me! NadVolum (talk) 21:59, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
LOL, yes but I've never come across this exact degree of stubbornness re original research v. coverage. No doubt because Israel/Palestine is an emotional topic, particularly right now as its victims are livestreamed to our phones every day.Keizers (talk) 17:01, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Jerusalem Post contains a small amount of coverage of a claim that Euro-Med HRM has made; it doesn't meet the requirements of WP:NCORP#Significant coverage of the company itself. If I am mistaken, can you please quote the coverage?
The ReliefWeb source is written by Euro-Med HRM; it doesn't matter whether it is reliable or significant, as it isn't independent. BilledMammal (talk) 06:01, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep as per Iskandar323, Keizers, and others. Absurd we are even having this debate, and if the main subject that this organization covered were anything other than the situation in Israel and Palestine, I suspect no such discussion would be had. Brusquedandelion (talk) 02:30, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for those points above... exactly what I was trying to express.Keizers (talk) 17:01, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If this organization covered any other subject it would have been an uncontroversial deletion; no compliant coverage and COI editing by the organization usually makes for an easy AfD. BilledMammal (talk) 06:01, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Unless I miscount, you have now made 24 comments in this AfD, many of them very long and many of them repetitious. This is what WP:BLUDGEON is about. You should stop. Zerotalk 06:22, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I was thinking the same thing.
Can I ask why you feel so strongly about deleting this article, @BilledMammal?
- IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 06:26, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Most of them were concerned with addressing, in considerable detail, unsuitable sources that editors bombarded the discussion with; ideally, editors would have ensured the sources they provided aren't obvious WP:SIRS and WP:NCORP failures, but since they didn't I had to detail the issues. However, since you're here, do you care to comment on whether you consider HonestReporting and UN Watch sufficiently reliable for use in the article? BilledMammal (talk) 06:37, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(Now 25) I have stated my opinion that this organization is notable. I still hold that opinion, and believe it is obvious on its face and does not rest on the reliability of either HR or UNWatch. I also find your repeated pings to border on harassment. Zerotalk 07:00, 13 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.

There is consensus that an article should not exist at this title. There are several conflicting suggestions as to where to merge or redirect to. I would consider "no consensus", resulting in an effective keep of the article which nobody seems to favour, to be a poor option. I have therefore slightly arbitrarily decided the closure should be to redirect to Freedom Township, Ellis County, Kansas as it seems to have slightly more support than others, but nothing should be taken as preventing editors from retargeting if it transpires that there's a better choice, nor from merging any content they may wish to merge. Stifle (talk) 09:17, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Easdale, Kansas[edit]

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

A blatant example of a 4th class post office not being a town, as it geolocates onto a farm that is still there. And no, redirecting to Pfeifer, Kansas is a bad idea as they are not the same place. Mangoe (talk) 05:31, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • comment The local paper indicates this is a real place. I'll have to dig more tomorrow and vote.James.folsom (talk) 06:36, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 06:44, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kansas-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 06:44, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Pfeifer, Kansas. They're two miles apart and might as well be the same place, plus the post office that is the only basis for the existence of this article moved there. I am unable to find any evidence Easdale was ever more than a post office.Jbt89 (talk) 07:20, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pfeifer is a documented hamlet that is in the Blackmar Cyclopaedia, as can be seen at Ellis County, Kansas#Hamlets. Easdale is not in Blackmar, and not in Gannett's Gazetteer either. It is not a documented anything except the former name of the Pfeifer post office. Everything in this article except that one fact is unsupportable; and all the stuff in the infobox and elsewhere is boilerplate copied into numerous Kansas articles. Uncle G (talk) 12:15, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or merge to where decided It's a location that people refer to as a place, there no articles in the papers that say anything about the place. I know there was a post office there, and that might be all. There is an Easdale school mentioned many times, that was likely there. Your not going to find enough significant material for an article on it. Its probably worth mentioning that it existed on the the county and or township pages.James.folsom (talk) 22:41, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, PhantomSteve/talk¦contribs\ 08:54, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: In the Hayes Free Press of Oct 10, 1900 it makes a reference to A.N. Horn selling his home to "Jim Grippen of Easdale".[21]. A few other stray references to Easdale like that in the late 1870s until about 1900 also exist. A 1905 atlas of Ellis County shows a Jas Grippin and Wm Grippin with land around the geographical location we have for the former Easdale post office.[22] When this article was created in 2018 it was not correct to term it a "small settlement" based merely on the existence of a post office; but us veterans on these AfDs are aware that midwestern U.S. post offices were set up in many places in the 1800s that never became towns. The article got worse in 2021 when edited to say it was a "ghost town". In my opinion, "ghost town" is way over-used on wikipedia on articles on little place names like this, it really should be used for abandoned settlements that have or had some remaining buildings and infrastructure. I know Pfeifer, Kansas is not understood to be the same place (but I don't know where the GPS coordinates for Easdale first came from?), but that article's discussion of Easdale makes a decent case for a redirect there. And the 1887 newspaper mentions say the post office name was changed, not moved (though perhaps it was moved).[23]. Apparently the Easdale PO was in Rush County when it was established in 1878.[24][25] There seems to have been a border change between the counties of Rush and Ellis at some point.[26] --Milowent • hasspoken 16:47, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Let me add, I found this 1963 article in the Hays Daily News on the history of Pfeifer, and it describes the community as moving in 1884 to its current location. It says the former location was "in Section 25-14-17 of Freedom Township". You can find the township map of 1905 here[27]. Pfeifer is plainly now in the northwest corner of Section 36, as depicted in the 1905 map here [28]. The new location definitely seems to be south of the original location, since Section 25 is north of 36. The settlers (who were Volga Germans) first came in 1876, so it seems no surprise that the Easdale PO was established as needed in the area by 1878, and it made sense to move/rename the PO by the time that happened in 1887. "Easdale", of course, it not a German name, but a Scottish island. Before the Volga Germans started arriving in Ellis County in 1876, a George Grant is said to have brought over 300 Englishmen starting around 1872, but a "grasshopper scourge" in 1874 caused many to leave, and eventually the Volga Germans took their place.[29] The first postmaster of the Easdale PO was "Rollo A. Burnham", not a German name.[30] A "James A. Maine" took over late in 1878.[31] Looks like he was still there in 1885.[32] So it makes sense that a name like "Easdale" wouldn't stay on when a German majority took over the area.--Milowent • hasspoken 18:05, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ellis County, Kansas#History has the grasshoppers already, notice. And the coördinates come from two GNIS computer database records. The first set is the coördinates in the article at hand, which is a "locale". The second set is an "Easdale, see Pfeifer", which is a "ppl" and repeats the (different) coördinates for Pfeifer. Alas, the same person who gave us the false ghost-townery in Special:Diff/1058765611 and other articles is the same person filling these Kansas articles with every-article-has-the-same-boilerplate-junk-history at Special:Diff/721974070 and the like. Uncle G (talk) 10:14, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • I can find the second set of coordinates which matches Pfeifer at nationalmap.gov, but not a link for the coordinates used on this article in a GNIS search. The original citation upon creation was just to "http://geonames.usgs.gov", and searching "Easdale" there only leads to the Pfeifer reference you note. I was just wondering where it came from, because I've run across this issue before.--Milowent • hasspoken 13:16, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        • That's far from original. That's just a WWW interface that the USGS set up to access the computer database. Not everything is "a link".

          Back in the 1980s, this database was available on magnetic tape and was even printed out on paper, bound, and sold in book form. Ironically, Google then digitized the books, so it's possible to find out what the feature classes, which were squashed a few years ago, used to be years ago. This has confused several people in past AFD discussions who don't realize that what's available on a WWW site was once available as this "National Gazetteer of the United States", being exactly the same thing and exactly as bogus, before the World Wide Web was invented, because the GNIS was invented in the 1970s.

          Things to remind yourself about the reliability of GNIS data: It's a government computer database that is an index to where words occur(ed) on government maps, mostly maps as they were in the 1980s. Like other government projects it was ambitious but was de-funded before the all-important fixing-the-errors-from-state-sources phase of the original plan kicked in. The "historical" records were dropped from the database tables quite a while ago. More recently, all of the feature classes, which used to make distinctions amongst cemeteries, locales, populated places, flats, tanks, summits, gaps, and so forth, were largely squashed.

          For an article that explains the rural post offices, see the one that I cited in Bulloch County, Georgia#Further reading a couple of days ago. It does a fair job of explaining, with that county as a case study, how actual history happened, and thus why a lot of this "ghost town" and "unincorporated community" synthesis that people do, in desperation at trying to flesh out crap from the GNIS, is utter tripe. Rennick has documented an entire state full of examples of how post offices moved around with people's private homes and stores that they were run from.

          Schools were the same, and there was no rule that school districts were coterminous with post office service areas. Adding them together to make places is synthesis, just as the still fake ghost-townery of Monroe, Kansas (AfD discussion) is. This is "settled" land, but these were and are rural places without population centres. "At Monroe" is how the mail is delivered and (when it's a store) the general store supplies are shipped.

          And in several of the midwestern states the "communities" were the (civil, not survey) Townships. (In Rennick's state they were the Creeks.) The Townships were the legally recognized populated places, for people wanting that rule, with census figures and legal authority. The Fifth Biennial Report of the Kansas State Board of Agriculture doesn't give a population figure for Easdale post office, because the post offices aren't the legally recognized populated places despite what the desperate Wikipedia synthesizers and false ghost-townery writers think; nor does it give populations for the 44 school districts that it mentions; but it does say that 451 people lived in Wheatland Township in 1885, which you wouldn't know from our every-article-in-Kansas-is-the-same crappy boilerplate article on the place.

          Equally as sad as the Monroe ghost-townery synthesis is the fact that if Kansas editors had been any good at this then rather than a bland sweep of boilerplate across loads of Kansas articles we would have for years now known a lot more about the Germans from the Ellis County, Kansas#History article, and it wouldn't be lopsidedly placed in Pfeifer, Kansas (because, for starters, they didn't just settle in Pfeifer), and we'd even know a tiny bit about Hog Back, Kansas (AfD discussion) and why it's not a settlement (the German settlers choosing not to settle it), because it's all in Francis S. Laing's history of the German-Russian Settlements in Ellis County, Kansas.

          Uncle G (talk) 21:09, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks for taking the time to set out all that background info, Uncle G. Re the last point, I'm sure others have noticed this too, but I think there's a bias in wikipedia towards including more historical details in smaller geographical unit articles. Moving details into county and state and regional articles requires a more deft understanding of historical context. E.g., knowing that these immigrants weren't really Russian, as some sources may say. The bias towards calling things "ghost towns" that aren't isn't a wikipedia-only problem. Indeed, the 1971 article[33] I just cited in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mendota, Kansas-- which is definitely a moving rural post office -- calls it a "ghost town". I understand the frustration of folks like you and Mangoe, we are fighting inherently irrational human behavior here which seeks to imbue place names with more history and meaning than perhaps they deserve. For the mercy of whoever closes this discussion, i'm not saying "Easdale" should be kept. I'm just interested in confirming the GNIS data and seeing whether that's where the first location of Pfeifer (which also wasn't really a town) was.--Milowent • hasspoken 16:39, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    "confirming the GNIS data and seeing whether that's where the first location of Pfeifer".
    Recognizing that not every GNIS point was a village does not mean one has to interpret that GNIS data is full of error. The choice of some locations, like Easdale, does seem to be based on local primary sources at the time the point was set. Want to feel old? Try having living memory of landmarks that GNIS points were set on, but destroyed later, and have editors thereby question veracity. Yes, any truth of a GNIS point does not inherently convey WP notabilty.
    Living memory is not RS, but I feel there is room for improvement in bedside manner. Consider that the postmaster of one of these village post offices took care of me after my mother died, and Dad would say I would call her "Mom". Fr. Burkey wrote on Easdale as a post office that served early Pfeifer, but was then replaced by the Pfeifer post office, which once "really existed", even if maybe no one in Pfeifer today can remember where it was. Careful saying Pfeifer is not a town, people live there on platted streets; it is at least a village with a beautiful Fencepost limestone cathedral. Let us be careful in the tone and words we use as we necessarily delare locations as non-nontable.
    I see ECHS maps an Easedale Cemetary. About a year ago I was going over the perenial Hays Daily News Autumn lists of 1800s cemeteries; so I might go back and look what was said about Easedale Cemetery, if anything. What I recall was that some of these prairie cemeteries were family plots and others were just where a wagon load of travelers died, and the typical caretaker was some old man with no realtionship to those buried. I make no suggestion now that "Easedale Cemetery" had any connection with "Easedale PO", or any settlement.
    Regarding any merge, I would suspect, though, that Easdale, as a topic, is closer to Pfeifer than to Ellis County. IveGoneAway (talk) 14:28, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The little we know about this place simply validates that it was a PO, and barring a surplus of Stella-Rondo-type family dynamics in the surrounding areas, no one lived at this PO.
JoelleJay (talk) 04:25, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: - This was a real place, it is listed on the Kansas state Map: https://www.macpl.org/atlases/1903/Kansas%20State%20Map.pdf 😎😎PaulGamerBoy360😎😎 (talk) 18:06, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We know it was a place, 😎😎PaulGamerBoy360😎😎, i.e, a post office in someone's house. But if this is your inclusionist method to cause Mangoe and Uncle G to have a stroke and stop nominating articles like this, it may work.--Milowent • hasspoken 20:16, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That aside, from a geologist perspective, I honestly enjoyed this map for the canals around Dodge; I did not know that. And I had not thought of South Fork Pawnee River as an old channel of the Arkansas. Thanks. IveGoneAway (talk) 01:24, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: Not a town, sure, but a known community in the papers 1880 to 1904. Several mentions of meetings at the Easdale school house, mostly a hotbed of Socialists ... (so they called my Republican grandad).

To be fair, I never knew of Easdale until this week, but then, I had never been in Pfeifer until last April. The first election I remember was Dad taking me with him when he voted at one of the sister schools to Easdale. I make no claim of notabilty, but I acknowledge the community of that time. IveGoneAway (talk) 05:26, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Just adding what I've learned since I voted. Studying other of the post offices since has made it clear that in a lot cases the newspaper mentions are simply using the post office as a point of reference, and when people write into the paper from these postal places, they are simply denoting where they get their mail. It's not necessarily where they live.James.folsom (talk) 18:35, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, in the sense of "in the vicinity of". In the case of the many classified adds mentioning Easdale, it is really the closest thing to an address. With the dozens of post offices in the county, I don't need to speculate that people would want to walk further than the closest one. The presence of a post office and school do not prove the existence of even a rural community, just that there were enough people around. Interestingly, the Pfeifer farm plots were originally laid out "Russian style", 44 feet wide by 1/2 mile. But across the river, more Jeffersonian quarter sections. Just another tempting suggestion of different groups of settlers. When you get to Victoria/Herzog, there is a big cemetery of hallowed ground for the Catholic parishioners and a tiny one across the road for "everyone else". I see the same thing comparing the Easdale tiny cemetery with the Pfeifer cemetery, a mere two miles apart. Well, don't underestimate the difficulty of crossing the Smoky Hill. No RS for any of this, just fascinating to me. Even in my lifetime though, there was strong coercion in rural EL CO to not sell land outside each parish membership, the same with marriage. Easdale might have been squeezed out, eliminating the need for a separate PO and grocery store and non-parochial school. I know editors have suggested that Easdale was an early site of Pfeifer and/or that the sites merged, but thinking about the parochial communities of the time, I am prone to disagree. I might be wrong. The "Meders of Easdale" were original Easdale settlers; Meders own the old Easdale section today. IveGoneAway (talk) 20:11, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    FWIW I am chatting with a historian who's family founded Victoria, Kansas. As completely German-Catholic the countryside and the town is today, he had to remind me that the founding name is not. Queen Victoria directly funded the original Protestant settlement there. Ahhh, Meder is an English/Irish name and Easdale is also English. IveGoneAway (talk) 21:14, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Replying to OP Mangoe: I propose Merge with Victoria, Kansas instead of Pfeifer on the basis (to be confirmed) that Easdale was a part of the British Victoria Colony of 1873 and was and still is separate from the 1876 Volga German Pfeifer parish. Easdale settlers were in part if not wholy British and the location is proximal to the Victoria Colony founder ranches; Grant's Villa and the "Scotty" Philip Ranch. The Meder family was among the orginal Easdale settlers, still holds the land, and is a name consistent with the colony. We have names of the Easdale settlers and I have asked for comparison with the registered British colonists. IveGoneAway (talk) 00:30, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, I'll go out on a limb and infer that Easdale and Norfolk were nostalgic post office names for the British colonists who concentrated their "estates" on the low ridge between the Smoky and Big Creek. The number of Victoria colonists was capped just over 200 and they had no real interest in town building, apparently. After the collapse of the British colony, the German villages had little need for little post offices or one-room Protestant schools on the prairie. What is on the EL CO page is good enough, probably. IveGoneAway (talk) 16:54, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to discuss potential Merge targets.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The WordsmithTalk to me 22:31, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge/Redirect to Ellis County, Kansas based on a preference for redirecting rather than outright deleting post offices/rural areas rather than deleting them outright when usage of the name as a place can be demonstrated. I think the county is the best target for a redirect because the relationship between Easdale and the neighboring communities of Pfeiffer and Victoria hasn't been confirmed by an sources that I can see. Probably worth a line in the county article; something like, "In the 1880's a rural post office and school were located at Easdale about 8 miles south of Victoria and 2 miles north of Pfeiffer." Eluchil404 (talk) 02:14, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Out of curiosity, why the county and not Wheatland Township, Ellis County, Kansas? Jbt89 (talk) 17:49, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Two reasons, first because Uncle G had mentioned the county article above in the discussion, and second because when I made the comment I was not aware that Kansas counties had named townships with articles that might be an option for a redirect. I have no objection to the township as a target, my primary goal is to help create a consensus to preserve the limited sourced info while removing the incorrect appearance that this was ever a formal settlement or ghost town. Eluchil404 (talk) 00:20, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Eluchil404 You can't find a connection between the Easdale PO, school, store, and cemetery and Pfeifer because Pfeifer had their own school, store, and cemetery (especially) and really wanted no connection at that time.
    The evidence of association of Easdale with the Victoria Colony is largely geographic. The Victoria Colony was a concentration (between the Smoky and Big Creek) of estates from Norfolk, to Grant Villa, to Easdale, to Philip Ranch. The south boundary of the Victoria Colony was the Smoky Hill River. source The Duke of Norfolk was a sponsor of the Victoria Colony. George Grant might be from the Grants around Easdale, Scotland. ... the point being, Norfolk and Easdale were born and died with the colony, not Pfeifer, not EL CO.
    @ Jbt89 Two reasons, first, Easdale was in Freedom Township, two, township boundaries in this county are wibbly-wobbly over time ...
    Here is a good map of the remnants of the colony shortly before the Easdale school and PO closed. There's that railroad that ATSF advertised as building through Easdale.
    Ellis Co Townships have been significantly restructured recently. I could dig into that with over time.
    I have some name lists now, but I can't work with them over this weekend.
    IveGoneAway (talk) 02:49, 10 February 2024 (UTC) 15:32, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Freedom Township, Ellis County, Kansas. Most of the above discussion of the Victoria colony seems like original (though sensible and relevant) research, so I don't think a merge with Victoria, Kansas makes sense. It has convinced me that Easdale (the post office and associated rural area) likely has a different origin than Pfeiffer, though, so any merger or redirect should go to an article about the surrounding countryside (the township being the obvious candidate), not the town of Pfeiffer. I've gone ahead and added a history section to that article and given it a couple sentences about the Easdale post office, so deleting this article won't cause the information in it to be lost. Jbt89 (talk) 03:41, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You might add the home of the Victoria Colonist's founder, George Grant's Villa, to the Freedom Township article. By RS, it is in Section 8 of Freedom Township. More notable to the township than either Duck Creek or Eagle Creek, and critical to the British colonists there, Big Creek clips the township (Grant's Villa faces Big Creek). There is also the Norfolk "hamlet".
    Merging Easdale with Freedom Township is practical, as the least resistance path. I don't deny that as presented the establishment of the Easdale PO by the Victoria Colonists is "OR", I did say it is circumstantial and needing confirmation, and I have not added it to any article. I do have some citations to support it, but failing a colonists name, even Grant's, on the post office application, there is no certainty that the Victoria Colony founded that PO. (Even then there is some synthysis, I suppose.) IveGoneAway (talk) 18:38, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Good stuff. Adding it to the Freedom Township history section now. Jbt89 (talk) 06:33, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, (after another 3 mile hike-think) this is the best redirect target, thanks. If I ever get into the Grant Folder in the basement of the Hays Public Library and come up witha few more solid RS, and want to change the redirect, that would be a good problem. IveGoneAway (talk) 21:38, 11 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! 23:35, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sloan Science in Film Awards[edit]

Sloan Science in Film Awards (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 about a film award, not properly referenced as passing inclusion criteria for events. As always, awards are not automatically entitled to have Wikipedia articles just because they exist, and have to be shown to pass WP:GNG and WP:ORGDEPTH on third-party media coverage about them -- analysis about their impact, evidence that the media consider the award to be significant enough to cover the presentation as news, etc. -- but apart from one media hit (which isn't enough by itself) this is otherwise referenced entirely to a reference-bombed cluster of 248 primary sources, mostly its own self-published website about itself but occasionally streaming copies of the films on YouTube or Vimeo, none of which are valid support for notability at all.
Simply existing isn't "inherently" notable enough to exempt this from having to have proper GNG-worthy coverage about it in real media independent of its own self-created web presence. Bearcat (talk) 22:27, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Update: the article's now up to 425 footnotes, instead of 248 at the time of nomination yesterday, but even the new stuff is still almost entirely primary sources rather than third-party coverage. Bearcat (talk) 17:01, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. I honestly think the article should be deleted though. NoobThreePointOh (talk) 17:34, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The fact that there's a whopping 317 sources coming from pretty much the same site, and that one of them isn't even properly referenced, just shows that the user who created the page needs to learn that there's other sources they can find. I would suggest probably (but not sure) the New York Times. I don't know if they talk about science, but something like that works.

    NoobThreePointOh (talk) 23:56, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science and Technology. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:14, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I thought that I had found some sources, but they turned out to be about the more specific topic of the Alfred P. Sloan Prize. Uncle G (talk) 05:27, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:TNT. While I found sources for these awards in industry publications (such as Deadline, Variety, and The Hollywood Reporter) and was leaning to support, I'm realizing these are a bunch of different programs that just so happen to be administered by the same foundation. The three linked articles cover a prize at Sundance (which already has its own article), grants and fellowships, and student awards, each of which is distinct. As best as I can tell, the "Sloan Science in Film Awards" are exclusively the awards and grants presented at Sundance; this article synthesizes a scope that goes well beyond that. Since the entire scope of the article needs to be reworked, it's probably best to delete it and start over. RunningTiger123 (talk) 03:04, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll refine what I said after more research: the Sloan Science in Film Awards seems to be a term sometimes used for awards from Sloan Science & Film, which presents lots of awards each year. (A search for "Sloan Science in Film Awards" in quotes gets a few hits from Sundance, hence my original comment, but I don't think it's the sole term for those Sundance awards.) The awards are unrelated outside the foundation sponsoring them. It would be okay to mention the different awards at the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation article, but not to create a separate article with all of these awards, as they aren't a singular notable topic. Also, if the list is kept, it should be trimmed significantly with stricter selection criteria. RunningTiger123 (talk) 03:23, 9 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 Withdrawn‎. (non-admin closure) Reywas92Talk 22:38, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tadeusz Werno[edit]

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

Notability not established with substantive sources, only a context-free database entry with the dates of appointment. Fails WP:GNG and WP:BIO. Reywas92Talk 21:23, 6 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 03:59, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Elmer Osmar Ramón Miani[edit]

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

Notability not established with substantive sources, only a context-free database entry with the dates of appointment. Fails WP:GNG and WP:BIO. Reywas92Talk 21:23, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. The reason WP:CLERGYOUTCOMES exists for Catholic bishops is that they are reliably covered extensively once you dig into it, although those sources may not all be available online. Jahaza (talk) 19:05, 7 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 Ellis County, Kansas. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 04:19, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hog Back, Kansas[edit]

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

A Union Pacific passing siding/station, not a town: even the only real source in the article says so. Mangoe (talk) 05:40, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep I'm sorry but I can't even imagine what you're talking about. There are three sources, all of which say it is or was a town. Even if it wasn't, deletion isn't remotely necessary or appropriate, and you could have proposed a redirect to Yocemento, Kansas or Ellis County, Kansas. Either way, you've blown past the existing sources and past the extensive plans detailed by the illustrious expert editor IveGoneAway on the Talk page. Anyway, this is not what AfD is for. @IveGoneAway: Hi. — Smuckola(talk) 06:10, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • You clearly have not looked at these "existing sources". The first is the GNIS, which project:Reliability of GNIS data deals with. And the third is literally a name on a map with zero information, that has been interpreted by the article writer. Uncle G (talk) 12:05, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 06:43, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kansas-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 06:43, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Yocemento, Kansas. This was the name of the old railroad siding in Yocemento and retained that name when the railroad moved the siding three miles west. Reference (1) says as much, reference (2) says the former Hog Back is now called Yocimento, and reference (3) is just the name of the siding shown on a map. Content of article (including additions planned on the talk page) can, and should, be merged into the article on Yocemento. Jbt89 (talk) 06:56, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm having a great deal of trouble with this, as it seems to me that all these claims about moving the siding are based on original research in examining old maps, and it does not seem to me that those maps are inconsistent with the Hog Back siding never having moved, and Yocimento having been put in later some three miles east. The first map in particular does nothing to resolve the matter, as it places the siding at a spot midway between the two modern sidings; but it is also, shall I say it, a bit vague, and the other map is even more so. The other thing is that, however long Hog Back may have been the original name of the Yocimento siding, it wasn't so very long, and they have been two distinct places for well over a century. Mangoe (talk) 13:24, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • You're right, I might have it backwards - the siding may have remained unchanged while the town of Yocemento grew up just east of it. Still, shared history and geographic proximity makes Hog Back a feature of Yocemento rather than an independent place IMO, and there are plenty of sources stating as much. Note that this edition of the National Gazetteer lists the map location for Hog Back Station (historical) as Yocemento on page KS125.

        Reference (2) in the article appears to originate from page 480 of the Collections of the Kansas State Historical Society [34], where it states that Hog Back is "now Yocemento." Jbt89 (talk) 18:27, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

        • That National Gazetteer is merely a paper printout of the GNIS from the 1980s, note.

          In 1906, I. M. Yost and Professor Erasmus Haworth met in Hays and decided to build a cement plant at the hogback.

          — Cable, Ted T.; Maley, Wayne (2017). Driving across Kansas: A Guide to I-70. University Press of Kansas. ISBN 9780700624140., p.85
          Uncle G (talk) 19:18, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • Mangoe : Sorry, if the statement of seems OR, and given the curious citation, I don't blame you. I would have to relocate the newspaper article that mentions the siding relocation corresponding to the platting of Yocemento, which is the actual needed citation. From Beneke, we see the original siding was located west of the future quarry site, while the cement plant was built further east. When Haworth bought out the location and had a new siding installed less than a mile east, the redundant spur siding was moved or demolished and the name was reused on the other passing siding. Certainly by 1923 there was justification for the passing siding (removed in the 1980s at the earliest). IveGoneAway (talk) 21:00, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with Jbt89 and Mangoe. Per the sole reliable source in the article this is Yocemento, Kansas and these are duplicate articles. Most of the article is copy-and-paste boilerplate that is in numerous Kansas articles, including the merger target. There are 2 sentences of potential merger content here. The first sentence is outright false, as it falsely claims this railroad siding to be a town. That leaves the second sentence, which is already discussed in the merger target at far greater length. There is actually zero merger to do, and a redirect suffices. Uncle G (talk) 12:05, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This newspaper clipping sheds the most light on the matter. https://www.newspapers.com/article/ellis-review-hogback-a-town/139276060/ I have skimmed most of the prior mentions of Hogback prior to this point in time. Bear in mind you need to read other material to get fullest feel for the story. But, Essentially before there was Hogback siding/switch there was Hogback ridge. The rail switch was built near there and the area seems to have been known as Hogback. There were ranches there when the switch was built and the local paper published news for Hogback. In 1887 the area was described in the above article as basically nowhere. The article is essentially declaring that investors are going to build a town called Nichty at the site of the switch. James.folsom (talk) 23:41, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It would seem that the town of Nichty was actually built, so this site should be where Nichty was. Which is pretty definitive that there was no town called Hogback there. I also read that there is ridge pass at Hogback ridge, so you can likely imagine why it's called hogback. The train probably passes through the pass there. The pass probably makes a good place settle too. James.folsom (talk) 23:49, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The background is correct. I think I can lay hands on the plat, but the town was never built. The Nichty plat was a historic hoax, like the gold rush a few miles south on the Smoky Hill River. IveGoneAway (talk) 20:30, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This site is not Yocemento, but a distinct location roughly halfway between Yocemento and Ellis.
    • Yes, the siding at present Yocemento was originally named Hogback but the name was later given to this location.
    • Present Hogback is not as notable as Yocemento, but has some notability.
      • While there was no platted town, newspapers record that the community did have an identity with social events under that name.
      • The first settler there was Erasmus Disney, Walt Disney's grandfather. Walt's father left there to start his family in Florida. The land is still under the Disney name.
      • The passenger station in Ellis never had a passing track, so as long as the Portland Rose section met twice daily at Ellis, the Westbound section had to stop at Hogback if the Eastbound beat it to Ellis.
      • Famous Kansas Marshal Nealy captured Coxey's Army of Commonwealers hijacked train at the Hogback siding. Hogback Becomes Known to the World. About ten years before the relocation of the name, so this would have been the earlier siding of Beneke's picture.
      • Because of the namesake geology, the name became a synonym for "poor farmland" in Ellis County.
      • A provisional plat for Hogback was created by conmen pushing a coal hoax. There is Dakota Formation coal there, but too deep, too thin, and too poor quality to mine. Actually, this, too, was at the present Yocemento site; not at the later Hogback Siding.
    • There was a Granary there as a matter of record.
      • (OR, I have found the building site. Not that it matters, I have found Valentine Sandstone gravel there as the pavement or concrete aggregate at one time.)
  • I started a DYN improvement to the page, look here for the citations of the above, but I ran out of WP time for a while.
IveGoneAway (talk) 20:04, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
KSHS has a non-free image of the 1950's Hogback telegraph shack with present landmark shelter belt in the background. I'll get the link, later. IveGoneAway (talk) 21:11, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
UP Shed Depot at the later Hogback passing siding, 1954, Kansas Memory, KSHS. This is the site marked on the maps halfway between Yocemento and Ellis. Natually, this siding was removed later but was there through the 70s. The homestead in the background is still there, but the barn on the left recently blew down. IveGoneAway (talk) 02:42, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hog Back Siding, 1922 The Thomas Disney (Walt's Uncle) homestead is marked next to the 18, coresponding to the previous picture. The school is where the community meetings were held. Note the separation from Yocemento and Ellis. Note also that the Yocemento Quarry site is now owned by the Boettcher cement syndicate of Denver, about the year they stripped the cemement plant. IveGoneAway (talk) 03:21, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Reading the the newspaper makes it clear there is nothing here in terms of Hogback. Prior to the building of Nichty, the place is described as not inhabited by the paper. The news for hogback reported in the paper are nothing more than the news reported from the general area hog back ridge. Worse yet, whoever was sending in the news seems to have continued to refer to the area as hogback after Nichty was built. I know that Nichty existed but haven't learned much about beyond it had a school and teacher. I don't really think any of the stuff Ivegoneaway brings up makes this article notable. Articles about that stuff should mention this place, but we don't need a separate article for this this switch and or hog back ridge. The notability policies would require either the switch or the ridge to meet WP:N which they don't. Now articles on the subjects brought up previously should mention this place, but not the other way aroundJames.folsom (talk) 23:02, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Nichty never existed except as a plat map as part of the coal hoax. The hoax did not involve Yocemento. The idioms show that at the time, the community had notoriety to Hays folk. I think to get to the article about the hoax, I think I'll have to recover an account with Forsyth Library. That will have to wait for the weekend. IveGoneAway (talk) 03:37, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I am not defending the present article, I would just like to fix and finish it someday. IveGoneAway (talk) 03:51, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    There is one mention of the Nichty school district that I saw. I'll look, tonight. James.folsom (talk) 14:36, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
James.folsom : If you find evidence of Nichty, that would be something! Don't think school districts would have been a thing there. The 1922 map shows a school a half mile north of Hogback Siding. I would have expect it to have been called the Hogback school, but who knows.
So, yeah, notabilty is down to the Disneys and the Portland Rose. Not much for city slickers. Dad would point out the Disney farms when we drove by the Hogback Siding in section 18. Farmers on the other side of the ridge could tell when the Portland Rose had to take the siding.
The Coal Hoax and the Commonwealers will be good additions to Yocemento, Kansas, someday.
But if you redirect this, it should really be redirected to Ellis, Kansas since the later siding had only a recycled name connection to Yocemento, while it was Ellis that laid claim to the Disney's fame (there was the Disney gas station), and the Hogback Siding was integral to the rail passenger service of Ellis.
IveGoneAway (talk) 02:41, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to either Ellis or Yocememto is probably the best outcome, IMO. Living memory of Hogback Siding as a distinct place separate from Yocemento is dieing off, and these persons count as Primary unreliable sources anyway. There are reasons for both settlement articles to mention the location. IveGoneAway (talk) 14:09, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I saw a blurb in the paper mentioning the nichty school district and the teacher. The town was supposed to be named after a popular politician, so maybe they just named the school after him instead? I'll post it hopefully today. James.folsom (talk) 14:16, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
https://www.newspapers.com/article/ellis-review-nichty/139558596/ James.folsom (talk) 22:27, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nichty was not a politician AFAIK, as far as an 1880s railroad-employed land commissioner might be concidered non-political. It is interesting that this makes it seem that railroad man Nichty was in on the coal swindle like J. P. Huntington was in on the Smoky Hill City gold swindle a few miles south.
I remember driving by the school that we see marked half a mile north of Hogback Siding, site. It was important enough to have been rebuilt as a concrete structure by my time. I'll have to look through the maps tomorrow to see if there is any sign of an 1880s school at the Yocemento site.
Well-loved is a curious adjective for a railroad agent especially since the Hogback lots were the last blank spaces on his 1880s sales map.
IveGoneAway (talk) 14:08, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • FWIW, independent RS (Kansas Geological Survey) that Hogback is a location name between Yocemento [mile 153.0] and Ellis [mile 145.6]; At Interstate 70 Mile Marker 150.0: "A mile south of the highway is a railroad siding named Hogback, which probably got its name from a sharp bluff formed by an outcrop of Fort Hays Limestone along the Big Creek valley. [The source goes on to disambiguate this location from structurally similar Mount Oread.][1] This mention suggests that the siding was in place into the late 1980s after which the entire Kansas Pacific line was completely rebuilt and such many short sidings replaced by fewer mile-line unit train passing sidings.
The Kansas Geologial Survey has maintained the location name on its published geological maps. Geologically, the location is interesting because of the unstable, humucky Blue Hills Shale slump block terrane particular featured between Ellis and Yocemento [yes, a citation is needed for that].
IveGoneAway (talk) 15:53, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The 1887 Official State Atlas of Kansas places Hog Back Station just west of the future Yocemento site in Section 21,[2] corresponding with the placement of Benecke's camera in 1873. This compares with the later Section 18 Hog Back Siding miles west in the 1922 atlas cited multiple times above.
IveGoneAway (talk) 17:08, 27 January 2024 (UTC) 17:23, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Published by the Ellis County Historical Society, At Home in Ellis County, 1991, mentions Hog Back Station (1887 atlas), Hog Back Siding (1922 Atlas), and Nitchy Townsite. The section cites the plat submitted for Nitchy in 1887 (the town was never built).
Included with the Hog Back Station section is a picture of the Luce Granary at the Section 18 Hog Back Siding. The presence of the Model T dates the picture after the 1922 atlas.[3]
The same source also associates Walt Disney with his ancestor's settlement in this township, including his uncle Thomas Disney as justice of the peace. Hogback and Yocemento are listed distinctly, "Included in its boundaries were Hogback and Yocemento..." (cf, 1922 atlas) (pages 51, 54, 67-67)
IveGoneAway (talk) 18:22, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A New York Times article mentions Kepple Disney's 1877 purchase of a section on the railroad east of Ellis.
The Wichita Beacon, 1953, Hog Back's a Town Named by Kansans states, perhaps whimsically, "Hog Back exists a an actual town, by the way." The location appeared on highway maps, maybe only because of the obvious railroad sign that stood out at the location.
A "Hog-Back Sympathy Orchestra" performed at the 1923 Fort Hays Normal School Anniversary Day celebration. (also in this 1923 article )
This 1901 article associates the name "Nichey" with the original "Hog back switch", again saying that nothing ever came from the coal mine play. Interesting that a resort is mention; in 1977 I was given a tour of the ranch on the south of that original switch site and the rancher pointed to a pile of limestone and said it was a resort.
"Mrs. Thomas Disney returned to her home at Hogback from Ellis."
IveGoneAway (talk) 20:45, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Rex C. Buchanan; James R. McCauley (1987). Roadside Kansas. University Press of Kansas (Kansas Geological Survey). pp. 96–102. ISBN 978-0-7006-0322-0.
  2. ^ Everts, Louis H., ed. (1887), Official State Atlas of Kansas, L.H. Everts & Co, p. 295
  3. ^ At Home in Ellis County 1867–1992. Vol. 1. Ellis County Historical Society. 1991. p. 65. [picture of] Harvey and Lyle Luce at the elevator their father operated at Hog Back.
  • From updated research, there are specific locations to clarify.
    • "Hogback Ridge" or "Ellis County Hogback" broadly extends from Old fort Hays to Riga miles west of Ellis, any of those places might be causally said to be at the Hogback.
      • There are several notable promitories on the ridge. Modern names include "Blue Light Hill" and "Jesus Saves Hill" (incidentally pictured by Gardner). 1867-8 names include "Sentinel Hill" and "Signal Hill". My understanding in total is that these were applied to various prominances over time, including the later "Blue Light" and "Jesus Saves".
      • Reports of striking oil on the Hogback refers to the greater ridge.
    • There is one place where Big Creek cuts at the base of a bluff and that is the one place where the KP Railway cuts accros the base of a bluff. This is in Section 21. The west end of the bluff is the location of the original Hog Back Siding.
      • The 1877 atlas and Benecke picture #51 attest to this location.
      • Thomas Disney attests to this location as "Hog Back Station" in his 1880's and 1890's livestock and produce advertisements.
      • This was also called Nichty/Nichey during and after the coal hoax.
      • Circa 1907, Yocemeto was built on the east of the bluff, a half mile east of "Hog Back Station" which was removed.
    • After the removal of "Hog Back Station", "Hog Back Siding" was installed halfway between Yocemento and Ellis, incidentaly on Thomas Disney's farm, saving him 5 miles of bad mountainous road to get to the new Yocemento.
      • This name and location is attested to by the 1922 atlas.
      • That there is a 20th century location named "Hogback" 3 miles east of Ellis is attested to in Ellis newspapers.
    • Where you see "Nichey/Hogback School", that is at the old station. Where you see "Beaver Bank School", that is at the new siding.
Well, that might be my closing arguement. I improved the article, FWIW. I can see how some might think of these two locations as one place. Sadly, most of my knowledge of the distinction counts as primary. We may observe that with the 1907 removal of the first siding, Thomas Disney had to drive his wagons 2 miles further OVER the bluff to get his grain, produce, and livestock to market, so, I like to think that this justice of the peace made a deal for a siding at his front door.
IveGoneAway (talk) 18:41, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, PhantomSteve/talk¦contribs\ 08:54, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • @James.folsom Thank you, for your look into the early pioneer schools at Yocemento. I sincerely appreciate the opportunity to learn about the history of Beaver Bank School. I want to pick over your notes some day for additions to the Yocemento page. My best understanding of the schools was there was one named "Hogback" near the original Hog Back Sation location, maybe the one on the 1922 atlas northeast a bit next to the Replogle ranches (MP 296.5) just as "Beaver Bank" was at the Disney place (MP 300). When the siding was moved, the schools were not renamed. IveGoneAway (talk) 15:31, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Unless I'm missing something, the only sources are very minimal passing mentions of Hogback as a station or passing siding. Most of the expanded article content is WP:COATRACK coverage of land owned by the Disneys as well as a nearby school and town. I'm just not seeing anything that establishes this as a notable place. –dlthewave ☎ 17:25, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes this is the part I'm having trouble with too. The notability policies preclude transfer of notability from Disney to Hogback, I believe. Normally, you would just put all this material into the Walt Disney article. But, I bet that would be a real mess to do. Maybe an article about Erasmus Disney. I guess I like the story, but don't know that Wikipedia should be telling it. James.folsom (talk) 00:12, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I acknowledge that notabilty for the siding is not great. I did want to see what I could find. My original intent with this article was based on several references, which with more study I now realize have nothing to do with this specific location.
    So, it really boiled down to just the Disney connection. I think the best way to handle the Disney connection would be to just add Elias Disney to notable persons from Ellis or Ellis County. Maybe Thomas Disney could also be added to notable persons from Ellis County with futher research on him.
    There is a source that discusses that Walt did want to develop something at the Kepple/Thomas farms, but Roy forbade it. How? I think Roy had title to the farms, not Walt, but I'll have get access to the biography. But, that really doesn't help Hogback Siding, other than showing that the location is not Yocemento. But (assuming sufficient notability) Kepple's and Thomas' political and commercial activities in western Ellis County are really Ellis County's story, not Walt's. I hope that if I add some of this to Ellis or Ellis County it won't be deemed evasive.
    IveGoneAway (talk) 13:37, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think there is a real high bar, on adding people to the notable person section. You could probably even put a lot of this in the county article. James.folsom (talk) 15:43, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ironically, Francis S. Laing's history of the German-Russian Settlements in Ellis County, Kansas tells us that Hog Back was not a settlement, The Germans who came to Ellis County, Kansas, so misleadingly and lopsidedly mentioned in Pfeifer, Kansas but who actually settled in a lot of places all over Ellis, and (ludicrously) first written about by me in their proper place in the County article last week, two decades in in the writing of Wikipedia when this is one of the big things about Ellis's history, chose not to settle Hog Back and it "pleased so little that the men determined to return to Russia" (p.6). Uncle G (talk) 21:23, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Uncle G You have it right, I think, as I would expect. The Volga Germans settled widely around the county, and if one lived through the 1970s in Hacemerica, one would think the Germans were the only settlers (KJLS Polka of the Hour). Weren't the German farms settlements? Yes, they avoided settling south of the Section 21 Hog Back Station. Bukovina Germans settled around Ellis. But, at the same time German immigrants were avoiding Section 21, the Irish Disneys settled three miles east of Ellis in and around Section 18, Thomas Disney becoming a successfull farmer and county official. From commerical advertisements one could think Thomas was practically the only patron of the early Hog Back Station until the siding was moved to his front door.
    What I am getting at is that the Disneys were closely connected to Ellis, while the Yocemento site was more separate. If anything, Yocemento was a Hays venture.
    Moreover, while footsteps/hoofprints of Custer, Cody, Armes, Sternberg, Hayden, etc., can be recorded at the Yocemento site, I am only aware of of the Disneys at the Section 18 siding.
    My point is, granted that the Section 18 siding is not meeting notabilty, the Disneys are a notable part of Ellis, not so much of Yocememnto.
    Triumph of the American Imagination repeatedly discusses Ellis, not Hays, not Hog Back, not Yocemento. Page 571 breifly adds, that besides the Missouri farm, Walt wanted to develop the Ellis farm. But, yeah, thinking about development is much less notable than actual development.
    Maybe, Merage/Redirect to Ellis, Kansas? IveGoneAway (talk) 14:24, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The WordsmithTalk to me 21:38, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. This doesn't seem to be a real place for WP purposes. Passing mentions in newspapers can easily be considered references to neighborhoods or colloquial descriptions of landmarks that anyone in the surrounding area would recognize and do not imply the location was an independent populated place. Much of that material is also, predictably, likely too routine and trivial to warrant merging elsewhere, although the info discovered during the AfD about German/Russian settlement in the area should be utilized somewhere.
JoelleJay (talk) 22:20, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I can accept that it is "not notable" for WP purposed. IMO, it is not necessary to say "not real place".
The "info discovered during the AfD about German/Russian settlement" was already discovered and covered in Yocemento where it is appropriate (IMO) and has been added to Herzog/Victoria, Kansas, as well as to a broader discussion of the German settlements recently added to Ellis County. because, ultimately, Herzog and following "German/Russian" village were founded because they gave the county a second look.
"anyone in the surrounding area would recognize" Honestly, I think the ridge's settler name only has context 1870s to 1910s, and in 1910s it was really only a revival due to the intrest in the cememt plant and related oil discoveries (maybe not, maybe all the settler's alive then still called the ridge Hogback).
However, neither the ridge nor Yocemento are referenced by the Hogback pins on 20th century maps.
  • Elias Disney is already mentioned on Ellis County page. It would be appropriate add the Disneys to the Ellis town page, as has been discussed. Walt's proposal to create an attaction at Ellis might not be notable, but I wouldn't call it routine.
  • I never proposed covering the German settlers on this page. The Germans were not shown the Disney farm, as far as I have read. This page was started from the post-1900 siding location in GNIS, not the ridge or the original Hogback station that the Germans were taken to. This siding had nothing to do with the Volga Germans, AFAIK.
Merge has already been accomplished, effectively.
Redirect? Not every name on a modern geological or topogaphic map needs mention on WP. I would redirect to Ellis.
So, Delete wouldn't kill me.
IveGoneAway (talk) 14:18, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW, I just stumbled on the Nitchy plat at the Ellis County geoportal, 1887, just like the newspapers said. The text of the plat submission shows this plat in Section 21-13-19, just west of the quarry bluff corresponding with Benecke, 1873 (east of Yocemento by 1/2 mile in Section 22). The siding this article is covering and the points of modern maps is in Section 18-13-19. IveGoneAway (talk) 03:41, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm good with a redirect to Ellis. Jbt89 (talk) 03:54, 11 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 03:59, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alfredo Mario Espósito Castro[edit]

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

Notability not established with substantive sources, only a context-free database entry with the dates of appointment. Fails WP:GNG and WP:BIO. Reywas92Talk 21:23, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. I found a large number of articles in one newspaper alone. The reason WP:CLERGYOUTCOMES exists for Catholic bishops is that they are pretty reliably covered extensively once you dig into it, although those sources may not all be available online. Jahaza (talk) 19:05, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Jahaza. I think we can be fairly confident that sources exist that might just not be online. I had a search with a few Spanish words I guessed might be associated, and found 1, 2 discussions, passing mentions 3, 4, and more-than-passing-mention 5. IgnatiusofLondon (talk) 03:45, 14 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 Nea Salamis Famagusta FC#Women's football. as an ATD Liz Read! Talk! 23:41, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Skevi Antoniou[edit]

Skevi Antoniou (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 enough coverage of the subject, a Cypriot women's footballer, to meet WP:GNG. All that came up in my searches were passing mentions (2011, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2021, etc.) JTtheOG (talk) 20:34, 6 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. ✗plicit 00:32, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alice Underwood Fitch[edit]

Alice Underwood Fitch (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)

Checking for reliable sources, I only find https://www2.northwestmuseum.org/museum/participant-fitch-alice-underwood-3477.htm. If that biography precedes the Wikipedia article then the Wikipedia article is a clear copyright violation. If the Wikipedia article precedes the posted biography at the Northwest Museum of Arts and Culture, then using it as a source would be circular. I am not finding much else in WP:BEFORE to bring this up to wiki standards. Bringing it to the group for consideration. --WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 22:06, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • KEEP - I've added a couple of sources found via Google newspapers. She was apparently a highly respected artist in her era. — Maile (talk) 00:20, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Maile66. Do you think the Northwest Museum of Arts and Culture bio came before the Wikipedia? and if so, do you see copyvio as I do? https://copyvios.toolforge.org/?lang=en&project=wikipedia&title=Alice+Underwood+Fitch&oldid=&action=search&use_engine=1&use_links=1&turnitin=0 --WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 01:27, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I see the copyvio. I can't tell which came first. What do you say about it? — Maile (talk) 01:39, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know. That's why I brought it here. I am hoping someone with more forensic skills can help. I don't want to rewrite if it is circular. The article was creating in 2012 by an SPA --WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 15:32, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Given that the article was originally written in 2012 I suspect it came first and citing that NW museum bio would be circular. -- asilvering (talk) 00:37, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Asilvering. I was just looking at Earwig's copyvio detector with a magnifying glass, and the museum article is definitely dated "Site Design ©2021 Klündt | Hosmer", which was 9 years after the Fitch article. — Maile (talk) 02:50, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 01:25, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The WordsmithTalk to me 20:33, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per sources found by @Jfire. Lijil (talk) 16:14, 11 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! 23:41, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Late (song)[edit]

Late (song) (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)

Obscure single with no elaboration or sources, should redirect to the song "Late" on Late Registration. As it exists, the article has no reason to exist. Same logic applies to Fade (Blue Angel song) and I Had a Love. -1ctinus📝🗨 20:10, 6 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! 23:42, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Forte Communication Style Profile[edit]

Forte Communication Style Profile (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)

Others on the talk page raised concerns about the credibility/validity of this article about 10 years ago [38].

Although I attempted to revamp the lead, it became extremely clear to me that this article's sources are only primary sources, and that this entire piece seems extremely self-promoation. In order for this to be possibly made into a credible/balanced wikipedia article a lot of work is needed, and that assumes that it even warrents a page. As far as I can tell, this is not a commonly used measure. (And I say that as someone who teaches classes about personality psychology and psychological testing.) Mason (talk) 20:01, 6 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! 23:43, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bridget Barton[edit]

Bridget Barton (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 sure this meets WP:NPOL, she didn't win the republican primary and it looks like there's mostly just normal campaign coverage about her. BuySomeApples (talk) 19:57, 6 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 draftify‎. ✗plicit 23:47, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

E valayam[edit]

E valayam (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 indication of notability per WP:NFILM. Trailer and teaser were released in summer 2022, along with routine WP:NEWSORGINDIA coverage that the film was being made, but I can't find a single mention of it online since then in English or Malayalam (e വലയം), let alone a release date. WP:SPA article creator is an associate director of the film, and has declared at his user talk page that he's here to promote himself and his work. See also WP:Articles for deletion/Sreejith Mohandas. WP:TOOSOON at best. Wikishovel (talk) 19:42, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am admitting that the release date is not available on the internet and It will be corrected in the article. My intention is to feed the information about the film. I am also part of the film project. So my name will be there in the article. There is no self-publicity action behind this article.
thank you The Indian Cinema (talk) 07:47, 7 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! 23:43, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Antonio Corsi[edit]

Antonio Corsi (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 has been suspected to be a hoax article. Although there is some coverage from some analog sources that mention a person of that name from the 17th Century, I thoroughly checked and the in-line sources listed fail verification of the claimed statements. I looked the subject up via Wikipedia Library for further sources and was unable to find any organized and detailed coverage of the subject. I don't see how it qualifies for an article (and there's dubious sourcing with failed verification spreading misinformation). X (talk) 19:33, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as hoax. Very little information about person that does not relate to this article. ASmallMapleLeaf (talk) 23:07, 13 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. Thanks to the research and work on the article Star Mississippi 04:01, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

American Whiskey Trail[edit]

American Whiskey Trail (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's not clear that this promotional program is notable - the majority of sources in the article point to the program's own website. The article was created by a single purpose account banned for sockpuppetry who has ties to DISCUS, the organization that created this program.

There was discussion on the article's Talk page back in 2008 suggesting that the article should be deleted, but it was never nominated. Martey (talk) 19:21, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Two-thirds of the citations are still to the site itself, so it's hard to argue that this has significant independent coverage in reliable sources. There is a "Further Reading" list, but there is no indication that any of those publications has a single mention of the subject, so that list seems to have been tacked on in an effort to appear to confer some false notability. Lastly, the article was created by a blocked sockpuppet master who created many sockpuppets, many of them probably unknown, who may have also contributed to this article, and the nominator states that that editor has ties to Distilled Spirits Council of the United States, which created this "trail". For all of those reasons, I am leaning Delete and Redirect to Distilled Spirits Council of the United States and add an independent citation there. Persingo (talk) 04:59, 8 February 2024 (UTC); edited 10:56, 9 February 2024 (UTC) because I have not found evidence of the stricken material.[reply]
    I looked through, it was created in 2005. There are many other users that appear to be doing other edits and are not involved and are in other regions. I still think it is worth it to give it a shot and let pages have their shot at improvement. Yes, the page was started by a socketpuppet user but assume good faith with everyone else per WP:Goodfaith. I also have noticed a lot of pages being deleted or targeted recently. I think WP:ZEALOUS gives good insight into that as well.
    It is editors that make pages better and improve this platform. Lets give this a go. Nolansfood (talk) 06:58, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I also did research to try and find sources before nominating this page. While there are multiple articles that mention the trail, all of the ones I could find are listicles about the better-known distilleries. None of the articles I could find actually focus on the trail itself. It's not clear that these sources clear the bar suggested in WP:ORGIND (e.g. they all reference the same distilleries and statistics about American whiskey growth), and it doesn't look like any other sources exist.
    I don't think WP:ZEALOUS applies here - the article is almost 20 years old and discussions about lack of notability already happened on the article's Talk page. I also don't understand your reference to "a lot of pages being deleted or targeted recently" and how it relates to this AfD. Martey (talk) 02:26, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The article has been improved and now has at least three full-article citations from reliable sources from various years that are independent of the subject. Persingo (talk) 10:56, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
    1. Zavatto, Amy. "The Jewel of the Julep: Following the American Whiskey Trail". Frommer's. Archived from the original on 2024-02-09. Retrieved 2024-02-09.

      The article notes: "So when the opportunity arose to travel to President George Washington's Mount Vernon estate, the starting point of the American Whiskey Trail (www.americanwhiskeytrail.com) ... The linking together of seven distilleries and half a dozen historical sites is in large part the brainchild of the Distilled Spirits Council of the United States (DISCUS) ... It was a good note to end on, as my mind was already down river heading toward the second stop of the Whiskey Trail--Kentucky. ... My stops along this stretch of the American Whiskey Trail included four of Kentucky's finest: Jim Beam, Maker's Mark, Wild Turkey, and Woodford Reserve -- distilleries as unique to one another as the closely guarded yeast strains they use in their whiskey-making processes."

    2. Anderson, Mary Ann (2007-06-03). "Tipple-Toe Along The American Whiskey Trail". The Tampa Tribune. McClatchy-Tribune News Service. Archived from the original on 2024-02-09. Retrieved 2024-02-09 – via Newspapers.com.

      The article notes: "Aficionados and novices alike can avail themselves of this experience by visiting any or all the seven distilleries that are part of the American Whiskey Trail. Sponsored by the Distilled Spirits Council of the U.S., or DISCUS, the trail is spread over a five-state area from New York to Tennessee by way of Pennsylvania, Virginia and Kentucky. I recently traversed about 1,000 miles, often on twisting, narrow rural roads and byways, to hit the distilleries in a four-day span before taking in Mount Vernon, Va. ... The distilleries open to the public are in Kentucky (Jim Beam in Clermont; Maker's Mark in Loretto; Wild Turkey in Lawrenceburg; and Woodford Reserve in Versailles) and Tennessee (George Dickel in Tullahoma and Jack Daniel's in Lynchburg). ... Trying to sum up the allure of the American Whiskey Trail in a sentence is difficult. I ran into any number of nondrinkers who were visiting just out of curiosity about the culture of whiskey-making - a process often carried out in "dry" counties where liquor cannot be sold."

    3. Dowd, William M. (2011). "An Overview of the Spirits World". In Dowd, William M. (ed.). Barrels and Drams: The History of Whisk(e)y in Jiggers and Shots. New York: Sterling Epicure. pp. 5–6. ISBN 978-1-4027-7865-0. Retrieved 2024-02-09 – via Internet Archive.

      The book notes: "Nearly four thousand miles away in the New World, there is another historic trail-the American Whiskey Trail, which includes seven historic sites and six operating whiskey distilleries spread over a five-state arc between New York and Tennessee by way of Pennsylvania, Virginia, and Kentucky. If that seems a slightly awkward physical construct, perhaps it is. But it shows the erratic progression of whiskey-making throughout America history, the watershed moment of which occurred before George Smith's rise to prominence. Traveling from the north, the American Whiskey Trail begins at historic Fraunces Tavern Museum in Manhattan. It was the site of General George Washington's farewell address to his troops in 1783 and operates as a commercial business to this day. The trail ends at the recently rebuilt site of the George Washington Distillery Museum on the grounds of private citizen Washington's home and farm at Mount Vernon, Virginia. There they refer to that site as the gateway to the trail. Geographic chauvinism obviously is dictated by where you live. In between, visitors take in a string of historic taverns, whiskey museums, and distillery centers. One of them is in the West Overton Museums complex in Scottdale, Pennsylvania, a former distillery center and part of what is billed as the only pre-Civil War village in Pennsylvania still intact. Its heritage links the Old World and the New."

    4. Luntz, Perry (2008). Whiskey & Spirits For Dummies. Hoboken, New Jersey: Wiley. p. 125. ISBN 978-0-470-11769-9. Retrieved 2024-02-09 – via Internet Archive.

      The book notes: "The American Whiskey Trail, a list of whiskey-related sites collected by the Distilled Spirits Council of the United States, is a visible history of America's romance with distilled spirits. Some of the sites primarily associated with Bourbon and Tennessee whiskeys are listed in Chapter 6. The following list shows the locations associated primarily with American blended whiskey. Put the two together and you have one wonderful trip."

      The book lists Gadsby's Tavern Museum, George Washington's Distillery, Oliver Miller Homestead, Oscar Getz Museum of Whisky, West Overton Museums, and Woodsville Plantation.

    5. Schmid, Albert W. A. (2023). Bourbon 101. Lexington, Kentucky: University Press of Kentucky. ISBN 978-0-8131-9716-6. Retrieved 2024-02-09 – via Google Books.

      The book notes: "Once you have traveled the Kentucky Bourbon Trail, if you want to continue your “studies" on bourbon and American whiskey, you might consider a journey on the American Whiskey Trail. You can begin the trail wherever you like, but note that the George Washington Distillery in Mount Vernon, Virginia, is considered the “gateway” to the trail. There is some overlap between the Kentucky Bourbon Trail and the American Whiskey Trail, so you can decide to either revisit some locations or move on to those that you have not seen yet. Allegany Museum—Cumberland, Maryland. Angel's Envy—Louisville, Kentucky. Barton 1792 Distillery—Bardstown, Kentucky. Bradford House Museum—Washington, Pennsylvania. Buffalo Trace—Frankfort, Kentucky."

    6. Schlimm, John (2018). Moonshine: A Celebration of America's Original Rebel Spirit. New York: Citadel Press. ISBN 978-0-8065-3919-5. Retrieved 2024-02-09 – via Google Books.

      The book notes: "In 2004, the Distilled Spirits Council launched the American Whiskey Trail tourism initiative to celebrate the cultural heritage and history of spirits, such as moonshine, in America. The American Whiskey Trail includes museums, such as the Allegheny Museum in Cumberland, Maryland; Oscar Getz Museum of Whiskey History in Bardstown, Kentucky; and Whiskey Rebellion sites such as Oliver Miller Homestead in South Park, Pennsylvania, and Woodville Plantation, the John and Presley Neville House in Bridgeville, Pennsylvania. Distilleries are also part of the American Whiskey Trail. These include icons like Jack Daniel's in Lynchburg, Tennessee; Jim Beam in Clermont, Kentucky; Maker's Mark in Loretto, Kentucky; and Wild Turkey in Lawrenceburg, Tennessee. Also included are George Washington's Distillery at Historic Mount Vernon in Alexandria, Virginia; George Dickel in Tullahoma, Tennessee; Stitzel-Weller Distillery in Louisville, Kentucky; and Woodford Reserve in Versailles, Kentucky."

    7. Pitock, Todd (2014-04-17). "On the Whiskey Trail: A congenial tour of the birthplaces of an American native spirit". The Saturday Evening Post. Archived from the original on 2024-02-09. Retrieved 2024-02-09.

      The article notes: "To tell the story, the Distilled Spirits Council mapped a route it calls the American Whiskey Trail that runs in an arc from Washington, D.C., through Pennsylvania and Kentucky into Tennessee, and Dominic and I and a few other passionate whiskey-philes set out to follow it. The trail officially starts in Mount Vernon, Virginia, the home of America’s first president. ... the master distiller at George Dickel Whisky in Tullahoma, Tennessee, where we pick up the trail."

    8. Stecher, Nicolas (2017-11-20). "Five of the best distilleries on the American Whiskey Trail". The Guardian. Archived from the original on 2024-02-09. Retrieved 2024-02-09.

      The article notes: "The American Whiskey Trail is pinging the radar of whiskey-loving tourists. ... Despite being distilled in the Appalachian foothills for centuries, the idea of a formal “trail” is a relatively new concept. The “American Whiskey Trail” only dates back to 2004, when the Distilled Spirits Council recognised the growing interest and realised there was a need for a more organised visitor experience. The trail is not a linear route, rather it snakes around points of interest, such as historic bars, museums, coopers, and still-makers. The distilleries remain the real focus, however. These five are the most interesting distilleries I visited on the trail, though I should also give a mention to cooperages such as Brown-Forman and still-maker Vendome Copper & Brass, both in Louisville."

    9. Greenfield, Heather (2004-09-30). "Washington's distillery will be gateway for new American Whiskey Trail". Sentinel Tribune. Archived from the original on 2024-02-09. Retrieved 2024-02-09.

      The article notes: "The chief historian at Mount Vernon, the first president's Potomac-side mansion, disclosed plans Tuesday for the George Washington Distillery Museum, which will be become the gateway for a new American Whiskey Trail. The trail is meant to be enjoyed much like the spirit: slowly, as it will feature museums and historic sites in five states. ... The trail goes from the Fraunces Tavern Museum in New York City, where Washington bade farewell to his troops in 1783, through several museums and plantations in Pennsylvania. It includes distilleries in Virginia, Tennessee and Kentucky. ... Distillers and historians toasted Tuesday's opening of the trail with a historic rye whiskey, the first made on the grounds of Mount Vernon since Washington's distillery closed in 1797. "

    10. Brinkley, C. Mark (2007-05-07). "A spirited adventure - 7 great stops on the American Whiskey Trail". Army Times. Archived from the original on 2024-02-09. Retrieved 2024-02-09.

      The article notes: "This is where our education on the drink that nursed a newborn nation begins, in the heart of the Bluegrass State, home to five stops on the American Whiskey Trail. Sponsored by the Distilled Spirits Council of the United States, the trail consists of more than a dozen public distillery tours, museums and cultural sites across five states. Most are within easy striking distance for troops stationed on the East Coast. Some of the more popular stops on the trail, begun in 2004 to showcase the long-standing distilling tradition in the U.S., draw more than 50,000 visitors each year. ... There is no real batting order for the American Whiskey Trail. Like baseball fans hoping to visit every major league city or hikers who set out to conquer the national parks, whiskey aficionados can start wherever they see fit."

    11. Medley, Mark (2011-08-20). "That's the spirit: On the Southern U.S. Whiskey Trail". National Post. Archived from the original on 2024-02-09. Retrieved 2024-02-09.

      The article notes: "The industry doesn't just rely on consumption, but tourism, something I recently witnessed first-hand while following the "American Whiskey Trail" on a press trip organized by the Distilled Spirits Council of the United States. Admirers of Tennessee whisky or Kentucky bourbon can easily spend a week touring grand ol' distilleries like those of Jack Daniel's, Maker's Mark and Jim Beam.If the Whiskey Trail has a Disney World, it's Jack Daniel's sprawling distillery in Lynchburg, Tenn., which welcomes more than 250,000 tourists each year ... When you get past its quaint facade, the sheer scale of the 1,800-acre distillery becomes apparent; behind the old-timey buildings, folksy tour guides and magic cave spring (Whiskey Trail pilgrims soon learn that each distillery claims water superiority over the competition) ..."

    There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow the American Whiskey Trail to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

    Cunard (talk) 11:09, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think there's enough here to write an article. Every source says the same thing: the trail exists, it's an industry-created promotional tool to drive tourism, and it starts at the George Washington estate. I don't think that coverage is significant enough to allow us to write an article. Also, as I noted in my !vote, the second source you've provided reads as very promotional and I question its independence. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:11, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is no evidence that the article by the McClatchy-Tribune News Service's Mary Ann Anderson is a non-independent source. She is an established journalist who provided her opinion about the American Whiskey Trail. That her opinion is positive does not exclude her from being an independent reliable source.

There is enough information in the sources I found to support a standalone article that discusses each stop of the American Whiskey Trail. A merge to Distilled Spirits Council of the United States would lead to the loss of sourced content or be undue weight if everything is merged. Cunard (talk) 10:12, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough point regarding Anderson, but I was struck by how promotional the tone of that article was when I first read it. In any event, I do not believe that a standalone article that discusses each stop of the American Whiskey Trail would be encyclopedic. Per WP:N, an article needs to both meet GNG and WP:NOT. In this case, Wikipedia is not a travel guide, particularly where many of the sources you've cited are 5+ years old and some of the distilleries and other locations on the tour have very likely changed since those reviews were written. An article noting that the trail exists and describing each stop on the trail would quickly go out of date and would not be useful to readers. I think a redirect to DISCUS, perhaps merging a list of the current locations of the trial and citing to more recent reviews, would be appropriate. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:03, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Anderson 2007 discusses the geography, historical background, and the writer's perspective of each stop on the American Whiskey Trail. Stecher 2017 discusses the architecture, historical background, and the writer's perspective of five stops on the American Whiskey Trail. The geography, architecture, historical background, and writer's perspective will not is encyclopedic content that does not violate WP:NOTTRAVELGUIDE. Having this information enhances the reader's understanding of the subject. Cunard (talk) 22:44, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that those sources are reliable and contain significant coverage of the individual distilleries. However, as you noted, their descriptions are about the stops on the Trail, not the Trail itself, which is just a list of distilleries that was created as a promotional travel guide by an industry group. If anything, those reviews should be included in the articles on the relevant distilleries. I don't see the value of collecting reviews of disparate distilleries into one article just because those distilleries happen to be part of the same travel guide. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:18, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The topic of stops on the American Whiskey Trail meets Wikipedia:Notability#Stand-alone lists. I consider it encyclopedic to present an overview of each of the stops on the trail—their historical background, geography, and architecture—in a single annotated Wikipedia list article just like several independent reliable sources have done. Cunard (talk) 23:37, 11 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) The Herald (Benison) (talk) 05:07, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keli Price[edit]

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

Article is mostly promo added by IPs. Barely any encyclopedic content would remain if promo is removed. No sources found on this guy besides social media, IMDB, and self-published stuff. Catalyzzt (talk) 19:15, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Multiple edits over the past 24h appear to moot the AfD concerns, with encyclopedic content supported by legitimate, verifiable sourcing. Leading and other roles in notable films, page seems to fall squarely in WP:NACTOR. Memphro (talk) 20:15, 9 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 23:49, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dughmur[edit]

Dughmur (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 place does not seem to exist. The map points to a place called Arabic: شياء, romanized: šyā and I can't find any place with a similar spelling on CityPopulation which has a complete database for Oman sourced from the Omani institute of statistics. Broc (talk) 18:58, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Per nom, this place seems to be non-existent. I searching Google Maps, and found a location with the exact name located south-east of Muscat. Although, Google labels that place as a "tourist attraction", there weren't any villages nearby called by that name. 🛧Midori No Sora♪🛪 ( ☁＝☁＝✈) 01:34, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is a Daghmar that is a coastal village not too far from Sur, but at a completely different location and jurisdiction - the map points to Shiya. Given the transliterations from Arabic to English, I thin Daghmar is a valid article - it has around 4,000 people according to Citypopulation.de - but maybe needs to be created from scratch. SportingFlyer T·C 13:37, 10 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 23:52, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

D-Fuse AV[edit]

D-Fuse AV (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 good WP:ATD. Boleyn (talk) 18:21, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Broc (talk) 11:02, 8 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 23:50, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Marek Sobola[edit]

Marek 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)

I helped discover that the subject is probably running a sockpuppet farm; regardless, he’s a relentless self-promoter, but the claims to notability are decidedly slender. Most of the sourcing is more or less directly connected to him, which doesn’t encourage a finding of notability. — Biruitorul Talk 18:18, 6 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 23:50, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of the busiest airports in Balkan[edit]

List of the busiest airports in Balkan (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 notable. List on a random topic and a random geographic region with a random amount of elements (19). Are there reliable sources discussing the amount of airports in the Balkans or something like that that could show this article to be necessary? Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 18:11, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: as IST does not really fit in with the others as it is such a busy hub Chidgk1 (talk) 18:57, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do not Delete: The Article is only for information about air transport in the Balkan countries. It is about statistics and is suitable according wikipedia policies, is about statistics of the whole region, as its for Europe or for north America etc...every information is with source and references. I hope it can pass with success by the staff. Thank you. Illyrianzz (talk) 19:08, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 19:17, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Illyrianzz: Not specifically for this list but if you are interested in statistics generally please consider adding them to Wikidata - an advantage is that important annual stats can be updated in one place and used in several Wikipedia articles - for example in different language Wikipedias Chidgk1 (talk) 06:49, 7 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) 18:46, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bryan Gervais de Liyis[edit]

Bryan Gervais de Liyis (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:NBLP; some refs are WP:BLPSPS (instagram, linkedin) and most others only mention the subject in passing; possibly written by the subject (WP:COI), etc. As written, this appears to be essentially a self-published CV. That said, the subject – who is a medical school student – sounds like a very serious and dedicated person who may well go on to accomplish great things that will lead to ample sources that could establish future WP:GNG. Cl3phact0 (talk) 18:02, 6 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) asilvering (talk) 04:04, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Brian Campeau[edit]

Brian Campeau (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 it meets WP:MUSICBIO or WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 18:00, 6 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. It's been suggested that there may be more coverage coming soon, but for now it's a delete. WP:REFUND is the place to go to get the article restored to draft when you're ready. Stifle (talk) 09:21, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Brittany Spanos[edit]

Brittany Spanos (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)
As I wrote in my PROD which was removed:

I can find plenty of Rolling Stone bylines from Spanos, and she is a writer I'm familiar with (I even follow her on Twitter), but I don't see any reliable coverage that indicates major notability. Of the sources here, two are bios from her employers, and the third is WP:FORBESCON, and I couldn't find anything else.

Since that removal, one more source has been added, but it's a mostly primary-source interview. Personally, I still don't see notability, and I don't think having her byline appear frequently on Wikipedia would be enough to get her there. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 16:28, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Journalism, Music, and New York. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 16:28, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Frequently quoted as a SME in pop music, but has only ever been the subject of coverage for her Taylor Swift course at the Clive Davis Department of Recorded Music, and only in WP:NEWSPRIMARY sources. A redirect/merge would requrie a mention at the target, which would be undue. Mach61 (talk) 18:04, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: She's got a by line at Rolling Stone, prior to which it appears that she was quite active in other known publications. The coverage of her Taylor Swift course at NYU is worldwide and in major newspapers. I haven't invested too much time digging here, but she seems like someone we would want to keep in this encyclopaedia. Cheers, Cl3phact0 (talk) 19:33, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 20:18, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Agree with the PROD, very much a music journalist, but hardly anything about the individual. This NPR interview is about all I could find [43], she talks about Taylor Swift... Nothing for coverage of Spanos herself found. Oaktree b (talk) 20:40, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: This discusses an article Spanos wrote [44], she's briefly discussed here [45]. Still not sure we have enough for notability yet. Oaktree b (talk) 20:44, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: agree she is borderline on general notability criteria, but that actually seems to me a sign that these criteria don't work very well for journalists. I gave her a stub after noticing that her music journalism is cited on over 1,200 wikipedia pages, which is highly unusual. Dsp13 (talk) 09:18, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That's remarkable. Page after page of "Brittany Spanos opined", "according to Brittany Spanos", "Brittany Spanos of Rolling Stone writes", "Brittany Spanos, writing for The Village Voice", etc., and that's only the references to her opinions, criticism, and writing – add to that her articles being used as WP:RS references in page after page of our music related articles and you get someone of a certain gravitas. Not an inconsequential figure in her field: would WP:ANYBIO (point 2) apply? -- Cl3phact0 (talk) 17:34, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think these are a "new concept, theory or technique". Oaktree b (talk) 18:02, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, I meant this: "The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in a specific field" (in the context of my comment above). Cheers, Cl3phact0 (talk) 18:06, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment: Citation on 1200 different wikipedia pages does feel like a contribution to the enduring historical record in the field of music/music journalism. Amanda bee (talk) 01:30, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If we're stretching this hard just to reach "borderline", then I still lean toward non-notable. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 19:49, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'll give it "prolific journalist", but I don't see notability for a stand-alone article. I wouldn't be upset if she was mentioned in a few lines in the article about the magazine (Rolling Stone), but I don't see enough coverage to warrant an article. I agree she should have an article based on the volume of her work alone, but there are no sources we can use. Oaktree b (talk) 20:52, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We have over 1,000 Pages that link to "Brittany Spanos". Her work is cited more often than Ellen Willis's (here on enwiki). If we accept that Wikipedia is "part of the enduring historical record", then her notability doesn't feel like a stretch to me. -- Cl3phact0 (talk) 21:15, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment whether other pages link to this woman or even use her pieces is irrelevant to notability. Interviews or things she wrote herself wouldn't count towards that either when not independent of the subject. To warrant an article, what we would need is third-party pieces (with more than just a cumulative paragraph) discussing Spanos. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 00:33, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not convinced. It seems like we may be depriving readers of useful information by being overly proscriptive. Perhaps, if it isn't clear, the definition of WP:ANYBIO needs a tweak? -- Cl3phact0 (talk) 09:23, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I've added a few details and additional references to the article (including a WSJ piece). I think we may now be over the GNG line without further ado. -- Cl3phact0 (talk) 12:19, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Those are stories about the course, which only briefly mention Spanos, I still don't think it's enough for notability. Oaktree b (talk) 13:27, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I had no idea who Spanos was before spotting this AfD, and I have no particular interest in the subject (and probably wouldn't be able to identify a Taylor Swift song if it fell on my head), however, having now spent a fair amount time absorbing information about both, I respectfully disagree. In my view, there's plenty of coverage about Spanos herself – just need to look for it. I'm now more convinced we should keep this article. That said, I'll park it here for now and leave this to more experienced folks than myself. Cheers, Cl3phact0 (talk) 13:39, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
PS: Per WP:APPNOTE, I've mentioned this article on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Women in Red and am making that known here as a matter of "good practice". -- Cl3phact0 (talk) 14:06, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The Vulture source is an interview and doesn't count for notability. Regardless of the Swifty class, BIO1E applies. Journalists write about others and most journalists are never the subject of coverage even if the journalist is prolific. Oaktree has already made this case. Chris Troutman (talk) 15:58, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: She's presenting at an academic conference in a few weeks [46], hopefully which will publish something we could use under AUTHOR or ACADEMIC notability. Oaktree b (talk) 16:52, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for the moment per Oaktree, but maybe later. Nikkimaria (talk) 05:10, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • (not sure how much weight you should give me, as I created the stub, but) Keep. I don't keep up with American pop culture, but she seems serious. Her Rolling Stone journalism is fairly well cited on Google Books (certainly compared to the average author), though citations are dispersed across many shorter pieces. I added a short paragraph on interviews and longer pieces repeatedly cited by books. Dsp13 (talk) 09:49, 9 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. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:28, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of programmes broadcast by HTV[edit]

AfDs for this article:
List of programmes broadcast by HTV (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)

Soft delete contested by recreation without improvement. Still [f]ails NLIST, CLN and NOTTVGUIDE. A massive unsourced programming guide, very very few wls, no CLN value, no sources showing this meets NLIST. Nothing sourced to merge, no proper redirect target * Pppery * it has begun... 16:27, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, for context Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of television programmes broadcast by Vietnam Television (VTV) was later closed as delete rather than soft delete, and List of programmes broadcast by Vietnam Television was G4'd earlier today. Agree with lack of sources and no evidence of NLIST, repeated recreation is starting to become a bit annoying. ChaotıċEnby(talk · contribs) 16:31, 6 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) The Herald (Benison) (talk) 05:17, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Talent scheduling[edit]

Talent scheduling (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 topic lacks notability in academia. The article is essentially based on two references, ref1: "Optimal scheduling in film production to minimize talent hold cost" ( Cited by 52), ref2 "Iterative local search methods for the talent scheduling problem" (Cited by 7). Both references are lacking citations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 桃花影落飞神剑 (talk • contribs) 16:20, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, Mathematics, and Computing. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:22, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is clearly a well-defined and specific problem, for which the sourcing is not great but is much stronger than the nomination statement claims. Google Scholar finds 141 hits for talent scheduling, 11 with it in the title, all of the titled ones looking relevant. As well as the 1993 reference already in the article, another early one is "A genetic algorithm for the talent scheduling problem", 1994. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:17, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This topic is just a problem setting in scheduling, not worth as an article. You can find over one hundred problem settings in this link https://www.csplib.org/Problems/ . This so-called "Talent scheduling" is just one (prob039 The Rehearsal Problem) among these over one hundred problem settings. Peach Blossom 01:24, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    CSPLib is for modelling problems as constraint satisfaction problems. Problems in the list can be notable (e.g. prob017 Ramsey numbers, prob054 N-Queens, and prob057 Killer Sudoku) or non-notable. I don't think inclusion in a list might possibly harm notability of a subject: either the list is a good source that helps establish notability, or the list is not good in which case it doesn't add anything to notability. –HTinC23 (talk) 01:49, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There are plenty of reliable secondary sources on the subject e.g. the review part of [47]. High citation is not a WP:GNG requirement on the sources. It may be taken into account when judging reliability, but I don't think that is a problem with the sources here.–HTinC23 (talk) 02:08, 7 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. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:37, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, You Are Ferocious[edit]

Yes, You Are Ferocious (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)

Been on the CAT:NN list for 10+ years and never been referenced correctly. Seems to be non-notable. Unable to identify anything about them. Fails WP:SIGCOV. scope_creepTalk 16:04, 6 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 00:03, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ebrahim Dahodwala[edit]

Ebrahim Dahodwala (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 accountant doing his job, hardly anything of note, fails WP:GNG. HistoriesUnveiler (talk) 15:53, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Pakistan. Shellwood (talk) 15:59, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: First president of the ICAP might be notable, but you'll need tons of sourcing about it. I can't find anything on this person, perhaps more in the local language media. Oaktree b (talk) 20:50, 6 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 Keith J. Krach as a viable ATD. While there is not currently consensus to merge, the history remains should that eventuate. Star Mississippi 04:03, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Krach Institute for Tech Diplomacy at Purdue[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Krach Institute for Tech Diplomacy at Purdue (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 meet WP:ORGCRITE. Previously soft-deleted, recreation was requested by the same editor, who has stated on their user page that their sole goal here on Wikipedia is to write an article on this topic, and has made no further improvements since restoration to the state of the last AfD. signed, Rosguill talk 19:19, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Politics, Indiana, and Washington, D.C.. signed, Rosguill talk 19:19, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete there are a lot of sources, but I agree with the relatively strict WP:ORGCRITE. SportingFlyer T·C 12:48, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge selectively to Keith J. Krach, who appears to have founded this institute and serves as its chairman. There's some coverage here from independent sources, though I'm a bit doubtful as to whether this passes WP:NGO on its own. But merging it into the article on Krach (perhaps as a standalone section) seems reasonable. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 01:18, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy as promotional It needs cleanup and many of the sources are weak, not independent, or about Keith Krach - but these three sources are fairly convincing: [48][49][50] . We could just end up back here each time a new article is published. I would support speedy deletion for outright promotion based on Rosguill's link to the article creator's own statement on his user talk page, and the poor quality of the article. Ben Azura (talk) 14:52, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Those sources don't establish notability, they're press releases. signed, Rosguill talk 14:59, 6 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) 15:46, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I don't understand why the deletion of this page is so important. I believe all the people here are well versed in Wikipedia and they can fix the page to help the readers and the Wikipedia community. I created this page to help people I don't know why its being portrayed like I committed some type of sin. I only tried to create a full informative page and why would I promote anything and what benefit I can get from it? I read and researched extensively about Wikipedia guidelines and tutorials then finalized the content, so I guess you can help by editing the page because I know it contains a lot of reliable sources and the subject is notable not sure why its being denied as something that is not notable, I feel maybe de to political aspect or I'm not sure. TBH I'm pretty disappointed at the moment.... Not a single person is interested in editing the page and fixing it to the level they think is fine... Anyway, I respect opinions and I won't mind the outcome. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tickingtime (talk • contribs) 17:08, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And I read WP:ORGRITE the primary criteria already verifies its notability but I'll leave it maybe I'm knocking at the wrong door. Tickingtime (talk) 17:15, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You have yet to actually identify any, let alone multiple, independent secondary sources with significant coverage of the subject. The currently-cited sources have been dismissed as a combination of press releases and mere mentions in more reliable sources that do not include significant coverage of the subject; you can present a counter argument, but you need to make reference to actual, specific sources and make the case for their independence, depth and reliability. signed, Rosguill talk 17:24, 11 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. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:24, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WRAP-LD[edit]

WRAP-LD (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 does not have the WP:SIGCOV from secondary sources to meet the WP:GNG. Let'srun (talk) 14:26, 6 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) 15:54, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Marquee Broadcasting[edit]

Marquee Broadcasting (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 does not meet the WP:NCORP due to a lack of significant coverage about the company. Sources are all either covering routine business transactions or are primary. Let'srun (talk) 14:22, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There is absolutely no reason this page should be deleted. Marquee is a smaller broadcaster which does not instantly mean the page should be deleted. It is a fairly young company as well, which means it does not have the extensive history of a broadcaster like Tegna (the former Gannett), but this does not automatically mean it should be deleted. KansasCityKSMO (talk) 00:57, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Oh look, there are sources, like, there are sources. It shows that it's notable. Like, this whole AfD makes no sense at all, like, what's the point of this AfD?? mer764KCTV(Talk) 03:13, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article has good notability to the point that this AfD shouldn't have been made. OWaunTon (talk) 15:43, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP ((KmTvFan [User:Kmtvfan|me]] (talk to me 22:47, 10 February 2024 (UTC)))[reply]

Comment: I won't vote without a BEFORE search, but I'm entirely unconvinced any of the sources in article are sufficient for WP:CORPDEPTH Mach61 (talk) 17:15, 11 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 Provincial Court of Manitoba. ✗plicit 00:04, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

John Combs[edit]

John Combs (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)

BLP, 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. BLPs require strong sourcing. Ping me if sources are added to article that meet WP:SIGCOV and are not routine mill news.  // Timothy :: talk  05:58, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Law, and Canada. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 07:08, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, without prejudice against recreation in the future if somebody can write and source something better than this. The Provincial Court of Manitoba is the lower trial court, meaning that serving on it isn't an "inherent" notability freebie in and of itself — it's a level at which a judge can have an article if he clears WP:GNG on his sourceability, but doesn't get to have an article if he doesn't clear GNG on his sourceability. Bearcat (talk) 20:16, 28 January 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 10:59, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:17, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: Searching ProQuest only found mentions of him regarding criminal cases he presided over and that retired in 2021. S0091 (talk) 16:44, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Provincial Court of Manitoba and create an anchor for John Combs in the table of former judges: My BEFORE search turned out the same as Timothy and S0091. I propose redirecting as an ATD. voorts (talk/contributions) 18:42, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Redirect make sense. Pinging @Bearcat and @TimothyBlue: for their opinion. S0091 (talk) 19:00, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't feel particularly strongly about whether a redirect is necessary or not, but wouldn't raise an objection if that was the consensus. Bearcat (talk) 17:13, 13 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. No argument for deletion has been advanced except the nominating editor's. A merge can be proposed and discussed on the relevant talk page outside of AfD. (non-admin closure) IgnatiusofLondon (talk) 03:32, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ian Frodsham[edit]

Ian Frodsham (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 around for a long time. Footballer who perished before making his debut for a big club, brings WP:ONEEVENT and WP:NOTMEMORIAL into question. Despite there being a significant coverage cited in the article already, it doesn't necessarily mean that the subject should have its own article. A more natural place to discuss the subject would be at 1994–95 Liverpool F.C. season. Geschichte (talk) 14:09, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Generally I find just about anyone with a feature in The Athletic to be notable; especially one with a feature decades after his death. Haven't looked for other sources yet. BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:27, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:56, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:57, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:57, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:57, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Liverpool F.C. Reserves and Academy. Although his own career was cut short and thus cannot meet notability requirements, we are told that the academy has an Ian Frodsham Indoor Arena and an Ian Frodsham Memorial Award, neither of which get a mention on the Academy page (although the award itself seems to be listed but unnamed). So that is a very small amount of mergeable content that would improve an existing page. Whether a sentence or two on Frodsham (to explain why there is a memorial) is called for would be an editorial decision for that page. The redirect left by a merge is also plausible. Anyone searching for Frodsham is most likely looking for something to do with the academy and the eponymous award or arena. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 18:11, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 20:59, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment: Besides The Athletic feature (which to be clear, doesn't give anyone inherent notability), found [[51]] and [[52]]. Do think that WP:ONEEVENT argument does have some validity. Let'srun (talk) 13:09, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per sources above (primarily The Athletic) which show notability. I imagine there's more offline newspaper sources. GiantSnowman 19:29, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect per Sirfurboy I am total agreement here with him. I don't see enough of a qualifier for his own article, however it's certainly enough to merge and note in the reserves article. Govvy (talk) 10:59, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The extensive and detailed Athletic article is from a quarter-century after he died. This isn't just the typical "promising athlete dies young" one-time coverage. Not surprisingly with a major local tournament and a significant building named after him, there's ongoing local coverage, such as this and this - which alone doesn't amount to much, but ongoing it is going to result in searches on this topic. There'seven some coverage from his youth like this and this. There was coverage when it was announced by the club that he was fighting cancer, a year before he died. And there was coverage in both England and Wales when he died in 1996, with The People noting that his "fight against cancer touched the hearts of millions of People readers" while another paper said that "was already being spoken of as a future England international". This looks like a WP:BEFORE failure. Nfitz (talk) 20:51, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – Per above. Even without acting, this type of event corroborates an important chapter in the history of Liverpool FC as a club. With the presentation of the sources above, an article of its own is sustainable. Svartner (talk) 20:39, 12 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 00:06, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cecilia Méndez[edit]

Cecilia Méndez (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)

Seems to be a successful model but I couldn't find enough sources to verify she meets WP:NMODEL or WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 13:56, 6 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. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:33, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

FK Kunice[edit]

FK Kunice (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 meet WP:GNG, WP:NORG criteria. The club has never played in a professional Czech competition (top two tiers) and only briefly appeared in the 3rd tier in 2010–11. FromCzech (talk) 13:47, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - I did some further research on this team, having originally created the page. The club played four seasons, not one, in the third tier of Czech football. They also received coverage from irozhlas (Czech Radio), denik and idnes, who ran an article (now added as a reference) reviewing the atmosphere of one of their league matches, which I take as significant coverage. C679 12:35, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@GiantSnowman: Pinging you per your comments on sourcing. C679 12:36, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep references provided. The nominators claim that is only played in the third tier for one year is false. Perhaps User:FromCzech could withdraw their nomination. Nfitz (talk) 20:21, 10 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. Consensus established for GNG and SIGCOV. (non-admin closure) The Herald (Benison) (talk) 05:18, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

FC Morkovice[edit]

FC Morkovice (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 meet WP:GNG, WP:NORG criteria. The club has never played in a professional Czech competition (top two tiers), not even in the 3rd tier. FromCzech (talk) 13:44, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep per sources at cs:FC Morkovice Govvy (talk) 16:56, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Which exactly? There are only brief mentions and result databases, if I see correctly. FromCzech (talk) 17:17, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:02, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment @FromCzech: I said weak keep per the combination of the sources on that article and some other stuff online like, [53], [54], there is are a couple of sources that have bits here and there, match reports and such. Not exactly SIGNOV, but a basic passing for GNG in my opinion. Although the sourcing is pretty broken on the other wiki article. I said weak keep, but saying that, it can go the other way, I just felt maybe enough around. Govvy (talk) 19:26, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 20:59, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm not Czech, but there has never been a criterion mandating that a club has played on the two highest levels. I pity the state of Czech media if nobody has written about this. Geschichte (talk) 14:54, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. GiantSnowman 19:29, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I'm not 100% convinced, but willing to AGF the info below about there being other sources out there, in addition to the ones already located. GiantSnowman 19:25, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Per Govvy. Searching up "FC Morkovice site:idnes.cz" and "FC Morkovice site:denik.cz" turn up some results . Article needs imprvement, not deltion. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 21:15, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Govvy provided a database with results for betting and a wikipedia mirror. Idnes.cz is actually rajce.idnes.cz, which is a platform for sharing photos. So the only reasonable sources could be from denik.cz, but articles like "football players' brawl" do not seem to me to be proof of notability. The article would need improvement only if there was anything to draw from. FromCzech (talk) 11:06, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – Per @FromCzech. The club is from lower divisions and do not appear to have the material to support WP:SIGCOV. Svartner (talk) 19:27, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - despite being from a lower level, as noted above, there is material that supports WP:SIGCOV. In addition to what's been provided/discussed above, there's media coverage about some of their bigger games - such as this. Nfitz (talk) 20:19, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - in addition to the material noted by @Nfitz, I was able to find another reference, both of which I have incorporated into the article. As @Das osmnezz mentioned above, this article needs improvement, not deletion. C679 12:08, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It's probably time to ping the User:GreatestSnowman. :) Nfitz (talk) 18:08, 11 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 13:21, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Helena Andreevna Sangushko[edit]

Helena Andreevna Sangushko (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 likely suffers from major WP:OR (only linked sources are someone's genealogy page, other sources are hard to verify). The subject does not appear notable (the article is just a list of family relations, and in fact 90% of it seems to be about other people - her relatives). See related ongoing AfDs on articles created by the same author: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hans Skopovny, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dubikowski family with Ostoja coat of arms. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 12:42, 6 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 13:21, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Google Modular Data Center[edit]

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

The article has been pointed out as a possible hoax filled with misinformation. You can see the talk page. I couldn't find reliable coverage of the actual subject of the article without the ones copied from this article in mirror sites. The article's sources showcase that Google has a patent, but there's no proof or coverage where it establishes that it got developed. X (talk) 12:35, 6 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 13:27, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unmistakable[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Unmistakable (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 the requirements of WP:NALBUM. Has been lacking any sources since 2019. I have searched and can’t find any reliable independent secondary sources required to establish notability. Dan arndt (talk) 12:08, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Found no reliable coverage in my own search. There is another album of the same name by Jo Dee Messina (which appears to be the subject of all prior AfDs), so this can't be redirected to one artist without losing out on navigability to the other. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 14:50, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - the article has been through the AfD process several times before - the result was Delete, however in both cases the article was re-created without addressing the issue of its lack of references. Given the article is about a 2008 album, if there are no sources for it now it is highly unlikely that there will ever be adequate sources and as such if at the conclusion of this AfD it is decided to delete there may be grounds to WP:SALT as well. Dan arndt (talk) 01:46, 7 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 13:30, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Andrea Mohr[edit]

Andrea Mohr (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)

She doesn't appear to meet WP:BIO or WP:GNG, or have a suitable WP:ATD. Boleyn (talk) 11:09, 6 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. ✗plicit 13:31, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Against Happiness[edit]

Against Happiness (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:NBOOK or WP:GNG. Ambiguous title, so redirect anywhere could be misleading. Non-notable author. Boleyn (talk) 10:57, 6 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 13:39, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Starry (musician)[edit]

Starry (musician) (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 yet notable per WP:MUSICBIO. All I can find in an online search in English is about the same as the current sources: a mix of interviews (WP:PRIMARY) in RS like Daily Trust, Daily Nigerian and Nigerian Tribune, and puff pieces on music blogs. The RS also pretty consistently describe her as "upcoming", "budding", etc. She's put out a single EP, with no charts in evidence, the sources cited for regular radio rotation are music blogs, and the station named isn't national per WP:MUSICBIO #11. Wikishovel (talk) 09:06, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:MUSICBIO #11 says "Has been placed in rotation nationally by a major radio or music television network", and HotFM is not a national radio station. Wikishovel (talk) 14:30, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there. That piece from Leadership is obviously a paid piece, I know that. Even if it is not, the headline is disproportionate to the content. Moreover, Hot FM is not a national radio station, so I am curious how they can achieve a national rotation. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 14:47, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Vanderwaalforces I see hot FM has branches in major cities like Lagos, Abuja, Oweri, Port Harcourt [59] Princeisrael2728 (talk) 15:14, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That doesn't make it a national radio, not as far as I can tell. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 15:19, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Vanderwaalforces the cite also mention Vybes FM and others
That means hot FM was not the only radio which played the song Princeisrael2728 (talk) 11:15, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 10:52, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: The guideline states may be notable if they meet at least one of the criteria and WP:MUSICBIO #11 is a weak claim for notability even if supported, especially for a contemporary musician where in-depth coverage by independent RS should be easily available. All of the sources say essentially the same things and/or are interviews and were all published within a month which suggests PR and also fails WP:SUSTAINED. S0091 (talk) 19:33, 12 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 13:33, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Zero Install[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Zero Install (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 also raises concerns regarding its notability. Despite thorough research, I was unable to locate reliable sources that provide comprehensive and in-depth coverage of the topic, as stipulated by the guidelines outlined in WP:SIGCOV. Furthermore, the article fails to meet the mandatory requirement of WP:NSOFT. This policy ensures that articles of this nature adhere to specific criteria. Barseghian Lilia (talk) 10:52, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 10:52, 6 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) The Herald (Benison) (talk) 05:22, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Joanne Lees[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Joanne Lees (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)

Clear example of WP:COATRACK. Not notable except for WP:ONEEVENT which includes her sole published book No Turning Back and telemovie both about the event. No longer a suspect either since 2005 conviction of Murdoch. She is famous so has lots of coverage in reliable sources but this is not the same as being notable in her own right. This event has separate articles about Murder of Peter Falconio and Bradley John Murdoch who are the main victim and perpetrator respectively. Darrelljon (talk) 10:20, 6 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 10:28, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Apno Nepal Apno Gaurab[edit]

Apno Nepal Apno Gaurab (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 TV program exits, but there is not a single independent source to consider it as a notable program. For those wishing to check in native language, use the translated title :"आफ्नो नेपाल आफ्नो गौरव" nirmal (talk) 10:12, 6 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. Even if we assume that WP:NJOURNALS, while being a non-binding essay, is currently our best-practice on the topic, the Keep views have still failed to establish how the article meets NJOURNALS (other than the sweeping Criterion 1.b, which failed to reach consensus), and have not adequately refuted the claims it fails even under these overly permissive criteria. Kudos to Ritchie333 for the final relist, which allowed participants another week to address the GNG and NJOURNALS concerns. This discussion is also echoed in a similar AfD - WP:Articles for deletion/European Journal for Philosophy of Religion. Owen× ☎ 00:13, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jordan Medical Journal[edit]

Jordan Medical Journal (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 exists, but I couldn't find the sources to show it is notable. I may be missing something though from not reading Arabic. This has been in CAT:NN for 14 years; hopefully we can get this resolved. Boleyn (talk) 20:45, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: WP:NJOURNALS is not a notability guideline, and does not address nominator's implicit WP:DEL-REASON#8 rationale. More discussion around established policies and guidelines would be helpful in determining notability.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 18:04, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Indexed in Scopus, meets NJournals. --Randykitty (talk) 09:10, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • As for the relist comment: NJournals explains why I think this has in-depth coverage meeting GNG. (And yes, I know it's an essay). --Randykitty (talk) 16:09, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    How would a handful of autogenerated stats from one source meet GNG? JoelleJay (talk) 03:50, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No evidence that the subject meets GNG, which is the only relevant guideline. Inclusion in selective indices does not confer or predict SIGCOV in IRS.
JoelleJay (talk) 01:13, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Certainly a real journal with a real board and real articles. But there are no reliable independent sources covering it in non-trivial detail. So it doesn't meet our inclusion guidelines. It's possible there is a merge target but I can't see one where this wouldn't be WP:UNDUE weight. Hobit (talk) 06:43, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Headbomb's reasoning above. Llajwa (talk) 21:08, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • My concern is that none of those things have anything to do with our inclusion policy. The topic doesn't meet the GNG and it doesn't meet any SNG. Hobit (talk) 04:50, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my vote - I misjudged. Llajwa (talk) 15:09, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 15:53, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm trying to parse the keep arguments. Existing for a long time isn't a reason we keep anything. And I'm really unclear what part of the (essay) NJOURNALS folks think is met. @Headbomb: @Randykitty:. I don't see how C1, C2 or C3 are met. I'm assuming you both are using C1.b which has a note that that criteria lacks consensus? Is there anything else? Hobit (talk) 18:08, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    See WP:BADGER. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 21:46, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    See WP:VAGUEWAVE. Hobit (talk) 22:08, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I closed this as "no consensus", but was challenged, so I am relisting.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:06, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Additional discussion leading to the above relist is at User talk:Ritchie333#Two AfD closes. Hobit (talk) 14:31, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • We still have zero evidence of GNG coverage. Autogenerated stats by the indexing services journals apply to join are clearly not IRS SIGCOV, not least because if they were, the same amount and type of data appearing in any reliable index would also count (not just for the "selective" ones), as would the WAY more extensive stats autogenerated for every paper author by Scopus. If calling someone's Scopus profile "SIGCOV" would be risible, the same is obviously true for the journal. JoelleJay (talk) 18:55, 12 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 Draftify‎. Moving to draft per consensus. (non-admin closure) The Herald (Benison) (talk) 04:17, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bill Hutchens[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Bill Hutchens (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)

Ranges from press releases, "community contributor"s, and other non-WP:INDEPENDENT sources. Aside from possible WP:UPE, idependent/reliable sources here only mention Bill Hutchens per WP:ROUTINE. TLA (talk) 01:34, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 00:44, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. The fact that he was in many films that have articles and references suggest that it should be kept. Bduke (talk) 05:34, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Per the criteria in WP:NACTOR he needs to have some leading roles, not any roles. All these roles could have been non-leading. I will see if I can do some further research in this and post a vote later. Royal88888 (talk) 01:42, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep. after a review of his credits, I do not think he meets WP:NACTOR, but he meets WP:BASIC. In particular, these 2 articles here would work towards notability: Shokya.com and newexpressnews.com. Royal88888 (talk) 07:07, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to draft; the article indicates that he was "on the set" of a 2023 production, and had another in post-production, apparently, since 2019. If new coverage arises on the subject's involvement with either of these, the article can be submitted to restoration to mainspace. BD2412 T 01:14, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 03:00, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete refbombed spam lacking coverage in independent reliable sources. Probable UPE with a good chance of socking. Two sources mentioned above are rehashes of press releases so lack independence. Just being in films is not enough, needs significant roles. duffbeerforme (talk) 21:55, 30 January 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, CycloneYoris talk! 08:59, 6 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) The Herald (Benison) (talk) 03:52, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sunnydale High Yearbook[edit]

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

Subject fails WP:NBOOK Chris Troutman (talk) 00:46, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science fiction and fantasy and Television. Chris Troutman (talk) 00:46, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to List of Buffy the Vampire Slayer novels as a section. BD2412 T 01:07, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, plot summaries are allowed without sourcing (the plot makes up the better part of the page) and Buffy as a topic is notable per its being taught in multiple college level courses. If merged, on the other hand, do closers or nominators assure that it is an accurate merge with almost all of the pertinent information being brought over (including the plot)? The plot and other information on this unsourced page has been seen by multiple editors and readers, many of them canon fans of Buffy, without anyone pointing out existing obvious errors in the descriptor or the in-universe plot. Randy Kryn (talk) 01:37, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Plot summaries may be allowed without sourcing, but articles consisting primarily thereof are explicitly not. Per WP:PRIMARY: Do not base an entire article on primary sources, and be cautious about basing large passages on them. See also MOS:WAF. The notability of the franchise is a red herring, as it has no bearing on whether this topic should have a stand-alone article. TompaDompa (talk) 06:11, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Literature. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:42, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to List of Buffy the Vampire Slayer novels#Buffy season 3, like it was in December. Deleting sub-topics when they could be redirected is not helpful. - Sumanuil. (talk to me) 05:01, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to List of Buffy the Vampire Slayer novels#Buffy season 3 - The article is unsourced, and I'm not finding much in the way of coverage in reliable sources. This short piece is the only review I can find, making this a failure of WP:NBOOK. Rorshacma (talk) 07:54, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per Rorshacma. Not finding enough sources for WP:SIGCOV. Not much to preserve, but it's a valid redirect term, and can be covered at the target article. Shooterwalker (talk) 21:23, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as it has sufficient RS coverage:
[63] footnotes omitted from quote.
Negative review in EW.
Enduring coverage via a 20th anniversary article mention: "Additionally there’s a “Sunnydale High Yearbook Contest” across the country where the grand prize is a trip to San Diego for Comic Con. All fans have to do is upload their high school class photos to Twitter and Facebook with their best Buffy caption in the form of a “senior quote.”" THR.
Overall WP:NBOOK #1 is met. Jclemens (talk) 22:04, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I don't think that last source is about this book - its about a contest that occurred on social media in 2017, and the book that this article is about was released in 1999. That first source is also very short on actual coverage on the book - the part you quoted is basically the entirety of the coverage in the entire paper on the book, which I don't believe is WP:SIGCOV. Rorshacma (talk) 16:52, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This is probably correct, but if we are going to cover successive references to a fictional yearbook from a rather popular high-school-based (well, at least the first three seasons) show, this is where it would go. That is, even if this aspect of the topic isn't covered by the current article that focuses only on the specific tie-in product, it would be covered in a thoroughly complete encyclopedia article by this title. Jclemens (talk) 04:03, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Keep or redirect?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 08:55, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent ping. I know of no editor who is better able to find RS book reviews: if it's there, Cunard can find it. Jclemens (talk) 06:18, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the ping and the kind words. Cunard (talk) 10:59, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. Wikipedia:Notability (books)#Criteria says:

    A book is presumed notable if it verifiably meets, through reliable sources, at least one of the following criteria:

    1. The book has been the subject of two or more non-trivial published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself. This can include published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, other books, television documentaries, bestseller lists, and reviews. This excludes media re-prints of press releases, flap copy, or other publications where the author, its publisher, agent, or other self-interested parties advertise or speak about the book.
    Sources
    1. Macnaughtan, Don (2011). The Buffyverse Catalog: A Complete Guide to Buffy the Vampire Slayer and Angel in Print, Film, Television, Comics, Games and Other Media, 1992–2010. Jefferson, North Carolina: McFarland & Company. ISBN 978-1-4766-2207-1. Retrieved 2024-02-08 – via Google Books.

      The book notes: "Golden, Christopher, and Nancy Holder. Sunnydale High Yearbook. New York: Simon, 1999. Print. 112p. A fully realized fake yearbook for the Sunnydale High graduating class of '99, many of whom survived the graduation ceremony and went on to future careers. There are reports on Homecoming, including runners-up Cordelia Chase and Buffy Summers, Homecoming fashion perspectives from Harmony Kendall, and reports from the chess, computer, dance, and drama clubs. There are updates on prime student hangouts around Sunnydale, including The Bronze, the Zoo, Putters' Green, the Mall, and the Sun Cinema. The swim team had an unfortunate year, with the coach and several members mysteriously missing. The "In Memoriam” section at the back is inevitably rather long, and includes Herbert the Pig, school mascot. On the bright side, the school had the lowest annual mortality rate in recent history."

    2. Baldwin, Kristen (1999-11-19). "Buffy the Vampire Slayer: Sunnydale High Yearbook". Entertainment Weekly. EBSCOhost 2502762. Archived from the original on 2024-02-08. Retrieved 2024-02-08.

      The review notes: "Ultimately, Yearbook scrapes the bottom of the trivia sarcophagus: Even having seen every episode, I couldn’t place some of the so-called key references, like the endless rosters of Sunnydale’s sports teams. About as informative as a rerun—and not nearly as entertaining. C-"

    3. Kushman, Rick (1999-11-28). "Music gifts a big part of the TV picture. CDs aplenty for shows new and old; there's even a high-school yearbook". The Sacramento Bee. Archived from the original on 2024-02-08. Retrieved 2024-02-08 – via Newspapers.com.

      The article notes: "... this year there's one gift that will make you look smart, funny and cool. And, really, that's why we give gifts, isn't it? To look cool? It's "The Sunnydale High 1999 Yearbook" (Pocket Books, $16.95). That's the school that just graduated Buffy Summers, the once-in-a-generation slayer, enemy of vampires, demons and other evil creatures with bad skin. What we've got here is one of the best TV tie-in gifts in years, a clever connection to "Buffy the Vampire Slayer" that's as ironic as the series. To sum up the year, the yearbook gushes: "We're proud to say the class of '99 has the lowest mortality rate of any graduating class." It's hard to compete with that kind of achievement, but here are a few more gift ideas for people who just love TV. It comes with senior class photos and summaries, pictures of activities (proms, graduation, demon attacks), and autographs to Buffy (Willow wrote: "You made me grow. Not in a getting bigger way. Another way.")."

    4. Graves, Stephanie A. (2019). "The Transtextual Road Trip: Buffy the Vampire Slayer, Supernatural, and Televisual Forebears". In Kitchens, Juliette C.; Hawk, Julie (eds.). Transmediating the Whedonverse(s). Cham: Palgrave Macmillan. p. 190. doi:10.1007/978-3-030-24616-7_8. ISBN 978-3-030-24615-0. Retrieved 2024-02-08 – via Internet Archive.

      The book notes: "Other paratexts followed, including the 1999 release of Sunnydale High Yearbook, co-authored by tie-in phenoms Christopher Golden and Nancy Holder. The Yearbook is designed with verisimilitude in mind, as if it is an actual high school yearbook—complete with "signatures" on the inside front and back covers, "handwritten" notes throughout, and descriptions of school events from the show's diegesis such as Halloween, the Talent Show, the Sadie Hawkins Dance, and the Spring Fling, accompanied, of course, with pictures from the corresponding episodes as if they had been taken by the yearbook committee. Transmedial by nature, both of these kinds of paratexts suggest a life for the show beyond its televisual borders."

    5. "Albany Public Library offers new books". Corvallis Gazette-Times. 2000-04-30. Archived from the original on 2024-02-08. Retrieved 2024-02-08 – via Newspapers.com.

      The article notes: "Young adult. Sunnydale High Yearbook, by Christopher Golden and Nancy Holder, 1999. Even though Buffy and her crew have immersed themselves in college life, at times they will feel nostalgic for their former high school. Because the actual building is a huge mass of charred rubble, they will have to turn to the Sunnydale High Yearbook to relive their memories. And now so can you. Buffy's yearbook, complete with color pictures, messages from classmates and an "in memoriam" section that lists people who fell to the evil in Sunnydale, is available for you to look at."

    There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Sunnydale High Yearbook to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

    Cunard (talk) 10:59, 8 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. More consensus for keep than drafify, as well as it passes guidelines after the major expansion. (non-admin closure) The Herald (Benison) (talk) 03:49, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nikolay Atanasov[edit]

Nikolay Atanasov (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)

Nikolay Atanasov

This biography of an Olympic athlete was created under earlier sports notability guidelines, but no longer satisfies Olympic notability because the subject did not receive a medal. It does not satisfy general notability because it does not describe what third parties have written. The only reference is a database entry.

  • Draftify as nominator to allow six months to find significant coverage. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:04, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Olympics, and Bulgaria. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:04, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Would it not be easier to ask the creator directly for improvement when you don't even want it deleted? Anyway, a three-time Olympian, three-time World Championship participant, Balkan champion and nine-time national champion (in a country that holds a high level in athletics) meets WP:SPORTCRIT with the most flying of flying colours, so it's just a matter of finding the good stuff. Geschichte (talk) 10:13, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, the article fails WP:SPORTCRIT, prong 5: "Sports biographies must include at least one reference to a source providing significant coverage of the subject, excluding database sources." Cbl62 (talk) 23:07, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Cbl62, thank you for your nomination. It may have failed SPORTCRIT point #5, but that is contradicted by WP:BASIC, which says that as long as sources have received significant coverage, they can be notable enough for a Wikipedia article – regardless of whether or not that coverage is explicitly linked in the article at any given moment.
The subject clearly meets WP:NATH as a multi-time national champion, which gives us a presumption of those sources existing. That presumption was correct, but nobody has found them in the past ten days because the subject had a wrong name recorded here – his Bulgarian name is not Bulgarian: Николай Атанасов, but Bulgarian: Николай Атанасов-Джоко. Searching for the former brings up no relevant results except for Olympedia (which also has the wrong name), searching for the latter brings up many: "Николай Атанасов-Джоко". I added some of the top results to the article, including significant newspaper coverage. I have fixed the name and will be voting to keep, though I will note that even if we weren't so lucky that Atanasov had a post-Internet career and his sources were easily searchable, he should have still been kept based on us knowing that the sources existed due to WP:NATH. --Habst (talk) 14:07, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 03:52, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep based on my reasoning above. --Habst (talk) 14:08, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I haven't evaluated the new Bulgarian sources added to the articlee. However, Habst's argument to nullify WP:SPORTCRIT, prong 5, lacks any basis. I drafted and proposed prong 5, and it was adopted with broad support on a community-wide RfA. It passed with knowledge that there is no general requirement that SIGCOOV actually be present in the article, but with the intention to create an exception in the case of sports biographies mandating the presence of at least one piece of SIGCOV and as a direct response to the flood of sports biographies (like the article under discussion) sourced only to databases. Unless SIGCOV is found and added, prong 5 is directly on point, and this article should not remain in main space (draftifiction until SIGCOV is found is another alternative). Cbl62 (talk) 14:17, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Cbl62, thank you for your comment and I do greatly respect your contributions to policy. Wikipedia policy is, however, ultimately decided and enforced by consensus and not by any one person even if that person is the drafter and proposer of a policy.
    Per discussion at Wikipedia talk:Notability (sports)#What do we do when..., the "key change" in WP:NSPORTS2022 was the removal of participation-only criteria, which does not apply to the subject because he was a national champion. Furthermore, WP:BASIC can apply to a biography even if WP:SPORTCRIT would also apply, and WP:BASIC more univerally agreed-upon by community consensus than supplemental topic-specific guidelines.
    An example of a similar dynamic was at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Clive Sands, where it was argued that Sands should be deleted because he fails a supplemental guideline (WP:NSPORT) while passing a more general guideline (WP:GNG). This argument wasn't considered valid, because the more general guideline still applies. --Habst (talk) 15:27, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your one-man campaign for nullification of prong 5 is completely specious. The prong 5 proposal passed with the highest participation level and the largest majority of the votes. See closing comment: "This was the best-attended proposal and had the most agreement. There is a rough consensus that sports biographies must include at least one reference to a source providing significant coverage of the subject. ... Supporters point out that it has the added benefit of reducing the number of one-sentence biographies based on database entries." So there you have it. You may not like prong 5, and you are free to start your own RfA to overturn it, but you can't just deny or nullify its clear language and force. Cbl62 (talk) 19:27, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Cbl62, thank you for your comment because I think debate makes Wikipedia better even when I do not agree. I actually do appreciate the value of prong 5 because I also don't want more one-sentence biographies only based on database entries; I just think it does not apply in this specific instance for the reasons above.
The point is moot anyways as there are several GNG sources both cited in the article and linked from the web search above, fulfilling the fifth prong. What do you think of the notability of the article on its own merits? --Habst (talk) 19:36, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I can't evaluate the depth of the Bulgarian sources you added, thus neutral. Cbl62 (talk) 21:14, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Clearly meets WP:NTRACK as top 8 finisher at the World Championships. Seacactus 13 (talk) 03:12, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify: per Robert McClenon request. BLP, 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.
Source eval:
Comments Source
Primary, database bio 1. "Николай Атанасов – СКЛА ЛОКОМОТИВ ПЛОВДИВ". atletikalokomotiv.com (in Bulgarian). Retrieved 2024-01-28.
Interview, primary 2. ^ Jump up to:a b "Джоко: Сега е моето време". Sportal.bg (in Bulgarian). Retrieved 2024-01-28.
Database listing 3. ^ "Bulgarian Indoor Championships". GBR Athletics. Athletics Weekly. Retrieved 2 February 2024.
Database listing 4. ^ "Bulgarian Championships". GBR Athletics. Athletics Weekly. Retrieved 2 February 2024.
Database listing 5. ^ Jump up to:a b c d e f Nikolay Atanasov at World Athletics Edit this at Wikidata
Database listing 6. ^ "Senior 2003: Long Jump men". World Athletics. Retrieved 2 February 2024.
Mill news about event 7. ^ Blitz.bg/Sport. "Джоко шампион на България за седми път". Blitz.bg/sport (in Bulgarian). Retrieved 2024-01-28.
Mill news about subject opening a business 8. ^ "Джоко стана бизнесмен". BGathletic.com (in Bulgarian).
BEFORE showed database listings, nothing meeting WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth. BLPs require strong sourcing.  // Timothy :: talk  23:28, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, per the major expansion the article is undergoing currently. Also noting that the source dismissed as an "interview" above by TimothyBlue has over 100 words (WP:100WORDS), including calling him one of the best Bulgarian track athletes and Loved by some and reviled by others, Joko [Atanasov's nickname] is one of the most interesting and eccentric personalities – it is guaranteed that there is further coverage of this out there, but already we seem to have enough (expansion proves WP:NBASIC, plus the one random source I clicked on is WP:SPORTBASIC pass). WP:DRAFTIFY is effectively a death sentence for articles without an interested editor who will try to save it; not seeing the point of doing it here. BeanieFan11 (talk) 23:44, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Keep or draftify?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 08:44, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify per nom request. Subject does not have the WP:SIGCOV right now to meet the WP:GNG. The sources are databases (1; 3-6), an interview (2) and brief coverage of routine events in which the subject was one participant (7 & 8). WP:100WORDS is an essay, not a notability guideline, and WP:BASIC is not met as the coverage is trivial. Let'srun (talk) 15:00, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Let'srun, thank you for your vote because you have consistently challenged us to improve articles, and I think you have done a great service for Wikipedia. Can you please re-evaluate the following sources. I significantly improved the article by adding WP:THREE new sources. All three of these are only from the first page of Google search, so there is surely more to be found.
  1. Краси Панов (20 March 2009). "Джоко - В трапа за скок дължина с китара в ръка". IAMPP ATHLETICS NEWS. Archived from the original on 20 March 2009. Retrieved 2024-02-06. (note that this was originally published on deltanews.bg, the blogspot link is simply a free archive of the article)
  2. "Николай Атанасов остана пети в скока на дължина". classa.bg (in Bulgarian).
  3. "Джоко с нов клуб". BGathletic.com (in Bulgarian).
@TimothyBlue, can you please review these sources as well. It is quite rare to see an elite long jumper born from a four-minute miler, and Joko has a very interesting story to be told if the sources are combed through more thoroughly. Thank you, --Habst (talk) 16:04, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You are correct in that 100Words in an essay, but really, how in the world does that source not addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content? The fact that over 1,000 words can be written in the article make this a crystal clear pass of WP:NBASIC. BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:07, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Enough work and sources has been put in, had much of his career in a non-Internet era. Geschichte (talk) 10:52, 8 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. I see a consensus among editors to Delete this article. Liz Read! Talk! 08:54, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppressors–oppressed distinction[edit]

Oppressors–oppressed distinction (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)

Stub politics article, the criteria for it being nominated are as follows: poorly sourced Content Fork WP:CF covered else where by Social Class, Political Class, Marxian class theory, and Class conflict... but also Wikipedia is not a dictionary WP:NOTDICT.

Examples of poor sourcing are as follows: "Israel/Palestine : the quest for dialogue" (1991) [64] by Gordon & Gordon, does not contain the terms on 145 as claimed, likewise "Specters of Marx" (1994) [65], by Jacques Derrida, and "French intellectual nobility : institutional and symbolic transformations in the post-Sartrian era" (1996) [66] by Niilo Kauppi both do not contain the terms "Oppressor" and "Oppressed" at all. This leaves four disparate sources (two from Marxists, one from a conservative, and one about Israel Palestine) which technically pass verifiability, but don't seem to be discussing a unified concept or theory at all. Besides which, as mentioned earlier, Wikipedia is not a dictionary. RecardedByzantian (talk) 06:38, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • SUPPORT DELETION: There does not appear to be a unified topic here to merit an article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PatrickJWelsh (talk • contribs) 17:19, January 22, 2024 (UTC)
  • Comment: I am unconvinced that the article's topic is notable. However, some of the statements made by the OP in support of deletion are not entirely accurate. For example, while Derrida doesn’t use oppressor/oppressed terminology, he does employ the dominant/dominated distinction (see page 68). Same goes for Kauppi (page 61) and Gordon & Gordon (page 71). XMcan (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 13:02, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Poorly reasoned nomination: None of Social Class, Political Class, Marxian class theory, and Class conflict mention oppressor-oppressed or dominant–dominated as opposing categories/concepts; valuable sources: "Israel/Palestine : the quest for dialogue" (1991) by Gordon & Gordon, states on page 145: But again and again I am inspired by Freire’s saying, "It is only the oppressed, who by freeing themselves, can free their oppressors" [67]; "Specters of Marx" “At least provisionally, we are placing our trust, in fact, in this form of critical analysis we have inherited from Marxism: In a given situation, provided that it is determinable and determined as being that of a socio-political antagonism, a hegemonic force always seems to be represented by a dominant rhetoric and ideology, whatever may be the conflicts between forces, the principal contradiction or the secondary contradictions, the overdeterminations and the relays that may later complicate this schema—and therefore lead us to be suspicious of the simple opposition of dominant and dominated, or even of the final determination of the forces in conflict, or even, more radically, of the idea that force is always stronger than weakness (Nietzsche and Benjamin have encouraged us to have doubts on this score, each in his own way, and especially the latter when he associated “historical materialism” with the inheritance, precisely, of some “weak messianic force”’). Critical inheritance: one may thus, for example, speak of a dominant discourse or of dominant representations and ideas, and refer in this way to a hierarchized and conflictual field without necessarily subscribing to the concept of social class by means of which Marx so often determined, particularly in The German Ideology, the forces that are fighting for control of the hegemony." [68]; "French intellectual nobility : institutional and symbolic transformations in the post-Sartrian era" (1996) by Niilo Kauppi "In its present meaning, the term “field” was partly created as a reaction to Marxist political-economic definitions of social phenomena and represents the systematization of Bourdieu’s structural approach. The field is composed of capital, an illusio, and consists of certain pertinent features. The concept contains some very Marxist elements: for example, the opposition dominant/ dominated. In accordance with yet another use of homologies, a field will be divided into dominant and dominated groups, and the dominant groups will themselves be divided into dominant-dominant and dominant-dominated (a:b; b1:b2; etc.). There is a definite tendency to construct a system—not surprising for a French intellectual who has been trained in philosophy.” [69]: sources do contain the dominant-dominated opposition, which is referred to as synonymous to oppressors-oppressed distinction in the lead of the article. No reason to delete. Phil from somewhere (talk) 22:53, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    What you've done there is unsourced original research. Which is what the article is doing. The creator of the article User:SummerWithMorons has had many such articles deleted on those grounds. But you're correct, perhaps I should have nominated this one for those reasons (eg. WP:OR).
    Making the special case that this (the usage in those three disparate sources) is a unique meaning or usage of class politics (without a source), is a form of special pleading. That's not how Wikipedia works. We're not a catalogue of specific words and usages selected without any sources linking them. We're not an authority in of ourselves, capable of linking sources just because an editor says they're linked. That's more the work of a dictionary. The article should obviously be deleted as it is WP:OR regardless of how it's been nominated. RecardedByzantian (talk) 01:07, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Just to be clear, you call quoting the article's original sources original research?? Good joke to start the day Phil from somewhere (talk) 13:59, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    No, I called the idea that all three of those sources/usages are related; Original Research. Not the sources themselves.
    Either all three are related (despite being from drastically different people, countries, areas of thought, and eras) because this is a general dictionary entry (and hence not appropriate encyclopedic content), or they're related because this is some unique and noteworthy usage (which would require a source OUTSIDE of Wikipedia saying so), or they're not related because this page is Original Research stringing unrelated sources together to construct an essay as if it's in Wikivoice.
    So we should Delete as per WP:NOTDICT, OR find the imagined source as per WP:RS and WP:NN, OR Delete as per WP:OR. This is what I'm saying... and it's my view that the page should be deleted. RecardedByzantian (talk) 22:25, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Deletion - although my nomination was perhaps not as thorough as it could have been, the article is still WP:OR. We can't just decide that two usages are linked, and then construct an article/essay around that opinion. RecardedByzantian (talk) 01:11, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:28, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Two ways this might be approached:
  1. The article is all about Marxist theory and responses to it, not the distinction itself, which is surely as old as the practice of forced labor. There might be a good WP:merge target to an existing article on Marxism. Otherwise, if it kept as its own article, "(Marxism)" should be appended to the title.
  2. One might ask – in addition to, or independently of, other articles on Marxism – whether there is anything in this article that is not already covered at oppression. If this article is to be about more than Marx's usage and its legacy, that is another possible merge target.
As it stands, however, while harmless, the article fails the WP:notability criterion. This distinction itself has not been shown in the existing article to be significant enough have generated its own literature. Hence it is not a enough of a topic to merit coverage in an encyclopedia.
Cheers, Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 18:42, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep A quick Google Scholar search shows that this is a very notable concept in Marxian political theory. Notability is based on the existence of sources, not whether those sources are cited in the article. And although I agree with others that this article is not in the best shape, deletion is not cleanup. voorts (talk/contributions) 02:19, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It's in such poor shape that deleting it and letting some interested party re-write it from scratch would more than likely produce an article of better quality. But they'll have a tough time separating it from Marxian class theory in my opinion. 194.223.27.216 (talk) 03:46, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: It's covered by Marxian Class Theory. Part of the problem is that none of the authors are seeking to define or specifically talk about the "Oppressors–oppressed distinction" so it's disingenuous for Wikipedia to decide the terms are some how pivotal or important just because they get a mention here and there. Perhaps if there was a source focusing on these terms, or even a chapter, section, or subheading. But there's not. There's passing usages - the authors don't focus on the topic, so why are we?.... well it's because the American right are using claims about the "Oppressors–oppressed distinction" in the campaign to bolster and spread the conspiracy theory Cultural Marxism - here's right wing conspiracy nut Andrew Breitbart using the phrasing in his description of what cultural Marxism is: [70]. Here's the far right American think tank The Heritage Foundation using it for the same purposes: [71]. Here's American Conservative Think Tank Foundation for Economic Education using it in that same way: [72].
So one side of politics IS focusing on this phrasing - Conservative American Think Tanks. Here is Andrew Lynn, a fellow at the Institute for Advanced Studies in Culture debunking the attempted twisting in 2018 [73]:
"Flash-forward to the present. According to conservative journalist and blogger Andrew Sullivan, today’s cultural Marxists are deeply invested in toppling power structures of patriarchy and white privilege. They do so, according to this version of history, by following the Frankfurt School thinkers in transposing the oppressed-oppressor conflict between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie into the cultural realm, assigning oppressed status to various nonprivileged identity groups. Emergence of a victimhood culture follows, as groups laying claim to various identities articulate grievances against dominant groups and the structures that serve their interests. Rational adjudication of truth then becomes subsumed under demands for the subversion of power, patriarchy, and privilege across unjust social institutions, perpetuating continual identification of conflict within the established social order." [Emphasis added]
"There are many problems with this narrative, of course, and here’s one: Such a vision of an ever-in-conflict social order is only loosely “cultural” and could be constructed entirely independent of anything “Marxist.” You can find it in Machiavelli, Hobbes, Nietzsche, and Ayn Rand, to name just a few. Indeed, today the most popular accounts of society as groups in perpetual conflict over resources—whether material, symbolic, or political—are found in best-selling books by evolutionary psychologists and biologists eager to apply their disciplinary insights to questions far outside their field. It is more the diffusion of Darwin—not Derrida—that underlies popular conflict-grounded accounts of morality and culture today."
This is a sound DELETE from me. Unless we can find leftist marxist theorists using it as at least a subheading - I'd even settle for just someone bolding it on the page. But in actual fact, they don't use it that often, the sources use it once or twice in passing IN WHOLE BOOKS, and it's the American right wing, and far right who are trying to bolster its usage as a paradigm of explanation for the Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory. Wikipedia shouldn't go joyously romping into a political minefield just because a particularly prolific editor who has had many of their essays deleted before carelessly wanders into one without asking "Is this really making something out of this particular terminology?". 194.223.27.216 (talk) 04:08, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
While the concern is valid, I'm not seeing any of that in the article as written, which cites to Derrida, Hegel, and Lenin, who are hardly right-wing thinkers. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:51, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
...and what do you make of my statement that they're not particularly focused on the topic of the "Oppressors–oppressed distinction" but are instead using the terms infrequently?194.223.27.216 (talk) 06:20, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- KEEP and turn into a disambiguation page. This is a unifying thread and key aspect of a lot of political philosophy, as well as various political ideologies. As such, I do not think that the reasoning provided here justifies a complete deletion. Wikipedia is not a dictionary, but this entry is of encyclopedic value, even as a disambiguation page. TucanHolmes (talk) 13:22, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Patrick J. Welsh pointed out that the concept and corresponding article on Oppression already includes the distinction, so any disambiguation or linking should happen there. I no longer think retaining this page would be useful, even as a disambiguation page. TucanHolmes (talk) 18:01, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep notable concept in various contexts. Phil from somewhere (talk) 16:39, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - there's a lot of people saying "keep" then saying "Oh this is a thing in politics" - but then not offering any substantive sources that discuss the topic, which is apparently (according to these voters) substantial and well known in political discourse. I would like to remind whoever closes this discussion, that on Wikipedia, voting is done by the winning arguments - not by tallying the numbers (see WP:POLL and WP:Consensus). Demanding that an article be kept because it matches someone's personal viewpoint or their own original research, is not the same as having enough sources to substantiate the claims of the CURRENT article in it's current condition. Currently, this article should be deleted, as the sources don't substantiate it as a notable topic WP:NN. No one has presented either a policy or source based argument against that fact. Just because a word appears in many texts, doesn't warrant Wikipedia creating a dictionary entry or stub article for it. Without sources, the keep claims are just adding to the original research that creeps into Wikipedia because we don't delete articles like this one. 194.223.63.134 (talk) 04:50, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - We have several articles already about adjacent philosophical/academic/activist traditions that focus on (leftist) identity oppression. This isn't the name of something that needs an article on its own, I think; I wanted to say this is an unsourced neologism, I'm not sure that's right, maybe as OP says not a dictionary. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 05:04, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 08:29, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: I have reviewed the above and continue to support deletion. The concept of oppression includes within itself the distinction between the person/group/system oppressing and those oppressed. (Hence the hits in Google Scholar are entirely unsurprising and not in-themselves relevant.) It is possible that somewhere there is a dissertation deconstructing the meaning of the dash in "oppressors–oppressed", but this has not been established – and is not at all likely to be established – as an encyclopedic topic.
If, as some comments above suggest, this is actually about covertly correcting current American political discourse, I would submit that this is not the appropriate use of an article with this title. If that is the point, it should be made explicit in a fresh article to be assessed from scratch for inclusion in Wikipedia. Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 17:00, 7 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) AllTheUsernamesAreInUse (talk) 22:50, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Edgar Bacon (disambiguation)[edit]

Edgar Bacon (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)

Invalid and unnecessary disambiguation page containing the primary topic and only one other topic. PROD removed. AllTheUsernamesAreInUse (talk) 07:06, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - for one thing there appears to be three entries now, albeit one is a redlink. For another, there appear to be other possible entries including a member of the Virginia House. JMWt (talk) 07:56, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep there is nothing invalid about the page, and it has links to see alsos as well - with the Ed/Edgar/Eddie etc. names, there is always room for ambiguity. Boleyn (talk) 08:54, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • It most certainly was invalid when I nominated it; a disambiguation page is not a search index, so see alsos do not make a DAB valid. But I withdraw this AfD anyway per the creation of Edgar Mayhew Bacon. AllTheUsernamesAreInUse (talk)
  • Keep: I've added a Who's Who record for E Mayhew B to the talk page, someone might like to see if they can get a page written for him. And the politician above shouuld also have a page. PamD 09:04, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people and Disambiguations. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:47, 6 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. Owen× ☎ 23:10, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Michigan Technological University Winter Carnival Themes[edit]

List of Michigan Technological University Winter Carnival Themes (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 "list" topic. This was created as a spin-out/subpage of Michigan Technological University Winter Carnival by archivists at the school, and I agree that it is too long as currently formed to go back into that parent article. But I don't see that this content is of encyclopediac value at all (NOTDIR, and DUE even if it were to be merged back in). In order to merit an own page, it needs to be a notable actual topic, not just "overflow from some other notable-topic's article". DMacks (talk) 05:05, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: The one cited source was published in 1985, making all entries since then unsourced, and the article simply appears to be a list of photos of buttons taken from the MTU Archives web site (linked at the bottom) with "themes" read off the buttons. So this article is just duplicating an external dataset. Per WP:NOTDB, this list article adds nothing. It shouldn't have been added to the original Winter Carnival article in the first place (pointless cruft copied from a museum page) so a merge/redirect would be pointless. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 14:43, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't delete yet until we work out a different solution on wikicommons. thanks CynMTU (talk) 00:53, 7 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 2024 United States House of Representatives elections in Wisconsin#District 3. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris talk! 05:53, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Eric Wilson (politician)[edit]

Eric Wilson (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)

Not yet notable WP:NPOL: candidate not elected to any office yet, currently one of three candidates running in a primary election for selection as a party's nominated candidate for a November 2024 election to national office. In a WP:BEFORE search I can find only routine local coverage. Wikishovel (talk) 04:57, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect >>>>2024 United States House of Representatives elections in Wisconsin#District 3 Djflem (talk) 07:04, 6 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 10:29, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gary Biasillo[edit]

Gary Biasillo (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)

Did not find any sources about this composer and the only source used for his article is just a list of credits for games they composed. GamerPro64 04:26, 6 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. Sandstein 18:57, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WHNE-LD[edit]

WHNE-LD (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 does not meet the WP:GNG due to a lack of WP:SIGCOV. Let'srun (talk) 03:50, 6 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) 04:08, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sarah Cruickshank[edit]

Sarah Cruickshank (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 meet WP:JOURNALIST. A google news search comes up with a namesake in Australia. LibStar (talk) 02:57, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Chekidalum. Youprayteas (talk to me? | contribs) 18:39, 6 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. Sandstein 18:57, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Provable fairness[edit]

Provable fairness (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 unclear what the exact topic is here. Whether it is the concept of provable fairness / provably fair games, or a specific algorithm dubbed as "Provably Fair" sourced to a gambling site [74]. Either way, there does not seem to be significant coverage in reliable sources, especially for the later. MarioGom (talk) 17:41, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games and Computing. MarioGom (talk) 17:41, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Mental poker: a related subject. The term is occasionally used in academic literature on cryptographic algorithms, but isn't notable enough for a standalone article. Owen× ☎ 16:35, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:25, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I believe this is a subject that can be expanded greatly, especially with the takeoff of provably-fair Bitcoin casinos, almost all of which have provably-fair systems. Though, I can understand the idea of merging it into Mental poker, and creating a redirect to that page. OnlyNano 18:23, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 01:39, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nomination (with no prejudice to draftification / userfication if people want to keep working on it). The sources that seem to talk about this algorithm directly don't appear reliable, and the journal articles are off-topic and don't show notability. (As a side note, I'm skeptical here... mostly-good-enough RNG is a "solved" problem, and "do you trust a service not to lie" is an unsolvable problem.) SnowFire (talk) 04:19, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:26, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - my thoughts mirror SnowFire's stance. Beyond that, it kinda reads like an essay aiming to convince people that online gaming is not a scam or something. Best case scenario should be draftifying, if someone truly wishes to work on this. (Which I'm skeptical of - even the article creator apparently just copy/pasted it from Simple Wikipedia.) Sergecross73 msg me 21:34, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Appears to be some coverage here: "Borca-Tasciuc, G. et al. (2022) ‘Provable Fairness for Neural Network Models using Formal Verification’, arXiv.org. doi: 10.48550/arxiv.2212.08578.", "Kanhere, S. S. and Sethu, H. (2003) ‘Anchored opportunity queueing: a low-latency scheduler for fair arbitration among virtual channels’, Journal of parallel and distributed computing, 63(12), pp. 1288–1299. doi: 10.1016/j.jpdc.2003.08.002.", "Salimi, B. et al. (2019) ‘Capuchin: Causal Database Repair for Algorithmic Fairness’, arXiv.org. doi: 10.48550/arxiv.1902.08283.", "Gregori, E. et al. (2002) ‘Optimization-Based Congestion Control for Multicast Communications’, in Lecture Notes in Computer Science (including subseries Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence and Lecture Notes in Bioinformatics). Germany: Springer Berlin / Heidelberg, pp. 423–442. doi: 10.1007/3-540-47906-6_34." . Regrads  Spy-cicle💥  Talk? 19:09, 7 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) CycloneYoris talk! 05:49, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Darkstalkers characters[edit]

List of Darkstalkers characters (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)

Was just gonna leave tags on this, but they've been reverted, so I guess I may as well do this instead. Sources on this page consist of primaries (one from the game, two from Capcom's website), one database (Behind the Voice Actors), and a couple from what I believe are third party game guide books. I don't know the reliability of all of those sources (BtVA I can't imagine being reliable, and the non-primaries I wouldn't expect to be), but I know none of them convey notability. Otherwise, this page is full of what could probably be summarized as fancruft that is better left to fan sites than here, especially with none of it sourced. Could redirect to Darkstalkers#Characters, though I think deletion makes more sense since that section doesn't currently have any sort of list or significant detail on any individual characters. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 02:18, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above. Needs improvement but meets NLIST. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 14:33, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment @Piotrus @ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ @Pokelego999 If I may offer a counter suggestion, what about the prospect of merging the list as its condensed here into Darkstalkers#Characters? Personally I don't see this list ever getting bigger or more detailed like the Street Fighter lists, and a lot of the reception on the character from articles like Den of Geek applies to both the characters and the series in the same breath. The series article also is on the shorter end as is.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 16:21, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I really don't see how it is different from other similar lists and therefore merits a merge. As I said, deletion is not cleanup and I am positive that the list can be cleaned up if anyone were willing to do so. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 16:30, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm fine with a merge, given edits made to the article. It's small enough to where I feel it could work. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 23:49, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am not opposed to it, but I am also fine with it being kept as it is. I am generally not happy with how we handle mergers in similar cases, where much informaiton is lost (from characters to lists), although this time it is from a list that indeed doesn't have much outside plot summaries so... shugh, I have no strong feelings re merge. Just oppose deletion. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 01:27, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, agree that this is something to be handled with cleanup and not deletion. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 18:57, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep like all such character lists, the work in question (Darkstalkers) is the topic, so arguments against notability for the characters are moot. Merging editorially is fine if consensus is found... but why would there be? Jclemens (talk) 04:11, 11 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 Charlie Puth. Sandstein 18:56, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hard on Yourself[edit]

Hard on Yourself (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 song has not been the subject of "multiple, non-trivial published works whose sources are independent of the artist and label" as required by WP:NSONGS. As such, it is unlikely to ever grow beyond stub status and the content to present it as a standalone article does not exist. The New Zealand "Hot Singles" entry does not constitute a significant national chart, and it is usually relegated to a footnote on the discography page. NØ 18:22, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Charlie Puth: Agree with nominator about the chart and also couldn't find any reliable coverage (what's in the article is likely unreliable outside of the primaries, chart, and possible Stereoboard). Puth's article mentions the song, though only briefly, while Blackbear's doesn't, so I think the former makes more sense as a target. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 05:47, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 01:45, 6 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 Small nucleolar RNA. Liz Read! Talk! 08:56, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

TB11Cs4H1 snoRNA[edit]

TB11Cs4H1 snoRNA (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; based off one source and WP:BEFORE was no help. One source has only very slight, passing coverage that I doubt even verifies most of the claims here anyway. 🌺 Cremastra (talk) 15:13, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 01:43, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge as above - it's apparently a thing, but not an article-level thing. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 10:08, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge. Not enough content and potential to justify a separate article. 22:54, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect‎ to Transactions per second. Sandstein 20:07, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Query throughput[edit]

Query throughput (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)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 04:40, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 01:39, 6 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 01:01, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hans Skopovny[edit]

Hans Skopovny (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 (pl:Wikipedia:Poczekalnia/biografie/2024:02:05:Hans Skopowny). Likely hoax or WP:OR on non-notable individual. Sources impossible to verify (no ISBNs/URLs, either false or translated from Ukrainian to a variant that doesn't exist outside Wikipedia). All other articles of the creator likely suffer from the same issue (over a dozen: [75]). Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 01:01, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, nothing is confirmable and there is a very possible WP:OR involved. I did a quick search on Google and nothing notable showed up. Youprayteas (talk to me?/ things i did) 17:49, 6 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 01:01, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dubikowski family with Ostoja coat of arms[edit]

Dubikowski family with Ostoja coat of arms (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 speedy deleted from pl wiki for "Non-encyclopedic article: ahistorical family fantasies, misspelled". We should do the same. It does not seem this family is notable (WP:GNG), and WP:OR is a major issue. Sources are not possible to verify - no URLs, no ISBNs for the book, the titles of the books and other information seem to be translated from Ukrainian/Russian making it impossible to verify they even exist since Wikipedia is the only place they are used in this version. Possible hoax - hard to guess whether this is indeed OR on one's family or something at the level of Zhemao hoaxes. Pretty much all other articles of that editor need to be deleted for the same reason, I'll be nominating them shortly. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 00:55, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Trying to get through some of the sources and it's challenging.
Main sources are:
  • [1 The CSHAK: F. 481, Reg. 3, Case 1185.] direct to physical documents at the Central State Historical Archives of Ukraine in Kyiv, [2 The NIAB: F. 319, Reg. 2, Case 1019 (also 3775)] are similar physical documents at the National Archives of Belarus.
  • [3 Ros Kan. The story of one kin. Kiev 2022] doesn't lead to anything as far as I can find, and [4 S. Dubikowski, Palimpsest of the Gods, Kiev, 2020] is this book. If the quotes in the article are anything to go by, one or both of these are a wild ride: [...] this Hierophant-Warrior dynasty, which ruled almost the all ancient World, bore the unique Devine kingship. It was a Universal Vedic Slovic-Aryan civilization existed for millennia in the territory from Dublin to Vladivostok [...].
All the other sources are only used in the sections on land owned and members of the family, and appear to mainly be lists of members of nobility, military regiments, land ownership records or other information that alone probably does not meet GNG requirements. I checked one and it does exist, even if the way it is presented seems to be WP:OR as it links to knight rather than cavalry, but I have not read the whole book, just verified that the book exists and the name Dubikowski is in the book: [21 Joseph Tyszkiewicz (Count.). Histoire du 17me Régt. de Cavalerie Polonaise (Lanciers du Cte. Michel Tyszkiewicz), 1812–1815. Published by WL Anczyc, 1904, p. 68.] English translation?, Polish original? Shazback (talk) 04:14, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Massive heap of WP:OR. Renata•3 04:32, 7 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_6&oldid=1208019154"