Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 February 9

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< February 08 February 10 >

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. Liz Read! Talk! 23:09, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

KVFA-LP[edit]

KVFA-LP (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 lacks the WP:SIGCOV to meet the WP:GNG. Let'srun (talk) 23:21, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Arizona. Let'srun (talk) 23:21, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Dave Hettesheimer's monthly Arizona TV Station Update blog posts indicate that this station never operated. No, really.. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 19:41, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: We now require actual significant coverage to establish the notability required for an article… and there are many actually-operated stations that fall short of that and are finally being removed from Wikipedia; there appears to be little-to-no evidence that KVFA-LP even got that far. Back in 2006, the in-practice "notability standard" in this topic area basically amounted to "it's licensed so it's notable!", but this nominally five-year station that may have never actually signed on demonstrates that was nothing more than the broadcast station equivalent to creating articles on places based solely on GNIS (and there have been many AfDs in that topic area lately as well). WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:49, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This TV station clearly lacks any notability whatsoever, especially since it never operated in the first place.TH1980 (talk) 02:38, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Sammi Brie knows about this category of articles. Lightburst (talk) 04:53, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Per nom. So SIGCOV. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 07:22, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was snow keep‎. (non-admin closure) GSS 💬 17:50, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nello Mascia[edit]

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

The page has been tagged for six months as needing reliable sources, but nothing has been done. If we remove everything that is unsourced then there is nothing left. So either someone should improve it or it should be deleted. Ldm1954 (talk) 22:31, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Ldm1954 (talk) 22:31, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep.@Ldm1954: Just because there is a tag and an issue has been unaddressed (for 6 months!!!!) does not mean that an article needs to be deleted. I'll improve the page but may I ask you to withdraw this, please? He is a fairly notable Italian actor as a quick look at any database can confirm...So either someone should improve it or it should be deleted.. I am sorry but no: either he deserves an article or the page should be deleted. Afd is about deletion not cleanup. Again,I will improve the page, but that's not the point. Anyone nominating a page for deletion should look for sources before doing so. Which is apparently not the case here. Thanks.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 23:18, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If you improve it then I will reverse my nomination, but not until then. Please note that I did a WP:AfD so it could be improved, not a WP:PROD. Ldm1954 (talk) 23:24, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I said I would. I am currently doing it. I added some content and sources. But you SHOULD look for sources yourself before taking a page to Afd (or ProDding it, for that matter). Improvement of pages is not what Afds are for. Pages can be improved thanks to Afds but Afds are not meant for that. Anyway, see for yourself@Ldm1954: but this Afd should in my view be closed as Speedy Keep because you clearly have made no effort to even check if sources existed. At least from what I understand of your rationale and reply. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 23:35, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And please note that If we remove everything that is unsourced then there is nothing left. was not even true. There was one source and NINE links to notable films in which he played (not to mention an IMDb page, which, although not considered reliable for notability should have given you an idea that you would have to dig a little bit further than a tag on the page before initiating this). You could at least have checked that, in my opinion, even if you didn't want to bother searching the internet, not even for a minute. Please have a look at the page now so that we can avoid wasting more time on this. Thanks.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 01:03, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:23, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep nominator has misunderstood the Articles for Deletion process. Geschichte (talk) 09:51, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Geschichte, that was a completely inappropriate comment. The response by @Mushy Yank has been what was needed, improvement. However, the current version still contains a table with 15 films, only two of which have RS -- remember that Wikilinks are not considered reliable. If I was feeling nasty I would delete everything which has no sources, in which case... Ldm1954 (talk) 10:39, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Please.....Just CLICK on the films that have an article here!!!!! Is the page without any source at all????? Thank you. If you think further improvements are needed, feel free, but you opened an AfD......this is NOT the article talk page and, from what you are saying, I am sorry, but I fully agree with Geschichte. Hence my Speedy Keep !vote.....no Before has been made and Afds are not for cleanup.....the page is a stub and this is not a GA review.... -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 10:50, 10 February 2024 (UTC).[reply]
    You CANNOT use Wikipedia as a source, see Wikipedia is not a reliable source. Those links are considered irrelevant. Please look at Wikipedia:Proveit, the burden of proof is on the editor. I expect that you can validate that he was in those films, but until you do 95% of the article should be deleted. Ldm1954 (talk) 13:27, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Sigh......... -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 14:23, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @User:Ldm1954 Are you at least watching the page so that you can withdraw as you had said? Sources for every feature film have been added. Only did this to save other users' time. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 21:13, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I saw the films (what about the role?). The TV needs the same attention. Ldm1954 (talk) 00:21, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You must be joking. This is not a GA review! So, let me try to give an outline of what is apparently the Afd process according to you. You see a page on an actor, with a BLP sources tag, and although the actor is said to have a considerable filmography and the page has a source, nine wikilinks and a link to Imdb, you don't open those and, without checking at all if there are other sources to verify if the actor is notable or not, you take the page to Afd. When the fact that he is fairly notable is brought to your attention, you say If you improve it then I will reverse my nomination, but although the page is vastly improved, you don't. Instead you say I expect that you can validate that he was in those films, concerning his (selected) feature films, but even though this second bizarre request is immediately fulfilled, you still don't withdraw. No, instead you demand the names of the characters he plays when a simple click gives you most of them; and sources for all of his tv roles, when some are presented and external links allow you to verify most of the rest. In the meantime, you repeatedly state that most of the content of the page needs to be deleted if unsourced. It has not occurred to you that the actor looks quite notable enough by now? No? And that this is the only point of this discussion. I have no further comments. So much for saving other people's time. I stand more than ever by my Speedy Keep !vote, and will not edit the article any further. You can do it if you wish. Keep up the good work! -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 09:01, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Please reread the guidelines of material for a BLP:
    "Wikipedia's sourcing policy, Verifiability, says that all quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation; material not meeting this standard may be removed."
    This is not my rule, this is standard and applies everywhere. Ldm1954 (talk) 09:19, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That is not the point of this Afd. Afds are for DELETION OF PAGES, not for cleanup. Remove everything you wish from the page. The point here is: is he notable? And why not withdraw as you had said? You can ask for improvements on the article TP, or improve the page yourself if that is what you wish. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 09:27, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP. Somebodyidkfkdt (talk) 23:49, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep, I added a Corriere della Sera article about him, and searching for "Nello Mascia" there are over 900 articles on La Repubblica archives. WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP, and WP:BEFORE was clearly ignored. The cleanup/referencing work the nominator is asking for could have been done by himself, easily. Some of his comments here look ridicolously inappropriate if not disruptive (eg. 'If I was feeling nasty...'). Competence is required. Cavarrone 08:28, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Now Keep as the issues have largely been resolved, although he still has a loooong list of unsourced TV appearances. This compares to the original which had one RS (in Italian) that he was an actor/director in one play, and no other since Wikipedia is not a RS. Italian is not required.
Ldm1954 (talk) 09:13, 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 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! 23:16, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

White Light Tour[edit]

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

I don't see any evidence of notability per WP:NTOUR, which requires at least a modicum of sourcing of the tour as a tour--a setlist and a few references about dates and audiences is not enough. Drmies (talk) 22:02, 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 merge‎ to Kentucky Educational Television. Liz Read! Talk! 23:17, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of former Kentucky Educational Television translators[edit]

List of former Kentucky Educational Television translators (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)

Could be converted to list and merged into main KET article. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 21:41, 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 speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn by mover. (non-admin closure)‎ TarnishedPathtalk 01:12, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ian Narev[edit]

Ian Narev (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)

nonnotable banker per WP:SINGLEEVENT, noted only by a bank scandal; also no notability by association (he was not personally involved in scandals; only wa involved as CEO) - Altenmann >talk 20:53, 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. Not only is this consensus almost unanimous, I don't think I've ever seen Cunard argue for Deletion before. When they can't find reliable sources, they probably don't exist. Liz Read! Talk! 23:24, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jin Koh[edit]

Jin Koh (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 online search does not reveal in-depth significant coverage of this person to meet our criteria for a notable businessperson, nor an artist/fashion designer. There are several people who share the same name, but all I'm finding on this Jin Koh is social media, primary sources and user-submitted content. Seems to also be a paid COI entry. Fails WP:NBUSINESSPERSON, WP:CREATIVE, WP:GNG. Bringing it here for the community to decide. Netherzone (talk) 20:29, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists, Businesspeople, Arts, Visual arts, Business, Fashion, Technology, and Malaysia. Netherzone (talk) 20:29, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete couple of passing mentions, no indication of passing WP:GNG. Theroadislong (talk) 20:35, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Satisfies the WP:BASIC guidelines by being supported by numerous reliable published sources, including secondary sources. Notable achievements include: founding several companies including Original Stitch. Please view the article's history as important information has been deleted by editors nominating it for deletion. For example an editor deleted the following fact: "In 2012 Koh founded Original Stitch, a fashion company based in San Francisco, that uses on-demand manufacturing to create men's shirts."[1][2] With all the deletions the article is practically empty! In addition edit requests have been denied, for example, "In 2012, Koh served as the Vice-President of Mobile Solutions for Splashtop and oversaw its operations in Japan."[3] What is going here? Added: I have a COI with this article. Greg Henderson (talk) 20:54, 9 February 2024 (UTC)— Note to closing admin: Greghenderson2006 (talk • contribs) has a close connection with the subject of the article being discussed, originally UPE, which has since been disclosed.[reply]
    Greg, why are you saying I deleted important information from the article? I did no such thing. The only edit I made on this was nominating it for deletion because it does not seem to meet WP criteria for inclusion; the community can decide the outcome. Netherzone (talk) 21:26, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Seriously Greghenderson2006, please get your facts straight before making accusations like that against another editor. Left guide (talk) 21:43, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Biggs, John (January 12, 2016). "Original Stitch Raises $1.1 Million To Put The Shirt On Your Back". Tech Crunch. Retrieved 2022-01-30.
  2. ^ Lopez, Allen (Feb 25, 2021). "Why $100 Pokémon Shirts make sense, Two years in, Original Stitch's Pokémon line is as strong as ever". Polygon. Retrieved 2022-01-26.
  3. ^ "Splashtop Launches Splashtop K.K. in Japan". Press Release. San Jose, California. March 12, 2012. Retrieved 2023-01-27.

*Update Looks like a SPAM email was sent to Jin Koh. Below is the sender and what it says: Greg Henderson (talk) 00:21, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

From: Olivier Laurence <[email protected]> Date: Fri, Feb 9, 2024 at 2:39 PM Subject: URGENT NOTICE: Wikipedia Article for Deletion - Immediate Action Required. To: [email protected] <[email protected]>, [email protected] <[email protected]>

Hi Jin,

I trust everything is well with you.

I am Olivier Laurence, an experienced Wikipedia administrator and editor with over 20 years of experience, and I'm writing to you as part of the "Article for Deletion" Evaluation team.

You may view my Wikipedia administrator account below: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Olivier

I wanted to bring your attention to an important matter impacting your live Wikipedia article. Your Wikipedia page was recently tagged and nominated for deletion due to concerns about its compliance with the Wikipedia standards; your page is listed below.

Please review your Wikipedia page here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jin_Koh

Maintaining a Wikipedia article is an enormous responsibility and we appreciate your contributions to the platform thus far. However, all Wikipedia pages must comply with our content and notability rules to remain on the platform.

Failure to address the highlighted concern may result in the page being moved to the spam list, leading to a temporary ban of five years or a permanent ban, at the discretion of Wikipedia moderators.

If you are not interested in improving the page, kindly acknowledge this, and I will proceed with the deletion process. Note that once details are submitted for the deletion log, the same content and title cannot be reused.

If you have any questions or require assistance, please do not hesitate to contact us at the same email address.

Regards Senior Wikipedia Administrator and Editor Olivier Laurence

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

The result was keep‎. Liz Read! Talk! 23:25, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rhett Walton[edit]

Rhett Walton (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 has some coverage but doesn't appear to meet WP:NACTOR/WP:GNG or have an obvious WP:ATD. Notability is not inherited. Boleyn (talk) 19:02, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 19:59, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 19:59, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 19:59, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 19:59, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 19:59, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as a stage actor. He played Macbeth in Macbeth in Newcastle [1]. This production got two reveiws and two articles (more on one later) and while most are in the local paper, the last is in the national newspaper The Australian. He played Bassanio for Bell Shakespeare's 1999 run of The Merchant of Venice [2]. Rose, Colin (2 May 1999), "Pretty (awful) in pink", The Sun Herald - Hallett, Bryce (3 May 1999), "Lesson for today from the Bard", The Sydney Morning Herald - Carroll, Steven (20 June 1999), "The Merchant Of Venice", The Sydney Morning Herald - Phipps, Ian (2 May 1999), "Merchant gets pound of flesh", The Daily Telegraph - [3] [4] and so on. Played Paul in a run of Brilliant Lies from the plays debut [5] more at [6]. It appears to be a second tier character so significant role question is not so certain but he does get mentioned in reviews. This run got a lot of coverage, 6 reviews listed for the debut and another 7 for Playhouse (Vic) [7] +1. It has more from other stops on it's tour. Was one of four actors in Murder by Misadventure at Marian Street Theatre [8] and it has 5 reviews listed. One of the articles mentioned above for Macbeth is Ken Longworth, Shakespeare veteran at 33, Newcastle Herald, 25 February 1993 which appears to have Walton as the primary focus. When he played alongside his wife for the first time in many years in Worst Kept Secrets the was an article Connellan, Matthew (12 November 2014), "Coupledom comes in many flavours", Northern District Times that told us about that. He played a lead and the play had multiple articles/reviews - Hook, Chris (13 November 2014), "Man maketh his mark in mysterious ways", Daily Telegraph - Keene, Neil (15 November 2014), "Just playing with politics", Daily Telegraph - - Gorman, James (19 November 2014), "Powerful Secrets", Central . Some additional notes, was in The Philadelphia Story at the Sydney Opera House [9] but I've only found two reviews (not too bad for 1986) "Two good performances, no doubt, help. There is the assured acting of Rhett Walton (only one year out of NIDA) as C.K. Dexter Haven - the Cary Grant role. He has the required eaze, naturalness and spontaneity on which the Barry charm depends."Kippax, H.G. (11 October 1986), "Philadelphia fails to live up to its legend", The Sydney Morning Herald + [10]. Appears to play either Tybalt or Mercutio in Romeo and Juliet [11] which has 10 reviews listed. "Credit as well to Michael Hurst who has choreographed the most exciting duel I've ever seen on stage and to Richard Roxburgh and Rhett Walton who bring it off."Evans, Bob (2 June 1989), "Full-blooded bard", The Sydney Morning Herald. [12] [13] duffbeerforme (talk) 13:43, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per the notable stage performances reviewed in reliable sources identified above that shows a pass of WP:NACTOR so that deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 23:38, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The sources presented by Duffbeerforme show he is notable as actor. (NB-I must have missed something because I cannot see why "Notability is not inherited" is mentioned in the nominator's rationale. Is it because his wife has a page? Then, one obvious ATD would have been redirect there with a source, I suppose).-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 21:06, 16 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! 23:26, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tertiary enrollment[edit]

Tertiary enrollment (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 has some coverage but doesn't appear to meet WP:N or have an obvious WP:ATD. It doesn't appear to be a specific term written about. Boleyn (talk) 19:02, 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 speedy deleted‎ by Spicy per criterion G5. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris talk! 20:36, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

B Major SA[edit]

B Major SA (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 actually just want an admin to IAR delete this. This is yet another recreation attempting to bypass the salting of B Major (musician), B Major (Music Producer), and B Major (South African musician). Page creator admits to being a sockpuppet Mach61 (talk) 19:01, 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 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! 23:28, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Subby Valentine[edit]

Subby Valentine (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 has some coverage but doesn't appear to meet WP:BIO/WP:GNG or have an obvious WP:ATD. Successful career but not quite notable; 14 years in CAT:NN doesn't appear to be just neglect. Boleyn (talk) 19:00, 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. Liz Read! Talk! 23:29, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Transgender Law and Policy Institute[edit]

Transgender Law and Policy Institute (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 has some coverage but doesn't appear to meet WP:ORG/WP:GNG or have an obvious WP:ATD. It exists but isn't notable. Boleyn (talk) 18:58, 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 keep‎. Seraphimblade Talk to me 01:45, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Luna[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Paul Luna (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 consensus at last AfD, low participation. It is hard to read through the fact that this is written by a nearly-WP:SPA in a promotional way, but it doesn't appear that there are the sources available online to establish he meets WP:BIO or WP:GNG. It has been in CAT:NN for 14 years, so I really hope we can now find a consensus, either way. Boleyn (talk) 18:39, 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. Seraphimblade Talk to me 02:27, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Azizul Hakim (poet)[edit]

Azizul Hakim (poet) (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 person, fails WP:GNG and WP:NPEOPLE, BEFORE searches bring up one blog and a bunch of stuff about an actor with similar name. No significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. v/r - Seawolf35 T--C 17:45, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Procedural comment: Hey @BANEN24: you are only allowed one !vote per AfD. I have taken the liberty of striking out your third(!) !vote. IgnatiusofLondon (talk) 20:22, 16 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 23:37, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Virtual Radar Client[edit]

Virtual Radar Client (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 enough to show it meets WP:N. Boleyn (talk) 17:44, 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 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 00:29, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alpha Group International[edit]

Alpha Group International (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)

Routine investors news, no single good reliable source; Reuters is not about this company; fails WP NCORP BoraVoro (talk) 16:13, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 17:42, 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 soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 00:30, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Trinity Foundation (Unicoi)[edit]

Trinity Foundation (Unicoi) (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 and there is some coverage, but not enough yo meet WP:ORG or WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 14:11, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 17:31, 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 redirect‎ to Lists of endangered languages. Owen× ☎ 23:42, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of endangered languages[edit]

List of endangered languages (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)

Duplicated article. See Lists of endangered languages. It was a redirect since 2009 until the author's recent edits. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 16:43, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"List of endangered languages" was a redirect to "Lists of endangered languages", which is a seperate page. If someone types in "List of endangered languages", they don't want to tab through some 50 articles on every region's endangered languages, and there should be one single comprehensive list of every endangered language. Rotprince (talk) 16:47, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is a poor quality article in many ways, unlike the existing Lists of endangered languages. For one all the language links go to Simple English Wikipedia, rather than the Wikipedia we are on. Second, it seems that the assessments of current status next to each language seem to be unsourced and completely subjective assessments fabricated by the author (you, as it were). There is no apparent rhyme or reason to these assessments; for example the author (again, you) claim your own language, the Frisian languages are only in "steady decline" while Catalan is in "very fast decline" (an absurd claim to anyone who knows anything at all about these two languages). It also makes outlandish, unsupported claims, e.g. it lists Sanskrit as an endangered language (in fact, it is extinct), and also makes the debunked claim that Sanskrit is the mother of all Indo-European languages. All in all, it would be an extremely poor article even if there weren't already another article that accomplishes the same function, but better; but given there is, the article should absolutely be deleted post-haste. Brusquedandelion (talk) 09:45, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
i think i need to remind you that articles of poor quality can be repaired instead of nominated for deletion. Fix it instead of whining about it. Rotprince (talk) 15:29, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is no need to fix a broken article that is duplicating a good article. Your point would only stand if the subject of the article were not already covered well elsewhere. Brusquedandelion (talk) 00:10, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Redirect. A perfectly good article already exists on this topic. Brusquedandelion (talk) 09:46, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect, as per above. RodRabelo7 (talk) 19:49, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect as above. The editor working on this appears to be in good faith in attempting a single list of all endagnered languages on one page rather than taking the list of lists approach of the redirect. Unfortunately this has two problems. Firstly it forks the list, and that divides editor effort and allows inconsistencies to arise. As such it is a redundant content fork (WP:REDUNDANTFORK). The other problem is that a single list of all endangered languages would need some 2,500 entries, and that is too long for a single list. Thus the current approach is better and redirect is in order. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 16:19, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    On second thought, i agree with this user. Can i delete the article manually given i "authored" it? Rotprince (talk) 16:50, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The person you are replying to is suggesting a redirect, not a delete per se. You can implement this redirect yourself just by changing the content of the page to a redirect- as the nominator Super Dromaeosaurus did previously, but which you reverted, as you might recall.
    For future reference, you can refer to these instructions on how to delete pages that you created, but note that such requests are unlikely to be granted if other people have also edited the article. Brusquedandelion (talk) 00:14, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Not sure if my vote is within the policy but I do find this article to be encyclopaedic enough for keeping. Agletarang (talk) 11:46, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That was never in doubt. The issue is that it is a redundant fork. see WP:REDUNDANTFORK. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 12:22, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't see what's wrong with a redirect. Bearian (talk) 17:03, 16 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) 22:19, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Donovan Slacks[edit]

Donovan Slacks (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)

At best, a bit of overly enthusiast in-universe writing or an attempt to promote the film.[38] Created in 2004‎, tagged with needing additional citations since 2010, and only sourced to the sites connected to the film and geocities-ish sites. But this is just a non-notable character from a small, independent film. I searched Google, ebsco, proquest, newspapers.com, proquest, and archive.org. From the Vimeo listing (my emph) Iranian-English director Kivmars Bowling has found a new way to bring period drama to a modern audience and bring this original story to life. [39] Nothing in the archived director statement or any other marketing materials claims the movie is based on a real person (press kit: [40]). The movie was in production when the article was created (see [41] from the film's blog: The script was written in 2002/3 and we shot the film in England in 2004.). Our article links to [42] which has documents that purport to be official government documents but are likely made for the film). (I think the movie is of questionable notability (zero published reviews) but the claim that it was the last movie be filmed with "Kodachrome 40 Super 8 film" [43] is interesting but I can't find any independent, reliable sources repeating the claim. I think creating a fresh article on the film if sources are found would be the path forward.) Skynxnex (talk) 14:36, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Film, History, and England. Skynxnex (talk) 14:36, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: It's an article, written in an in-universe fashion, about a non-notable fictional character made to promote a movie. No reason to keep this. You could probably request speedy deletion under G11 or maybe even even G3. StreetcarEnjoyer (talk) 19:33, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @StreetcarEnjoyer I considered that but perhaps doubted my ability to be sure I was correct. I also don't think it's "unambiguous" for G11 and G3 is probably a bit edge too. I don't have any objections to an admin deleting it that way since I doubt we'll need a deletion discussion to keep it deleted. Skynxnex (talk) 21:26, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 20:21, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 20:22, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: I don't find anything about a film or whatever this stub is supposed to be about. Plenty of hits on Donovans, nothing for this thing. Oaktree b (talk) 21:29, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this article about a fictional character in a movie I can find no RS independent coverage for. ResonantDistortion 11:54, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Wasn't obvious reading through at first, so worth noting the film and character have the same name. The character is non-notable and the film wouldn't pass WP:NFILM. hinnk (talk) 21:35, 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 14:38, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Freshmen Up at Yale Get No Tail[edit]

AfDs for this article:
The Freshmen Up at Yale Get No Tail (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not finding any meaningful coverage in reliable secondary sources. Does not satisfy WP:GNG or WP:NSONG. Cielquiparle (talk) 13:24, 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 no consensus‎. Liz Read! Talk! 23:53, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Massage for Relaxation[edit]

Massage for Relaxation (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)

Doubtful notability. Most of the sources look to be just mentions and run-of-the-mill. Article itself is basically WP:PROMO. PepperBeast (talk) 15:36, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 07:12, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:04, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Massage for Relaxation" was the first instructional internationally-distributed video on the market. I can safely say this as co-owner of New & Unique Videos, a production and distribution company established in 1985. Our company attended many VSDA and NATPE conventions at that time to make distribution deals and there were no other professionally produced massage videos in existence until Sherri Belafonte came out with hers in 1987, two years AFTER "Massage for Relaxation."
If Chiswick Chap using wishy washy language ("may merit" "doesn't seem" "probably") believes there were any other professionally-produced and distributed instructional massage videos prior to this one, please post evidence. BTW, most instructional videos made in the year 1985 are now considered "ho-hum" because they are nearly 40 years old and cannot possibly compare to today's standards in video. There is an industry now that exists merely to poke fun at VHS tapes from the 1980s.
"Massage for Relaxation" was the first video to introduce the idea of self massage and show self-massage techniques, which makes it notable. It was a three-camera shoot in a San Diego studio, also notable at the time. It was produced by a woman (me) which is also notable for its time. Try not to compare what happened in the 1980s using today's standards, or you will erase history the way a bunch of men burned down the Alexandria Library to eradicate the work of Hypatia. The result: Historians now have to cobble together any pertinent history about her via letters she wrote to a student. Her more important works were burned down and went up in smoke with the library.
You may notice that just about every Youtube video about massage these days is called "Massage for Relaxation." However, New & Unique Videos holds the copyright for that title.
To conclude, Wikipedian Michael Q. Schmidt, is the person who wrote the "Massage for Relaxation" article. In his opinion, and mine, too, it is better to improve an article than to summarily delete it. Patty Mooney (talk) 21:55, 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 soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 14:42, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jaime Ayala (entrepreneur)[edit]

Jaime Ayala (entrepreneur) (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 meeting GNG, ANYBIO. Only found one reliable source: https://www.bbc.com/news/business-22854440, the rest are press-releases-like stuff. BoraVoro (talk) 10:10, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:03, 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 14:39, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Chris McGrail[edit]

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

I couldn't find any SIGCOV of him so he fails GNG. Dougal18 (talk) 12:50, 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 keep‎. Owen× ☎ 23:37, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Types of nationalism[edit]

Types of nationalism (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 wonder if there’s any appetite for this proposed deletion. To my mind, the article is a complete mess. Not only is it almost entirely a synthesis of material, but I’m not convinced it warrants an article even if that problem were resolved.

All such an article would do is summarise the "types of nationalism" contained within the Template:Nationalism_sidebar, but given those types already all have their own articles, does that information actually need to be repeated here in an article of its own? Yr Enw (talk) 08:09, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - this kind of thing is difficult, IMO. It is clearly true that scholars have defined the topic in different ways and have focussed on different aspects. But I don't really think it is the role of Wikipedia to tie these things together, and it is hard to see how to do that without WP:BIAS and WP:SYNTH. On the other hand, we do have "overview" articles on various topics and I can see that this could be useful for at-a-glance basic information and navigation. It's also possible that printed overviews of the topic exist, so perhaps we are not here creating something new. I'm not sure how to resolve these tensions. JMWt (talk) 08:50, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:40, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Typologies and taxonomies of nationalism have definitely received scholarly study. For example:
As such, the article meets our inclusion guidelines. Editorial concerns like WP:SYNTH can be dealt with via normal editing. The problems are not so bad that wholesale deletion is warranted. Jfire (talk) 05:37, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The taxonomy of nationalisms is not really what that article deals with though. At present, it’s entirely repeated information or synthesised material. Yr Enw (talk) 06:33, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What, in your mind, is the distinction between a taxonomy of nationalism, and the existing article, which, for example, has divisions of "ethnic nationalism", "civic nationalism", and "ideological nationalism", subdividing the first into "expansionist nationalism" and "romantic nationalism", and the last into "revolutionary nationalism", "liberation nationalism", and "left-wing" or "socialist nationalism". You don't consider that a taxonomy? Jfire (talk) 06:41, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Right, of course that's a taxonomy, but you said "Typologies and taxonomies of nationalism have definitely received scholarly study" and the article doesn't deal with that. In other words, the article presents a taxonomy, but it isn't about how typologies and taxonomies of nationalism have been dealt with in the literature. But that isn't the only issue with the article. Even if we dismiss that semantic distinction, the divisions in the article all have their own articles anyway, which renders this specific article redundant per WP:REDUNDANTFORK. Yr Enw (talk) 07:40, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. While it needs expansion and explanation, I don't see how this fails WP:GNG. Bearian (talk) 17:11, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It's more a WP:REDUNDANTFORK than failing notability. Yr Enw (talk) 20:40, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per others. This isn't Wikipedia's finest article. At the same tie, sidebars are slimy things, and there's evidently scope for different types of nationalism to be afforded more discussion than a mere listing, as the sidebar offers. IgnatiusofLondon (talk) 23:05, 16 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) GSS 💬 04:24, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tantamount Theater[edit]

Tantamount Theater (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 basis of this article's notability isn't for the bulding, and there's insufficient sources available to satisfy WP:NCORP,which is the relevant guidelines since it is about the theatre as an organization rather than the structure in which it was located in. Graywalls (talk) 07:59, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Hello @Toughpigs:, so I reviewed all six sources and am not convinced they're a lot of shallow routine coverages like opening announcements occurring shortly, not unlike those that happen for the first Home Depot opening in town. Others are about plays. I am not finding significant, fully independent coverage WP:ORGING in multiple sources with at least one being widely circulated WP:AUD. These plays are taking place, the venue is opening, and such do not count as significant coverage. Significant coverage in newsletters and hyperlocal like Carmel Pine Cone don't satisfy WP:AUD. Lots of tiny coverages like opening announcements and advertisement of plays occurring at the venue is not an indication of notability itself. @Cl3phact0:, in which sources is it covered in depths showing it is of interest in the context of California history? Graywalls (talk) 15:58, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The San Francisco Examiner piece is neither local or routine. San Francisco is more than 100 miles away from Carmel Valley, and the article specifically says that the theater is special:
"Having heard reports of an extraordinary new playhouse in Carmel Valley where puppet productions were staged this summer, I decided to find it last Sunday afternoon. The Tantamount Theater is located on an enchanting hilltop where it stands against the horizon with striking elegance... There are 144 seats, a remarkable lighting system and a splendid curtain, painted by Martin, depicting a group of Moliere's 17th century actors. The puppeteers (with three assistants) have just finished an engagement of Midsummer Night's Dream which was preceded by Uncle Tom's Cabin and Le Bourgeous Gentilhomme."
This is an independent major city newspaper, giving detailed and specific coverage of the theater's architecture and productions. It is not a "first Home Depot opening" type report or the routine announcement of a new play. Toughpigs (talk) 16:05, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's more of a commentary by a journalist and it's far from even being in-depth coverage, as required to meet ORGDEPTH. Graywalls (talk) Graywalls (talk) 16:20, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Sourcing seems fine, interesting local history "thing". Could use a bit more info, but the guy travelling 100 miles to see the place and writing about it shows it was important at the time. Oaktree b (talk) 16:31, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It was the largest "marionette theater in America" at the time [44] Oaktree b (talk) 16:33, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The theater is connected with poet and artist Jeanne D'Orge who helped in the theater's creation and productions. Secondary sources by Adam Miller and others prove WP:SIGCOV and WP:NBUILDING. The building is notable as a result of its historic, social, and architectural importance. Please view the article's history as important information has been deleted by editors nominating it for deletion. Greg Henderson (talk) 16:50, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Comparing Stanley Eichelbaum's beautiful and informative writing about this theater with a routine announcement of a Home Depot opening is, well several words come to mind. I will go with ludicrous. Eichelbaum was a widely respected film and theater critic San Francisco for decades, and his critical assessments are quoted at least 20 times on Wikipedia. Carmel Valley is 130 miles from San Francisco so this is not local coverage and it is significant coverage. Added to all of the other coverage, I believe that notability is established. Cullen328 (talk) 23:52, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Interesting. Perhaps we should have an article about Stanley Eichelbaum (wikidata:Q124476277) too? Cl3phact0 (talk) 14:10, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, after gutting vast swathes of material cited only to self-published sources and tagging for notability, I was initially convinced the article was headed for deletion. But I have since been proven wrong, thanks to the sources added to the article and this discussion, which show direct detailed independent reliable coverage. Left guide (talk) 01:41, 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 no consensus‎. (non-admin closure) TarnishedPathtalk 15:34, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dai Paterson[edit]

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

I couldn't establish that this meets WP:MUSICBIO, WP:ENT or WP:GNG. It has been in CAT:NN for 14 years; hopefully we can now resolve this. Boleyn (talk) 18:49, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 02:08, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per duffbeerforme above Llajwa (talk) 18:20, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:29, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: 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. BEFORE searching for the subject name showed nothing from IRS with SIGCOV, a review and search for Dreams for Life which seems to be their most significant role, turns up no SIGCOV for the individual. BLPs require strong sourcing, and notability is not inherited.
The only source duffbeerforme provides [46] is a database record of an event, their rationale fails per NOTINHERITED. Llajwa is just a me too vote. If WP:THREE sources are added to the article that meet WP:IS WP:RS with WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth, ping me.  // Timothy :: talk  02:42, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Additional analysis of the available reference material would be very helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seraphimblade Talk to me 07:29, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Most of Tim's boilerplate vote is about the contents of BLP, not their existence. NACTOR is part of NBIO so a pass of the former is not a fail of the latter. Tim dismisses the above link I provided as merely a database record but fails to look at what is contained in the record
Review: Bill Perrett, Agenda, 13 June 2004, 23
Review: Helen Thomson, A3, 8 June 2004, 8
Review: Kate Herbert, The Herald Sun, 16 June 2004, 62
When combined with the also mentioned Age article it shows that this production is notable and as Mr. Paterson has a significant role in the production it counts toward NACTOR section about significant roles in notable production. This is not a NOTINHERITED failure but a direct application of the relevant SNG.
A look at the article for Dreams for Life (which if all else had been found wanting would be a good alternative to deletion target so no deletion would be required) shows that it too is notable and that Mr. Paterson has a significant role (as acknowledged above by Tim above). So there is another role that directly addresses that same NACTOR criteria. duffbeerforme (talk) 12:09, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply: Notability is not inherited. Source eval:
Comments Source
Database record, no info except photo 1. "David Paterson". United Agents.
Official video on Youtube, fails WP:IS, no WP:SIGCOV about the subject 2. ^ "Silverchair - Emotion Sickness (Official Video)". YouTube. 28 September 2012. Archived from the original on 19 December 2021.
Official video on Youtube, fails WP:IS, no WP:SIGCOV about the subject 3. ^ The chicken or the egg?
From above
Database record for event, no info about subject, has links to other subjects, notability is not inherited https://www.ausstage.edu.au/pages/event/65671
BLPs require strong sourcing, not just editor opinions.  // Timothy :: talk  03:05, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oops, sorry, forgot that it has been confirmed at Deletion Review that editors can ignore the existence of any relevant source that exists but is not currently refbombed into the page. That and they can ignore any relevant notability policy if it doesn't suit their arguments. Oh, and your source review sucks, maybe check it again. duffbeerforme (talk) 13:20, 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. Owen× ☎ 23:36, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Harpa Dei Choir[edit]

Harpa Dei Choir (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)

Barely any noteworthy coverage out there. None of the sources here are independent. Aintabli (talk) 06:27, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

On the other hand, I would suggest that as Harpa Dei are essentially a front group and cash cow for the Agnus Dei Community sect, and its leader, convicted s*x abuser Herbert Grundberger; and that as they have hundreds of thousands of social media followers and seem constantly to be on tour worldwide; they are notable because of these things! Their music is actually very good, and they have recorded many CDs. As they rarely mention the Agnus Dei Community by name (or the reasons why the sect was kicked out of Ecuador), it is unlikely that most fans or journalists have more than a vague idea about their background.
It is true that there is not much news or other non-social media coverage of Harpa Dei, except for articles saying that they will soon perform somewhere, or that their concert was nice. Even so, I believe that Harpa Dei are notable! But I admit, I am not an expert on Wikipedia standards of notability.
Thanks for considering my comments. Meadowlark12345 (talk) 13:13, 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 14:45, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

John Harrold[edit]

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

Completely unnotable mayor holding unnotable offices in a small city. No sources found to indicate that the subject meets WP:NPOL or WP:GNG. Previously nomination in the 48-article bundle at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fidel Vargas, closed as procedural keep due to the bundle's size. AllTheUsernamesAreInUse (talk)

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 14:46, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lara Larramendi Blakely[edit]

Lara Larramendi Blakely (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)

Unnotable politician holding unnotable offices in a small city. No sources found to indicate that the subject meets WP:NPOL or WP:GNG. Previously nomination in the 48-article bundle at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fidel Vargas, closed as procedural keep due to the bundle's size. AllTheUsernamesAreInUse (talk) 06:12, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 21:00, 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 soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 14:46, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Capture of Harput (1465)[edit]

Capture of Harput (1465) (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 source includes a very detailed account of the skirmish or attributes any significance to it and its aftermath. A separate article is unnecessary. On a different note, none of the sources here include exact page numbers. Several other articles created by the same editor were deleted based on the lack of WP:V. Aintabli (talk) 06:08, 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 14:46, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rachel Montes[edit]

Rachel Montes (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 mayor of a small town in California. A Wikipedia article for a different El Monte mayor, Ernest Gutierrez, was recently deleted as he was found to be non-notable. Also nominating another mayor of the same town who is equally non-notable:

Patricia A. Wallach (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 06:01, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both per nom. AllTheUsernamesAreInUse (talk) 06:15, 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. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 03:52, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rafe Sadnan Adel[edit]

Rafe Sadnan Adel (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 sources are small author profiles on websites he wrote for and a press release for getting a non-notable award. There is no claim to notability or significance in the article. Vinegarymass911 (talk) 06:01, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Per Nom, Not Notable at all. Untamed1910 (talk) 03:56, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep' as there is independent coverage from The Business Standard and the Daily Star - both of which are reputed sources in Bangladesh. Arman (Talk) 05:43, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I hate to tell you this but Daily Star is an deprecated source and an unreliable source, there is no reliable sources. Untamed1910 (talk) 15:52, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Is there any specific reason for your categorization of Daily Star, or this is just your POV? Furthermore, the subject has coverage in Prothom Alo and Business Standard as well. Are these deprecated and unreliable sources as well? Arman (Talk) 11:04, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Daily Star (United Kingdom) is a deprecated source not The Daily Star (Bangladesh). Either way, the sources are based on a press release on his appointment to the World Ovarian Cancer Coalition, an entirely non-notable organization. While the sources are reliable, they are not in-depth.Vinegarymass911 (talk) 12:03, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Searching in English and Bengali finds no significant coverage in independent reliable sources. The only hits are things written by him or a company with which he's connected, press releases, and passing mentions. The Prothom Alo, The Daily Star and The Business Standard[47] pieces are plainly copied from one original, and their structure and tone scream "press release". The creator seems to have an undisclosed close connection to Somoy TV. They claim the photo, taken three years ago in Adel's office there, is their "own work". They've also been blocked as a sockpuppet for pushing the creation of another bio of a Somoy TV news presenter. --Worldbruce (talk) 05:55, 16 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. No consensus established after multiple relistings. (non-admin closure) The Herald (Benison) (talk) 03:29, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeomanry Cavalry (disambiguation)[edit]

Yeomanry Cavalry (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)

This page had been converted to a redirect to Yeomanry Cavalry until today, when I reverted it back to bring it to AfD. At its previous state, it was eligible for WP:G14; however, with the history of the page that I brough back in its current state, I was wondering what consensus would be on what to do with this. Redirecting to Yeomanry Cavalry seems to be an issue as that page is not a disambiguation page or serving a similar function. TartarTorte 19:34, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep as a set index page. Also: don't edit pages just so you can bring them to AfD. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:49, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    My bad. I was trying to follow the spirit of WP:BLAR, but did so incorrect. As it seems that in this instance, it would have been best to have just reverted it to the state it's currently in and left it without bringing it to AfD. I'll be sure to be better in the future about that. TartarTorte 15:54, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:32, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, even though it was a waste of everyone's time to drag its carcass here. Set indices and dab pages are not for partial matches. Clarityfiend (talk) 11:27, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as a set index page.  // Timothy :: talk  13:44, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: One more time.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 05:25, 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 14:12, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Angelus Foundation[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Angelus Foundation (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)

Created by a single purpose editor. The references are either primary or mostly small one line mentions in mainstream press. Fails WP:ORG. LibStar (talk) 04:47, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 05:08, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: per the nomination. My search didn't bring up anything useful to show notability. TarnishedPathtalk 13:56, 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 keep‎. Regardless of COI, experienced (and non-ip) editors here all have consensus for a keep. (non-admin closure) TLA (talk) 03:36, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Milo Cress[edit]

Milo Cress (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)

Here's a young man who made the papers in 2018 and started an organization--but none of the info on either rises to the level of notability by our standards. Also, the article was written up by one of the many, many socks of Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Factsonlyplease39/Archive, Best Known For writing up truly awful and poorly verified biographies. Drmies (talk) 23:20, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 00:16, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment My vote to speedy delete was deemed invalid, because other editors have contributed to the article since it was created by a sockpuppet. I'd still vote for deletion based on WP:NOTNEWS. The subject briefly enjoyed coverage for one endeavor, but doesn't meet enduring notability standards. (This is a derivation of my previous opinion, not an attempt to enter a second vote). 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 00:50, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • FYI you're allowed to edit your own past messages.
    Jo the fire dragon 🐉「talk」 05:43, 3 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) 04:45, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: Christian Science Monitor and the NY Times are good articles, rest help notability. Oaktree b (talk) 16:36, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: per others. I also note the coverage about him is over a period of years so not churnalism. S0091 (talk) 17:34, 15 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 and while I'm not sure one will develop on the Talk with respect to merger, it's clear one isn't going to develop here. Star Mississippi 15:47, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

17 Reasons[edit]

17 Reasons (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:NALBUMS and GNG. This has been repeatedly redirected and restored making this redirect costly. Chris Troutman (talk) 23:14, 17 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! 23:13, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • I would consider established fanzines reliable when it comes to opinions (i.e. reviews). They have a firmly established place within subculture, and would be a considerably better source than if a mainstream newspaper suddenly tried to dip its toes in the scene. There is of course a considerable difference between MRR, Flipside (fanzine) and Punk Planet and someone's entirely new fanzine. Whereas reviews are fine, capsule reviews don't contribute to notability, but can be added nonetheless. I found a capsule review here and a somewhat longer review here. Geschichte (talk) 13:10, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 00:12, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist, so far editors are split between delete, redirect and keep. If I were closing I'd be interested in more discussion as to whether/why the sources show notability.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 04:22, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Weak keep to weak merge. The two sources J04n (01:54, 18 January 2024) added do show notability, the first, yes some, the second yes but it is covering all their albums and I read it as supporting a merge to Link 80. This merge if a good idea should not be rushed from AfD, and in the meantime, this page on a borderline independently notable album is ok. SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:08, 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. Sources raised helped consensus (non-admin closure) TLA (talk) 21:32, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mayfield West, Ontario[edit]

Mayfield West, Ontario (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 an unincorporated community, not properly referenced as passing WP:GEOLAND. As always, unincorporated neighbourhoods or communities within larger municipalities are not "inherently" notable enough for their own standalone articles as separate topics from their parent municipality -- it depends on the depth of reliable GNG-worthy sourcing about the community that can be shown to demonstrate that it has standalone notability as a separate topic, and a community that can't be shown to meet the necessary standard of sourcing just gets a redirect to the parent place.
But except for just one article in a local-interest magazine, which isn't enough coverage to meet GNG all by itself, this is otherwise referenced entirely to primary sources that aren't support for notability at all, like maps and content self-published by the municipal government. In addition, it warrants note that this was created at the incorrect title "Mayfield West, Canada", in defiance of MOS:CANNEIGH, in an attempt to bypass the fact that the correct title already existed as a redirect to Caledon.
So the appropriate remedy here is to delete this, and restore the original redirect to Caledon, Ontario, because this isn't the kind of sourcing that it takes to get an unincorporated community over GEOLAND. Bearcat (talk) 22:59, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Canada. Bearcat (talk) 22:59, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Mayfield. A small Village in the Townships of Chinguacousy, County Peel, 7 miles from Brampton, the County Town, and 27 from Toronto.

    Archdekin, F., hotel keeper

    Archdekin, P., farmer

    […]

    — McEvoy, Henry (1869). The Province of Ontario Gazetteer and Directory. Toronto: Robertson & Cook., p.304
    It's a shame to see a 19th century village being obscured by a 1974 housing development that nicked its name and tacked "West" onto the end. And no mention of this in Caledon, Ontario#History.

    Uncle G (talk) 06:51, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    • Shame or not, we need GNG-worthy sourcing before we can maintain an article about it. Bearcat (talk) 14:02, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • Let's see you make that argument at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ravipalli. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 15:07, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • Mayfield would be a formerly populated place if we can prove it, meaning we just need WP:V to maintain the article. I'm getting lots of ancient hits that people were from there. Mayfield West though should be merged back into Caledon. SportingFlyer T·C 10:54, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        • Well I can definitely name nine people that lived there. ☺ As well as the 138 votes cast from Mayfield in an election in December 1892, although that was for a Peel County position and belongs in an election results table in Peel County, Ontario if anywhere.

          And I didn't mention Caledon, Ontario#History idly. This article's first source is all about that, but ironically not used in that article at all. Because a Wikipedia editor has decided to write up the town's history in an article about a "service centre", a totally obscure place to put it. More irony: the first source is indeed false sourcing for this article, because it doesn't actually talk about any "rural service centre" at all.

          Uncle G (talk) 15:07, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

          • This isn't Mayfield (near Mayfield Road and Dixie). This is Mayfield West - a relatively modern suburb about 2 km further west (and north), which is more related to Snelgrove, Ontario than Mayfield. Nfitz (talk) 01:15, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
            • We all know what tacking "West" on the end meant, Nfitz. Uncle G (talk) 09:55, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Agree with Uncle G, using my genealogy tricks, I don't think much was ever written about the place. If you went there and got into the courthouse, or if better newspaper coverage was available it might be doable. But we'd be talking about moving this to Mayfield ontario, and writing about that. The place this article is actually about is non notable.James.folsom (talk) 23:13, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm not having problems find plenty of coverage about Mayfield West - see this search. I'll leave question of notability to others. Nfitz (talk) 01:20, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • That would be a handful of mentions, all primary, all saying it's a community or housing development. All stuff Uncle G, already pointed out. James.folsom (talk) 23:59, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 00:09, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep This is a substantial and growing new suburban area that even has a new urbanism component (retail on Kennedy Rd.). It does need improvement though, such as changing the community type from "Rural Service Centre" to "Neighbourhood", clarifying where it exactly is. Transportfan70 (talk) 14:35, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Neighbourhoods within larger municipalities are not "inherently" notable just because they exist, or even just because they're purportedly growing — they have to be shown as the subject of enough reliable source coverage to pass WP:GNG, in order to earn anything more than a redirect to the parent entity. So what sources do you have to offer that would get this place over GNG? Bearcat (talk) 15:19, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      There are tons of articles on neighborhoods in the GTA actually, and this one is notable as a rather unusual urbanized area (that's growing rapidly) in the context of the predominately rural municipality of Caledon. PS: Is Valleywood part of it? Transportfan70 (talk) 02:05, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Or put another way: If you cannot prove to the world that any of what you asserted is documented, published, and true, your argument doesn't hold any water at all. Uncle G (talk) 09:55, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I started work improving the article and provided references Transportfan70 (talk) 03:55, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Given a rather recent claimant of sourcing, this is to provide opportunity to produce the same
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 04:11, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Mayfield West appears to be a relatively new development, but there appears to be at least close to enough GNG-related coverage to get us there. [50]. SportingFlyer T·C 13:02, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep im gonna lose my mind if all of this gets deleted — Preceding unsigned comment added by Danielg532 (talk • contribs) 00:39, 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) GSS 💬 04:49, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Vivek Shende[edit]

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

Sources based mostly on a few of the subject's publications; while an early to mid-career researcher accomplished in their specific field, but otherwise not notable. Reads somewhat as promotional. Jfo17 (talk) 04:00, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 04:19, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 04:19, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 04:19, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 04:19, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question. Would the nominator like to give their opinion on how the subject's GS citation record affects his notability? Xxanthippe (talk) 05:10, 9 February 2024 (UTC).[reply]
  • Keep and comment. While I do think he passes WP:PROF#C1, both for his work in mathematics and in computer science, I want to note that the usual difficulties of comparing citation counts are significantly magnified for someone like Shende (or me) who publishes both in computer science and in mathematics. You can't compare the numbers from different of his publications to get an idea which are the important ones, and you can't compare aggregate numbers against his coauthors, without first splitting the computer science papers from the mathematics papers, because those areas have very different rates of citation. (The same thing happens even more frequently with statisticians, who are expected to do the statistical analysis on papers in other topics, frequently with high citation rates, and also to do basic research in statistics, frequently with much lower citation rates. The statisticians have probably developed methods for doing the citation analysis properly but I don't know what those methods might be.) —David Eppstein (talk) 06:07, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Pass of WP:Prof#C1 with reservations above. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:50, 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 no consensus‎. Closed as no consensus after 3 weeks of discussions and relistings. Weak keep comments lean towards GNG but consensus is not clearly established. (non-admin closure) The Herald (Benison) (talk) 04:50, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lucy De Ville[edit]

Lucy De Ville (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 have carried out WP:BEFORE for this article about a band, and not found sources to add. It has been tagged as relying on primary sources since 2007. It has no footnotes and the two external links are an interview and the archived page for the band's website. I do not think it mets WP:NMUSIC. Tacyarg (talk) 20:35, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 00:05, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep. Ugh. I suspect that Shaidar cuebiyar will turn out to be correct, BUT WP:BAND6 refers to musicians, yet the articles for the two members refers to them as actresses. By some definitions, these folks are musicians; by others, they are not. On balance, I'll hold my nose, and vote for a marginal keep. Larry/Traveling_Man (talk) 18:46, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 04:04, 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 snow keep/nomination withdrawn. JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 05:21, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Moana 2[edit]

Moana 2 (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)

Upcoming film. Coverage is mostly based on in-passing mentions and press releases. Seems like WP:TOOSOON, but it will likely be notable within a few months (scheduled for November). Draftify until then? Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:51, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. The OP is incorrect. I can understand if this was some obscure film, but there has been A LOT of talk about this recently, especially with the announcement that this was moving from a TV series to a film. I would say it is already notable now. I have to agree with the other comments on here. The fact that this is an upcoming film does not disqualify it from being notable.Historyday01 (talk) 14:10, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. A trailer has been released and its a Disney film, that's more than enough for the article to exist. GhaziTwaissi (talk) 14:32, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: As per the teaser, the final stages of animation have commenced.
Kitrsjlhf (talk) 16:57, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep per above. Plenty of relevant coverage since the teaser was released a couple days ago. -- ZooBlazer 17:36, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Keep. It is not a one-sentence article and although the article is short, there is still enough sourced information that there are no obstacles to retaining it. OGPawlis (talk) 19:00, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • STRONG Keep: Are you kidding? The movie has been in production for years as a television series, before it is not repurposed as a feature film. The release is this year, and the teaser trailer has been released.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 21:10, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
EXTREME Keep. It is not WP:TOOSOON and should be kept. Ryanisgreat4444 (talk) 22:49, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: Please note that Piotrus has kindly withdrawn this nomination. If anyone has time to close this as speedy keep, thanks!-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 23:56, 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 merge‎ to Meitei culture#Animals and birds. where a rescope can happen, if needed Star Mississippi 15:42, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Canidae in Meitei culture[edit]

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

Looks to be author's WP:SYNTHESIS PepperBeast (talk) 02:47, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I finally got around to actually reading this article. Almost all of it is about foxes. Why not remove the one subsection that is about a dog and make the article about foxes in Meitei culture? That would resolve the WP:SYNTH issue neatly. Darkfrog24 (talk) 21:20, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. :-) Haoreima (talk) 21:21, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or merge : I don't mean to be confronting or offending anyone's decision. I see that you are worried about WP:SYNTHESIS. However, I believe that we need not to mention that Canidae is a group of animals including dogs, foxes, wolves, jackals, etc. It's a universal fact. It's a scientific fact. It's an immovable fact. The article is about only dogs, foxes, wolves, jackals, and not about lions or tigers or horses. At the same time, we need not to find sources that mention that Meitei folktales of foxes are parts of the culture of Meitei speaking people alias Manipuri speaking people. I don't think so. Everyone knows folklore, mythology, cinema, theatres of X are the parts of X culture, endorsed by the Wikipedia:You don't need to cite that the sky is blue. At the same time, other than English language sources, I provide other Indian language book links as citations. They already cover the topic extensively in depth. Thank you! :-) --Haoreima (talk) 15:48, 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 Speedy keep‎. No proper deletion rationale. Nominator is also now blocked, which doesn't help the case. (non-admin closure) TLA (talk) 03:41, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Qnet[edit]

Qnet (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)

Over 150+ dead links, 90% article is almost cited with dead links, either needs to be restructured entirely or deleted until. Systumm (talk) 02:32, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep, as said above, that's not a deletion rationale, and 90% of dead links are fixable. PARAKANYAA (talk) 04:22, 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 merge‎ to Meitei culture as a natural ATD. Owen× ☎ 23:32, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hills and mountains in Meitei culture[edit]

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

Purely WP:SYNTHESIS PepperBeast (talk) 02:25, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: India and Manipur. PepperBeast (talk) 02:25, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Ethnic groups and Geography. Skynxnex (talk) 04:01, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge seems like this could be cut without losing useful content and merged back into Meitei culture. JMWt (talk) 08:59, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Merge. Same response as on similar other nomination. Not every segment on Meitei culture needs to have its own separate article when there is already page on Meitei culture where these segments can be merged to. RangersRus (talk) 15:56, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. We do not need such an article for every object X with regards to Meitei culture. Brusquedandelion (talk) 01:26, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or Merge (into Meitei culture): All the information are sourced by one or more citations, in English and Indian languages. None are left uncited. Anyone can fact check it. There's no question of synthesis. --Haoreima (talk) 17:53, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm confused. Is the thesis of this article that hills are central to their culture, like sisu to Finnish and seny to Catalonian culture? Bearian (talk) 17:14, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge‎ to Meitei culture as a natural ATD. Owen× ☎ 23:31, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Classicism in Meitei culture[edit]

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

Appears to be WP:SYNTHESIS PepperBeast (talk) 02:23, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: India and Manipur. PepperBeast (talk) 02:23, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Ethnic groups and History. Skynxnex (talk) 04:01, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Meitei culture (possibly with more wl to other daughter pages there) given that there are other pages including Ancient Meitei literature which seem to cover the material in a better way. Agree that there seems to be too many pages covering the same ground on this topic JMWt (talk) 09:04, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Merge. Just too many unnecessary pages on Meitei culture and like many others this too doesn’t need to have its own separate article when there is already page on Meitei culture. Least, some content of it can be merged to Meitei culture page. RangersRus (talk) 16:02, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep : I have provided different sources of books in English and Indian languages, which support the claims. This topic is highly underrated one. So, obviously, it might not appear in Google search (English version) in abundance. --Haoreima (talk) 16:17, 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. Owen× ☎ 23:30, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

National recognition of Meitei culture[edit]

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

This is basically a synthesis created for purposes of WP:Peacock. PepperBeast (talk) 02:21, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: India and Manipur. PepperBeast (talk) 02:21, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Ethnic groups and Politics. Skynxnex (talk) 04:01, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - not really seeing why this page is needed or meets the notability criteria for inclusion. JMWt (talk) 09:05, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Fails wp:n. It is all puffery. RangersRus (talk) 16:08, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep : The article is cited with numerous sources for each paragraph, supporting all the claims. None of them are fake claims. Anyone can scrutinise it. There's no question of WP:NOTABILITY in this case. If anyone believes that the article is suffering from WP:PEACOCK (or the so called WP:PUFFERY), then he/she can rewrite the article to correct the problem or, if unsure how best to make a correction, the article may be tagged with an appropriate template, such as {{Peacock term}}. Deletion isn't the solution in case of the rationale given for this AFD. --Haoreima (talk) 01:06, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Delete: per nom. Okoslavia (talk) 12:58, 16 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 14:49, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

International recognition of Meitei culture[edit]

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

This is basically a synthesis created for purposes of WP:Peacock. PepperBeast (talk) 02:20, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Obvious WP:Peacocking. Brusquedandelion (talk) 03:33, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Are there any precedents for this? Upon reading the title, I wondered if Meitei culture was perhaps not universally acknowledged as an independent culture, the way some Native American tribes aren't recognized by the United States government, and this article was about the debate. It seems it's not. Is there a "Recognition of Cheyenne/Uighur/Hakka culture" article? Darkfrog24 (talk) 18:20, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    There's no such precedent, and we should hastily delete this article before it creates such precedent.
    The closest equivalent to the Native American analogy is that the Government of India did not officially recognize Meitei/Manipuri until the Seventy-first Amendment of the Constitution of India, when Meitei was added to the Eighth Schedule. India also has a system for "scheduling" so-called "tribes and castes," but this generally occurs at a level much more granular than ethnicity, broadly constructed, and is reserved for groups considered especially socio-economically disadvantaged.
    From the perspective of Wikipedia, all this is already well-covered elsewhere: the articles linked above, and at Meitei language movement, inter alia. Furthermore, the actual content of the article under discussion, as it stands, does not even cover these issues, but rather consists largely of peacocking. Brusquedandelion (talk) 01:46, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Delete per all. Okoslavia (talk) 12:57, 16 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. WP:SNOW (non-admin closure) TLA (talk) 03:32, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Spulerina lochmaea[edit]

Spulerina lochmaea (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)

Too few references + not meeting notability guidelines. Avishai11 (talk) 01:03, 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 keep‎. (non-admin closure) The Herald (Benison) (talk) 03:31, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Legend of Dragon Pearl[edit]

Legend of Dragon Pearl (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)

Appearing to not meet references/notability guidelines, among other things. Avishai11 (talk) 01:00, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

TLA (talk) 03:45, 16 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 00:32, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tekka (film)[edit]

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

Disputed draftification. Does not meet WP:NFILM as there is nothing showing this is even filming, no release date, etc. Also fails WP:GNG. CNMall41 (talk) 00:52, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:53, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete or Dratify. Way too early for this. I do not understand why it becomes necessary to create an article on the basis of assumptions. RangersRus (talk) 16:14, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify Delete: I'm a little confused on the time frame of this. It's had a "first look," but it might not have started shooting, but it'll be done by October 4? Weird. Anyways, does not meet WP:NFILM. TOOSOON, and the dates are unclear (I've changed my vote to delete). —asparagusus (interaction) sprouts! 23:42, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - The issue with draftification on this one is that it was already disputed by the creator. Sending it back to draft, something I often do as an WP:ATD is a great option, but once the creator disputes it I do not see draftification as an option. Too many times in these cases it will simply be moved back to mainspace before its ready and we will be right back at AfD. --CNMall41 (talk) 04:52, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    CNMall41: In that case, I will change my vote. —asparagusus (interaction) sprouts! 15:50, 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 delete‎. ✗plicit 00:37, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mahzad[edit]

Mahzad (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)

PROD removed. Insignificant name that fails WP:NNAME, WP:NOTDICT and WP:GNG. AllTheUsernamesAreInUse (talk) 00:46, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: DICDEF. Not seeing notability; sure I find people with this name, but no reason to indicate this is notable. Oaktree b (talk) 01:22, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The problem is there's no extant Wikipedia articles about people with the name, but yes, I agree. AllTheUsernamesAreInUse (talk) 03:28, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:50, 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 00:43, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Iqbal Al Ghuzat[edit]

Iqbal Al Ghuzat (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; the sole example of independent coverage is [51], which includes a little bit of description beyond the routine signing announcement, but does not make a case for GNG on its own. I was unable to find additional coverage searching online for various substrings of the subject's name combined with teams that he has played for. signed, Rosguill talk 20:02, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Indonesia. signed, Rosguill talk 20:02, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify – As WP:AtD. Svartner (talk) 01:53, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    On what basis? Draftify is for when there's an article where we expect sources to soon become available, or where we think we can rescue an article about a non-notable topic by refocusing on a more notable related topic. signed, Rosguill talk 15:18, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Based on the fact that the athlete is in the main divisions of Indonesian football, with his career in progress, it is possible for his notability to be fully established in the short to medium term. Svartner (talk) 18:28, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 11:56, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. GiantSnowman 12:07, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - @Svartner:, @GiantSnowman:, I found [52], [53], and [54], among many more Indonesian sources. Young player with ongoing career in fully pro Indonesian top flight which gets lots of media coverage. Article needs improvement, not deletion. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 11:06, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Doesn't appear to be SIGCOV to me. GiantSnowman 18:21, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:11, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: 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
Database 1. "Iqbal Al Ghuzat: Profile". Soccerway. Retrieved 2 July 2023.
404 2. ^ "Mantan Pemain Persipa Gabung PSG". www.lingkarmulia.com (in Indonesian). Retrieved 6 March 2021.
404 appears to be a game recap 3. ^ "Hasil Persis Solo Vs PSG Pati: Laskar Samber Nyawa Menang Dua Gol Tanpa Balas" (in Indonesian). sportstars.id. 26 September 2021. Retrieved 26 September 2021.
404 appears to be a game recap 4. ^ "Hasil Bekasi City vs Persela Lamongan Skor Akhir 2-1, Pekan 1 Liga 2 2022-2023" (in Indonesian). mediabola.net. 29 August 2022. Retrieved 29 August 2022.
Game recap does not mention subject 5. ^ "Hasil Bekasi City vs Nusantara Skor Akhir 2-0" (in Indonesian). mediabola.net. 27 September 2022. Retrieved 27 September 2022.
Mill sports recruiting news 6. ^ "Dewa United FC Perkenalkan Rekrutan Pertamanya Iqbal Al Ghuzat". bolaskor.com. 26 May 2023. Retrieved 26 May 2023.
Game recap does not mention subject 7. ^ "Hasil Liga 1: Dewa United Kalahkan Arema FC 1-0". sport.detik.com. 2 July 2023. Retrieved 2 July 2023.
Sources in above Keeps appear to be all mill sports news, nothing that meets WP:SIGCOV, showing WP:N by addressing the subject directly and indepth.
Nom lists this source, [55], but it appears to be mill news with a promo quote from CEO of Dewa United FC, which means it fails WP:IS/SIGCOV. BLPs require strong sourcing.  // Timothy :: talk  03:44, 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 merge‎ to Characters of the Tekken series#Josie Rizal. ✗plicit 00:45, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Josie Rizal[edit]

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

This is an odd one, but hear me out. I think this article has problems on a few fronts, namely that there's really at the core not a lot to say, the whole article could be summarized in a list entry easily. But the bigger issue is the core of the reception, well pretty much *all* the reception, is something in a week's span or less, and says a lot of the same thing over and over. I don't feel that makes it notable per WP:SUSTAINED. Kung Fu Man (talk) 20:59, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Video games. Kung Fu Man (talk) 20:59, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Josie Rizal has a lot (or at least a decent amount) when it comes to her being a Phillipines representation, something most Tekken characters don't seem to get when it comes to representing their country, so I don't agree its an example of WP:SUSTAINED, which seems to be more about news and events. Also consider the detailed creation section, which is covered by third-party sources. Overall, there's enough discussion on her character to satisfy notability, and for her to have an article. MoonJet (talk) 21:59, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • All of it is within a small timeframe, March 31, 2015 - April 8, 2015 at the latest, and that was after extensive searching. That's slightly over a week. Afterward radio silence, even when searching Japanese sources. That's entirely what SUSTAINED is for: we have to show that there was coverage beyond one short blip or controversy.
  • Now as for the creation section, we have discussion about her design on a Yahoo article from the writer's perspective and not the actual devs, a possibly unreliable source asserting she borrows moves from Manny Pacquiao, and a CBR ref that's proposing a theory. This isn't development info, this is outside sources looking at a thing and suggesting correlations. The Yahoo one, at best, would be useful for citing her character design, but not commentary on how it came about or what's missing on it.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 22:20, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    A bit late here, but as I said, that guideline seems to be more for events and BLPs than for fictional elements. Even then, it only notes caution, rather than coverage in other timeframes is a must. Also keep in mind WP:NOTTEMPORARY. The fact that most (but not all like you imply) of her coverage was within a timeframe should not be relevant. MoonJet (talk) 17:35, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge The article will have a tough time standing on its own when the only outside analysis is controversy. I can't see notability being clearly proven. As usual, there is more than enough to justify a list section. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 05:18, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:09, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge Article needs more notability to stand by itself. Kazama16 (talk) 21:30, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    We have at least three sources covering the character beyond trivial or passing mentions. Enough to pass the WP:GNG, and fulfill the purpose of WP:WHYN. Namely, the sources from Yahoo, Kotaku and IGN. And beyond that, there's CBR and MSN, just to name a couple more sources. MoonJet (talk) 17:30, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    MoonJet, the sources still have the same problem I mentioned above: short time frame next to each other and leading to a SUSTAINED issue. Other sources like the CBR one above aren't actually saying anything tangible. Same problem I mentioned above, nothing has changed since my last statement.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 17:39, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    But like I said, it only notes to take caution, rather than coverage in other timeframes is a must. Also keep in mind WP:NOTTEMPORARY. The fact that most (but not all like you imply) of her coverage was within a timeframe should not be relevant. MoonJet (talk) 14:48, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge So, the article mostly relies in controversy section. But, there's no actual discussion about that character except the controversy only. GreenishPickle! (🔔) 22:53, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge Per others. SUSTAINED is an indicator that notability is not established, despite MoonJet's insistence about NOTTEMPORARY. The argument here isn't that Josie Rizal "lost" notability, but that Josie Rizal was never notable in the first place. MoonJet should probably reread NOTTEMPORARY which is very clear that while notability is not temporary, that doesn't mean a reassessment won't find a topic non-notable. Disclosure, I've arrived here due to MoonJet posting to WP:VGCHAR talk page. Additionally SUSTAINED is not an SNG and is not limited to "events and BLPs" as MoonJet suggested either. -- ferret (talk) 14:58, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per ferret; this character lacks significant, sustained coverage and therefore is not notable. NOTTEMPORARY does not render articles immune to later assessments that may or may not find that a given articles is, in fact, not notable. Happy editing, SilverTiger12 (talk) 18:26, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge for WP:CONSENSUS. I understand why someone would want to WP:PRESERVE this information, but I agree with the other editors about merging to a list. I think you could write a significant reception section at an article about the characters, plural. Shooterwalker (talk) 14:45, 15 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 00:27, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Money-rich, time-poor[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Money-rich, time-poor (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 in its lamentable current state reads more like a brief collection of vague examples within the very broad concept of time poverty. I'd say an article on this particular phrase is more suited for Wikitionary than for Wikipedia. A concise definition and any brief etymological/historical context of the expression is all that's needed. Mooonswimmer 20:57, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There doesn't seem to be any scholarly/encyclopedia content here. Closed Limelike Curves (talk) 22:04, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:09, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Heavy on WP:SYNTH, and the term itself is sourced to LinkedIn, clearly not a RS. A merge or move to Time poverty doesn't make much sense because the sources cited aren't specifically describing the same thing (hence the SYNTH) and without all the examples-in-search-of-a-subject, there isn't much left that isn't already covered in that article. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 01:35, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: This feels largely like an essay. It includes many opinions in the prose ("Time by all accounts, [sic] is the most valuable thing people can possess.") and doesn't source the common use of the phrase very well. Mentions articles but doesn't attribute authors. I think that "time poverty" might be notable, but the article is supposed to be about the phrase, and none of the work of this article is really usable except for the sources (besides the Linkedin one). —asparagusus (interaction) sprouts! 23:26, 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2024_February_9&oldid=1212574844"