Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 January 17

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< January 16	January 18 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:37, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tradgeo[edit]

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

Doesn't seem to meet WP:NCORP. Outside of press releases, it doesn't look like there are any reliable sources from which to build an article. BuySomeApples (talk) 05:56, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The sources I have used to create are all reliable. If we search "Tradgeo" on Google. These sources appears. Please consider this article North West Trading Company. No external links introduced in this article. This article has only three references, these references are type of the references that I have used in Tradgeo. I will improve the article more. Mukarram (talk) 06:15, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Mukarram0126: Just because the sources appear in Google doesn't mean that they meet Wikipedia's requirements. In this case, they're press releases written by the company which means they're not independent. Also, just because WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS doesn't mean this page will be kept. BuySomeApples (talk) 21:09, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Give me time to improve article. Mukarram (talk) 21:14, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

An article can be pushed back to what is known as draftspace. In other words, a draft before becoming an article. There's never a strict deadline to improve an article so there's always flexibility. – The Grid (talk) 14:35, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink, Finance, Companies, and Florida. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 07:17, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Outside of press releases, it doesn't look like there are any reliable sources from which to build an article" Regarding this, the article includes, for example, the SunBiz page, which is the state division where Florida (USA) companies are registered. This is a government reference from the United States of America, where the company is registered. Using this reference, the existence of the company, and data such as its address and manager, can be validated. 186.1.186.51 (talk) 18:51, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The external links I have used are more reliable. Mukarram (talk) 21:10, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The article has links to other existing articles that describe companies and have similar references. How is this article different enough to require deletion? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lear419 (talk • contribs) 21:21, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agreed. Mukarram (talk) 21:57, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS - Sumanuil. _{(talk to me)}

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:39, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:39, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – entirely WP:SELFPUB profiles and Press releases, thus not WP:INDEPENDENT. TLA (talk) 07:07, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 23:53, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No independent sources to be seen. Also, read Wikipedia:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS.

Industrial Insect (talk) 19:52, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article have reference from Sunbiz. Through this reference, the existence of company should be validated. Needs improvements. — Preceding unsigned comment added by User0451 (talk • contribs) 09:04, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Very odd that a new editor with just this single edit appears to !vote at this AfD, especially in light of the previous paid editing. HighKing⁺⁺ 11:27, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is a company therefore GNG/WP:NCORP requires at least two deep or significant sources with each source containing "Independent Content" showing in-depth information *on the company*. "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. I'm unable to identify any references that meet the criteria for establishing notability. HighKing⁺⁺ 11:27, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 01:59, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rauf Hasağası[edit]

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

Not enough sufficient SIGCOV to justify inclusion – book looks like a passing mention only to source the trivia of him being a referee. All my searches found no SIGCOV InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 19:06, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Olympics, and Turkey. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 19:06, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Note that old Turkish sources are ludicrously difficult to locate and find, per here. But we do have evidence that Rauf is mentioned in Türkischer Biographischer Index, the Turkish Biographical Index - per WP:ANYBIO, those with an entry in a country's biographical dictionary are considered presumed notable. Such a presumption should stand in a case like this where we have someone who clearly was one of their nation's most prominent athletes who we just can't find sources for due to them being ridiculously hard to locate. BeanieFan11 (talk) 19:17, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Failure to meet these criteria is not conclusive proof that a subject should not be included; conversely, meeting one or more does notguarantee that a subject should be included. Can you find any other SIGCOV which would determine notability aside from being mentioned in passing? InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 03:57, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
However, we need to use common sense when someone is presumed notable and we have absolutely no access to the sources that we know are 99% likely to cover him (i.e. athletes of this caliber in countries that we do have access to sources for will always have ample coverage - we have no access to old Turkish sources, and in the discussion I linked above, someone pointed out that the newspapers of the time would only refer to someone by their first name, making it even more difficult to find sources - generally I find that when Olympedia gives a decent biography the person is usually notable, and they do in this case). BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:58, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@InvadingInvader, thank you for your message. Can you find any other SIGCOV which would determine notability aside from being mentioned in passing? -- Yes, the subject is covered in-depth in Öktem, Niyazi (2005). Sultani söyleşileri: Galatasaray'dan anılar (in Turkish). Derin Yayınları. ISBN 978-975-6463-60-4.. This is far more than a passing mention, and it helps determine the subject's notability. --Habst (talk) 17:42, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, thank you for your nomination and I added some information to the article. Hasağası was covered significantly in this book, in addition to coverage in the Turkish Biographical Index. He set seven Turkish national records and was a major part of Galatasaray Athletics in its early years. This clearly meets WP:SPORTCRIT as significant book coverage exists. --Habst (talk) 17:39, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 23:53, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above. Appears in the national bibliographical dictionary of Turkey and should be notable according to the guidelines. Sources and points presented by Habst are also convincing. Aintabli (talk) 05:36, 21 January 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 09:57, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of historical separatist movements in South America[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:NLIST as it's another political list where it specifies the criteria in the article; this is OR. Entirely unsourced. microbiologyMarcus ^{(petri dish·growths)} 17:16, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists and South America. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 17:24, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:33, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: unsourced and apparently unsourceable. Could find nothing that could support notability. -- Otr500 (talk) 07:16, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Created recently so not suitable for soft-deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 18:23, 3 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!} 19:41, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:35, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – The article is abandoned, it only contains information about Brazil and Colombia, with Brazil indiscriminately mixing real historical movements such as the Farroupilha Revolution with modern separatist movements, which sound more like internet protests against tax increases or the federal government itself. For me it is a clear case of WP:TNT. Svartner (talk) 17:54, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per all of the above. TH1980 (talk) 01:44, 21 January 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. Less Unless (talk) 17:07, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Callum Voisin[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Non-notable teenager, who fails WP:NSPORTS. The GB3 Championship that he won is an amateur series, and as such is not professional. The F3 Championship is a semi-pro series and as such is also not fully professional. Most sources are promotional, others are passing mentions of where he placed in a given race. 2A01:36D:1200:4672:5406:9F58:AF4A:C4BC (talk) 14:38, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I have fixed some malformed aspects of the formatting of the nomination. No opinion or further comment at this time. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:21, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Motorsport, Switzerland, and United Kingdom. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:23, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Appears to meet WP:GNG. The fact that the subject is a teenager and has not run in a "fully professional" series does not matter. glman (talk) 20:27, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify - Not seeing evidence of the WP:GNG being met. What coverage there is in independent reliable sources seems to be either WP:ROUTINE or not substantial enough to be significant (ie. this Autosport article has only a short paragraph on the subject). The subject is still only seventeen years old so WP:BLP concerns are greater than usual (what with the potential for a Wikipedia article becoming a vector for school bullying or the like). If someone can show evidence of more substantial coverage that my WP:BEFORE search has missed I may change my opinion. If the subject achieves success in FIA Formula Three then it's possible the WP:GNG may be met in the coming year. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 21:46, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Update - The sources found by User:MSport1005 show that the article's subject is more notable than I initially believed. However, I remain unconvinced that the subject is currently notable for more than WP:ONEEVENT (winning the 2023 GB3 Championship), so my vote will remain to draftify for the time being. The subject has a lot of WP:POTENTIAL to become notable in the near future but I still believe it to be WP:TOOSOON to make an article in mainspace. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 22:40, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify per HBP5, and as he will likely (but not certainly—WP:CRYSTALBALL) achieve GNG in the next year, it seems the best course from a WP:NOTBURO point of view. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 22:08, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Firstly I'd like to note this article's 1st nomination, a year ago, resulted in keep. Sourcing within the article is poor but enough WP:SIGCOV exists online. Nominator is wrong in calling GB3 an amateur series – it's a third-tier junior single-seater series and the successor to British F3. Apart from winning this, Voisin was also recently a finalist in the prestigious Autosport BRDC Award in 2023 and is moving up to FIA F3 in 2024. While none of this ticks WP:NSPORT, coverage exists and WP:POTENTIAL is high, so I'm leaning towards keep. MSport1005 (talk) 03:58, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify. Two sentences in a listicle with 9 other young racers is not SIGCOV. Routine transactional announcements and event recaps on Formula Scout et al are not SIGCOV either. Much of the transactional content on these sites is regurgitated by semi-anonymous/pseudonymous contributors from press releases from places like Edge Sporting Management anyway. I'm doubtful there'll be more coverage in the next six months, but I guess we can wait and see.

JoelleJay (talk) 05:14, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Two sentences in a listicle with 9 other young racers is not SIGCOV. Routine transactional announcements and event recaps on Formula Scout et al are not SIGCOV either. — Our job is to find sources, not to decide on the ones already listed in the article. This is categorically an improper application of the guideline. MSport1005 (talk) 11:45, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Our job is to evaluate any sources that have been found. No one has provided additional sources that contain IRS SIGCOV, and nothing beyond routine and passing mentions showed up in my own search. NSPORT requires the subject meet GNG and that a GNG-qualifying source be identified for an article to be kept. JoelleJay (talk) 19:31, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – This article has previously been kept in such a discussion (see 1st nomination), not to mention that Voisin's WP:POTENTIAL has increased as he won GB3 and has progressed into Formula 3 for 2024. KVYTICAL (talk) 11:05, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- GB3 is not a professional series. A couple years back, an AFD was held for a singer who was announced to be participating in Eurovision and his page was draftified (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dion Cooper). I believe that Callum Voisin's page should be draftified for now; should he perform well in Formula Three (which again is not a professional but rather a semi-pro series), he will likely be notable enough to warrant inclusion in Wikipedia, for now, he's just one of many teenage racing drivers. - 2A01:36D:1200:4672:44C3:46D:541B:FBBF (talk) 12:23, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - There is no reason to delete this page, considering what happened in the 1st nomination and the fact that since that, Voisin has been crowned GB3 champion (which isn't an amateur series). Article's WP:Potential is fairly high considering his recent success and F3 drive for this year. Road Atlanta Turn 5 (talk) 14:02, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Voisin is a GB3 Champion and 4 out of 5 champions go on to FIA Formula 3, there are little to none amateur drivers so stop waffling mate. Formula 4 drivers get Wikipedia articles and Voisin has been announced for Formula 3 which is on the FIA Global Pathway. Zak O'Sullivan, the 2021 GB3 Championship winner, is a member of the Williams Driver Academy and is onto Formula 2 in 2024, Luke Browning the 2022 champion is apart of Williams Driver Academy and is a podium sitter in Formula 3. BurningBlaze05] (talk) 15:46, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - GB3 is a series that is well established within the alternate FIA pathway at around Formula Regional level. Therefore, someone calling it an amateur series is showing the whole motorsport community that they don't have the slightest idea on how the motorsport feeder series work. Therefore, its current champion who is also stepping up to FIA F3 cannot be considered as a "run of the mill" driver and is noticeable enough to be warranted inclusion in Wikipedia. Sjælefred Herm (talk) 18:37, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
None of the above keep !votes have any P&G basis. It is irrelevant whether he raced amateur or pro because our notability guidelines require SIGCOV IRS sources for all sportspeople and so far none have been identified. JoelleJay (talk) 19:34, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Please remember that polling is not a substitute for consensus. There still hasn't been any ~~demonstration of WP:GNG being met~~ or addressing of the WP:BLP concerns around the creation of articles about dubiously noteworthy WP:MINORS. A sportsperson being a professional or an amateur has little-to-no bearing on any of this. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 01:20, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Voisin won't be a minor by the time he makes his F3 debut – I don't see the concern in an article that purely focuses on his racing career and not his personal life – and the GB3 title, AMABA finals appearance and F3 seat make him (at the very least) not WP:ROTM. He's certainly more notable than the likes of Kean Nakamura-Berta, René Lammers, William Macintyre, Rashid Al Dhaheri or Tiago Rodrigues, whose pages keep getting created – I had to draftify them all yesterday myself because nobody acts against them. MSport1005 (talk) 02:26, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please, kindly stick to wiki etiquette and don't try to influence the flow of the discussion by discrediting everyone ("none of the above keep !votes [...]") who disagreed with you. The arguments go far deeper than "whether he raced amateur or pro". As stated (both above and in last year's nomination) a WP:BEFORE search yields enough non-routine SIGCOV – [1], [2], [3], [4] to name a few. And the subject is unequivocally more notable (or bears more WP:POTENTIAL) now than he was then. MSport1005 (talk) 02:14, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for providing those links. Search engines seem to be barely functional these days so it's really appreciated. The Autosport article counts towards WP:GNG although I'm less sure of the other examples. Formula Scout is a somewhat marginal source (I am unsure if it falls under WP:SPS) and I lack any familiarity with the other two. Regardless, I think on ethical grounds a high bar needs to be set with articles about young people who have not attracted much in the way of mainstream media coverage. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 02:28, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Passes GNG. Carrite (talk) 21:29, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. The discussion is divided between those arguing Draftify and those who desire to Keep this a main space article. Since the dispute is over whether articles sources supply GNG and SIGCOV, a source analysis table would be useful in any one is interested in compiling one.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:34, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per MSport1005 citations. I am not sure why this keeps getting relitigated when it already passed one add and the above discussion seems pretty clearly to have resulted in anothe keep. 108.41.198.35 (talk) 00:43, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Good citations; notable athlete. Llajwa (talk) 15:59, 25 January 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 Swifties#Gaylor. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:09, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Look What We Made Taylor Swift Do[edit]

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

2 weeks old opinionpiece, fails WP:NSUSTAINED by definition. Not good per WP:EVENTCRIT either, though perhaps WP:NBOOK can be seen as more relevant. Redirect/Merge to ~~Gaylor~~ Swifties#Gaylor. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 23:29, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Bands and musicians, and Women. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 23:29, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism, Sexuality and gender, United States of America, and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:22, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You probably meant to suggest Swifties#Gaylor as the redirect target. Jfire (talk) 00:23, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Correct and thanks. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:26, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per rationale in nomination. Way too soon to determine if this is a notable work of journalism and no reason to think it’s inevitable. 108.41.198.35 (talk) 00:45, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect/Merge per nom. Georgethedragonslayer (talk) 09:46, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect/Merge to Swifties#Gaylor. This is a technical vote just to help build consensus, and a merge is not entirely necessary because the NYT article is already mentioned there sufficiently. The nominator and previous voters have argued correctly and I agree, especially per WP:EVENTCRIT. Meanwhile, look at what Swiftyism has become: obsessive articles criticizing obsessive journalists reporting on obsessive fans. Keep us out of it. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:07, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect/Merge to Swifties#Gaylor, although I think the scholarship from the page should remain and be expanded. In the coming years I expect there will be more academic scholarship on the Gaylor community that more firmly delineates it as a conspiracy theory separate from the Swiftie community but I don't think we are there just yet. It took quite some time for Larrie scholarship to start appearing after the buzz from it had died down. Computer-ergonomics (he/him; talk; please ping me in replies ) 15:09, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Swifties#Gaylor as a WP:SUSTAINED fail. I think the coverage there is satisfactory to the point that a merge isn't really necessary. All the best, Schminnte^{[talk to me]} 16:43, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Swifties#Gaylor as per comments above. ℛonherry☘ 21:15, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as above; merging is not necessary. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 19:33, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per DOOMSDAYER520. dxneo (talk) 05:37, 22 January 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 Appanoose Township, Franklin County, Kansas. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:11, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Appanoose, Kansas[edit]

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

This is plainly a larger locale, now represented perhaps by Appanoose Township; the various things named "Appanoose"— a creek, a school/museum, a church, a cemetery, and the supposed location of the post office— are spread out over a area some three miles north to south. It's been deleted from GNIS, and the spot, near the school, has nothing there. This review of the museum states that "Appanoose was never a town, but rather a rural community," and that's pretty much what I see; but a vague "community" about which we have pretty much no information is NN. I contemplated merger to the township, but the problem with that is that I have essentially no information as to the importance of these in the overall state governmental structure. If they are just administrative districts within the counties then the township articles should just point to a map/list in the county article. Mangoe (talk) 23:27, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Kansas. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:23, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Here's a description of what townships in Kansas do. It's not much, but probably best to just merge the unincorporated communities to the appropriate township. In many rural areas they're basically the same thing. Reywas92^Talk 02:45, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Appanoose Township, Franklin County, Kansas. Nothing can be said about the hamlet of Appanoose other than it was in Appanoose Township, briefly had a population of 13 (1890), later 15 (1900), there was a post office from 1857-1902, and there is an Appanoose cemetery there. The Appanoose Cemetery is near the Appanoose settlement; the school/museum and church are several miles away, elsewhere in the township. Most references to Appanoose are clearly talking about the township, not the village in the township. A stand-alone article cannot be supported. This is a good example, IMO, of where a merge up to a higher level can work very well. Firsfron of Ronchester 05:56, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- … Or where there was never any support for the subject at all in the first place. Gannett, which you have hyperlinked there, does not even support the claim of "hamlet". And the "douglas county" search term in your hyperlink is the wrong county.
  Appanoose; post village in Douglas County.
  Appanoose; township in Franklin County; area, 30 square miles; population, 630.
  — Gannett 1898, p. 28
  Andreas 1883, p. 602 and Blackmar 1912a, p. 681 have Pomona, Kansas as the first village in Franklin County in 1870, and Appanoose Township not even existing in 1857, as it "was organized May 17, 1871". The settlers, according to the relatively contemporary History by Andreas were settling "on the west branch of Appanoose Creek, and on the middle branch".
  Which makes Gannett's very next entry somewhat ironic.
  Appanoose; creek, a left-hand branch of Osage River in Franklin and Douglas counties
  — Gannett 1898, p. 28
  The USGS was making gazetteer errors even then, it seems. Contemporary Kansas State sources, such as Sims 1885, p. 147, clearly state Appanoose Creek to be a branch of the Marais des Cygnes River.
  I don't think that there's actually any evidence for a village. "Appanoose" was all either the Township after it was organized, or the Creek before. The actual hamlets in Franklin were, also ironically, Pansy, Kansas (AfD discussion) and Pleasant Hill, Kansas (AfD discussion), both in the Appanoose Creek valley according to Blackmar 1912b, pp. 441, 482; as I pointed out in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bowling Green, Kansas.
  The hamlet in Douglas County, per your search term, is in Blackmar 1912a, p. 90, by the way.
  Uncle G (talk) 10:48, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

references

Gannett, Henry (1898). A Gazetteer of Kansas. Bulletin. Vol. 154. United States Geological Survey. OL 20596112M.
Andreas, Alfred Theodore (1883). "Franklin County". History of the State of Kansas. Chicago: Alfred Theodore Andreas. OL 15439414M.
Sims, Wm. (1885). "Franklin County". Fourth Biennial Report of the Kansas State Board of Agriculture. Topeka, Kansas: T. S. Thacher.
Blackmar, Frank Wilson (1912). Kansas: A Cyclopedia of State History. Vol. 1. Chicago: Standard publishing Company. LCCN 12015729. OL 13489994M. (Kansas: A Cyclopedia of State History at the Internet Archive)
Blackmar, Frank Wilson (1912). Kansas: A Cyclopedia of State History. Vol. 2. Chicago: Standard publishing Company. LCCN 12015729. OL 13489994M. (Kansas: A Cyclopedia of State History at the Internet Archive)

Comment Here is a good newsclip that establishes that this is a township https://www.newspapers.com/image/323799441/?terms=Appanoose&match=1&clipping_id=110219208. Also it's been well established that these franklin county postoffices ~~courthouses~~ aren't always in towns. EG the Coburn post office that may have been in Pomona.James.folsom (talk) 00:22, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Another good article on the history of Apanoose township. https://www.newspapers.com/image/367052048/?terms=Appanoose&match=1&clipping_id=107747588 It never mentions a town called apanoose. It does mention that FD Coburn has a farm there, which all but proves that the Coburn post office was in Pamona. Further proving these post offices can be named anything and located anywhere.
Redirect viable (and very likely) search term. Djflem (talk) 18:21, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Appanoose Township, Franklin County, Kansas per my comment above.James.folsom (talk) 00:22, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Appanoose Township, Franklin County, Kansas per the above discussion. I've created a history section in that article and copied over the single sentence about the post office that is the basis of this article.Jbt89 (talk) 02:05, 22 January 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!} 23:11, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2SSR[edit]

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

G11 declined. No sources, and my BEFORE check did not find any SIGCOV. QuicoleJR (talk) 23:21, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio and Australia. QuicoleJR (talk) 23:21, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Only 5 gnews hits. The first 2 may be considered indepth but they are an industry related source and a local newspaper. Fails GNG. LibStar (talk) 01:46, 24 January 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. Regarding the article page tite, you can either "Be Bold" or start a Move discussion on the article talk page. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:29, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rising Shore Roanoke[edit]

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

Not notable; no reviews or other third-party citations provided. Skyerise (talk) 23:07, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:23, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:24, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This novel did not get wide distribution, but it is a book that was discussed on radio shows and had some circulation. I would think this meets the guidelines for an article. I updated the article to include interviews with the author and reviews of the book. Klok000 (talk) 02:28, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That review you added, "Bookpleasures" is not the kind of source that we should cite. Interviews with the author don't help either. The novel is self-published, though the article doesn't say that, and I don't think the author can make a claim for notability. Delete. Drmies (talk) 02:36, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. Wikipedia:Notability (books)#Criteria says:
A book is presumed notable if it verifiably meets, through reliable sources, at least one of the following criteria:
1. The book has been the subject of two or more non-trivial published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself. This can include published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, other books, television documentaries, bestseller lists, and reviews. This excludes media re-prints of press releases, flap copy, or other publications where the author, its publisher, agent, or other self-interested parties advertise or speak about the book.
Sources
1. Bird-Guilliams, Mary Kay (August 2007). "Homsher, Deborah. The Rising Shore--Roanoke". Library Journal. Vol. 132, no. 13. p. 68. Archived from the original on 2024-01-07. Retrieved 2024-01-07 – via Gale.
  The review notes: "The invented portions are believable, including the ending--you can debate the details, but it seems quite logical. ... Lots of violence and tragedy in this version of early American history; most public libraries will want to purchase for readers who enjoyed Jane Smiley's The All-True Travels and Adventures of Lidie Newton."
2. Riddle, Mary Ellen (2007-08-24). "Author's Lost Colony solution is intriguing". The Virginian-Pilot. Archived from the original on 2024-01-07. Retrieved 2024-01-07.
  The review notes: "What truly sings in Homsher's work is her amazing ability to understand life. On every page, she analyzes it with a powerful voice. One is astounded to find that the words are unique and apt. ... Homsher writes about women like Elenor who have been involved in American adventure and faced violence. In the end, she crafts a solution to The Lost Colony. It flowered in the mind of a gifted writer."
3. Jacobs, Meredith (2008-03-09). "Tangled love, a Christian trilogy". The Fayetteville Observer. Archived from the original on 2024-01-07. Retrieved 2024-01-07.
  The article notes: "Deborah Homsher, a journalist and author, has written “The Rising Shore — Roanoke.” The novel tells what two women might have experienced as members of the Lost Colony. The story is told from the viewpoint of Elenor Dare, the mother of the first English child born in North America, and her servant, Margaret Lawrence."
4. "The Fiction Shelf: The Rising Shore Roanoke". Small Press Bookwatch. Vol. 6, no. 4. Midwest Book Review. April 2007. Archived from the original on 2024-01-07. Retrieved 2024-01-07.
  The article notes: "The Rising Shore Roanoke is a novel of the famous lost American colony, from the perspectives of two women who sailed from London to the shore of Virginia's wilderness in 1587. The adventurous daughter of the expedition's leader chafes at the societal restraints placed upon her gender, while her female servant dares to walk an independent path among the struggling colony. Their journey will take them through the Caribbean and climax in the Outer Banks region of North America. An enthralling saga of a colony presumed doomed, due to historical record of its founder's return from a three-year supply trip to find nothing left of the settlement except the word "Croatoan" carved on a post."
5. Newman, Janis Cooke (2008-01-20). "Faye Dasen: Novel About Mary Lincoln Is a Keeper". The Pilot. Archived from the original on 2024-01-07. Retrieved 2024-01-07.
  The review notes: "Homsher's historical fiction tells the story of the voyage and settlement via the points of view of Elenor White Dare and Margaret Lawrence, her servant. Elenor, who is an intelligent woman, marries Ananias Dare simply so she can make the journey with her father, John White. She and Margaret both have dreams of bettering themselves in some way. ... Homsher has a way with words."
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow The Rising Shore – Roanoke to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 05:59, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Sources provided by @Cunard are sufficient for WP:NBOOK. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 00:33, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting in light of new sources located.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:44, 10 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!} 23:18, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

comment I don't do book deletion discussions as a rule, but I note that the article ought to be at The Rising Shore — Roanoke, which is the actual title of the book. Mangoe (talk) 23:32, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep in line with the references so wonderfully found and added, and support renaming per Mangoe. --Ouro (blah blah) 12:35, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I'd probably avoid using the Midwest Book Review source given the criticisms in the Wikipedia article, notably that they were basically accused of being a positive review mill. Other than that, I think that there are enough reviews to establish notability. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 16:13, 23 January 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. In the future, if you change your "vote", please strike out the one that no longer represents your point of view. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:26, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Parlay Starr[edit]

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

Older article that hasn't been well-sourced for years. Normally, an older article like this I'd either do a {{sources exist}} or nominate it for procedural deletion, but sources don't *really* exist on Google and it's been recently edited (so a PROD tag would likely get deleted). I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 22:13, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and California. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 22:13, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:19, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Montana-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:20, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I can't find any notable or significant coverage of the topic, fails GNG. CoconutOctopus talk 22:51, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:SIGCOV and WP:BEFORE. Other than the one source in the article I can't find anything at all on Google news, newspaper, or books Bearian (talk) 15:33, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or at least find some other way to preserve the content, as there is at least one source. This article receives about 2 views per day, and the fact that an anonymous editor added a 2024 album, recently, suggests there may be sources out there that do not show up with a Google search. The content had to have landed in the article somehow, it is just nobody has bothered to cite their sources at the time, and they have now all gone away. Although there is a connected contributor, the article is not really written like WP:PROMO. Perhaps redirect to a broader topic, or try a broader search under his real name. I can find a page on SoundCloud without too much trouble and also United Gangs, among others. Although there is not much actually written about him since 2014. - Cameron Dewe (talk) 20:44, 10 January 2024 (UTC) (edited)[reply]
@Cameron Dewe We need about 3-5 independent, reliable sources that have a significant mention of Starr for him to be considered notable. So, not the ones you listed out, unfortunately. Also, since @Liz didn't ping you with this (they probably just forgot; it happens), but you would need to suggest a redirect; article deletion just hides content from public view, anyways, it doesn't actually delete it from the server. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 02:03, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I know this might be tenuous, but merge and redirect as a footnote to Tha Realest, who was a guest artist on one of Parlay Starr's recordings in 2010. Deletion will leave a red link in that artist's discography, as well as his article, which are the only two articles that link to the subject. This action will reduce the risk of resurrection if the decision is made to delete. The alternative is to remove the wiki-links as part of any post-deletion clean-up. - Cameron Dewe (talk) 03:54, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Cameron Dewe Redlinks aren't something to be universally avoided, therefore don't universally need to be removed. Overlinking should be avoided and should be fixed, but that's regardless of whether or not the articles exists; "seas of blue" and "seas of red" both need to be avoided. Also, there's some lists on Wikipedia that are broadly-defined and extensive enough that you need to add only articles that exist to it, but that's an exception to the rule that's often explictly stated in hidden comments inside these lists.

You've expressed concern that a redlink would decrease the likelihood of recreation. Redlinks actually increase the chances of an article being created, more so than a redirect. This is in part because recreating an article over a redirect is more easily reverted than recreating a deleted article. To be clear, I don't support reflexively reverting a recreation of an article over a redirect; I'm just saying it's more easily reverted. It's hitting an undo button (with a redirect) vs. nominating the article for deletion again (with outright recreation).

Like I said previously, article deletion just hides content from public view, anyways, it doesn't actually delete it from the server. In fact, admins can still look at almost all articles that have been "deleted." If Starr ever becomes notable, the content can, in fact, be restored. In fact, premature creation of temporarily non-notable subjects is one reason why articles are hidden instead of deleted (along with the occasional accidental deletion, accountability, etc.). The article is likely to be restored in draftspace or in someones' sandbox so reliable sources can be added before it's moved to mainspace, but it's still restorable.

And yeah, redirect to a guest artist is pretty tenuous, particularly with the above context. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 17:38, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@I dream of horses: Having considered whats been said, this is a biography of a living person so a high standard of citations are needed. So if the citations are not there and the historic ones have been lost, this is effectively an unverified article, so I am forced to agree that deletion inevitably follows. If someone wants to recreate this article in the future then they will need better citations than now exist. - Cameron Dewe (talk) 03:29, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Cameron Dewe Thank you for absorbing what's been said. It might be worth it to officially change your vote to delete/soft delete (a "soft delete" is a delete with an explicit undeletion offer.) I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 06:03, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@I dream of horses: Ok. Delete on the condition that a request for undeletion can be made in the future should this living person subsequently become notable, either under a nom-de-plume or his real name. - Cameron Dewe (talk) 00:09, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as opinion is divided. But if you are going to suggest a possible Redirect as a resolution, you have to name the target article you think is appropriate. That is not a closer's job.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:52, 10 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!} 23:17, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as lacking SIGCOV. I will add that I see fairly clear consensus to delete this article, given that Cameron Dewe (the only keep !voter) ultimately agrees with deletion above. House Blaster (talk · he/him) 21:16, 23 January 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!} 23:12, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rogelio Andaverde[edit]

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

The subject is a living person notable only for a single event, and the article does not maintain a neutral point of view as a result. I don't see any obvious merge or redirect targets, so I propose to delete. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 23:17, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime, United States of America, and Texas. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 23:17, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: a $5000 bond isn't what makes criminal notability, this is rather routine. He's simply not notable for what's happened. Oaktree b (talk) 23:24, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
delete News of the weird-type police blotter item with no staying power. Mangoe (talk) 23:36, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete man in the news for not a unique/lasting "news of the weird" does not make for notability. Also WP:BLP. Star Mississippi 03:42, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Appears to fall under WP:NOTNEWS, with no lasting coverage suggesting that this was a notable incident. WP:BLPCRIME issues abound as well. --Kinu ^t/_c 21:48, 18 January 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 move to draft‎. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 07:07, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Candidates of the next Australian federal election[edit]

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

You can only become a formal election candidate once a writ for the election has been issued and your nomiantion approved, see https://www.aec.gov.au/elections/candidates/files/candidates-handbook.pdf page 5. From that date until the election (a period of weeks), the official register of eligible candidates is the list the AEC will make available through it's web site.

This page instead is a list of pre selection winners from the major parties likely to be eligible candidates. Independants and small parties never appear here as they do not require a pre-selection process. The majority of current members will also re-nominate for the next election without challenge, so it is redundant to list them all here. As per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2023–24 Liberal Party of Australia preselections, this type of discussion is of interest to active members of major political parties and not encyclopedic by nature. The issue is also covered at Next Australian federal election#Candidates Teraplane (talk) 23:16, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and Australia. Teraplane (talk) 23:16, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 23:17, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
delete this blazingly-bright WP:CRYSTAL-ball of an article. I have to wonder why we have articles on the "next" election when it is completely unclear when it will happen in the next twenty or so months, but in any case listing people who might be candidates when the election is announced is ephemeral political handicapping, not an encyclopedia topic. Mangoe (talk) 23:45, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nomination and WP:CRYSTALBALL. TarnishedPath^talk 00:21, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:24, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Is there a time limit where the election has to be within a certain amount of time in order for us to have this article? This article follows the same format as articles of candidates for every Australian federal election (Category:Candidates for Australian federal elections). These articles certainly do include minor party and independent candidates. This article contains content about which candidates will be contesting the next federal election, according to reliable media sources. Is this discussion a proposal to delete all of the candidates articles? Onetwothreeip (talk) 20:13, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, as the nomination says, there has to be an election actually schedule, so that the article itself would convert to "Candidates of the year Australian federal election", and then the entries would be actual candidates as they do whatever is required to become so under Australian law. the problem with this article is that it is listing what, if I understand correctly, is a subset of those who might become candidates in an election whose date isn't set yet. Elections held in the past are no model for this they are recording historical fact, not predictions of the future. Mangoe (talk) 22:23, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The previous election articles were also created well before the election was announced, so this is nothing new. The article for the 2022 election candidates was created 13 months before the election, for example. We are currently 16 months away from when the next federal election is due. There has never been any requirement for an election to be called for the relevant election articles such as candidate lists to exist, either for Australia or anywhere else. All of the candidates articles for elections since 2013 were created in the year before the election was held.

These are not candidates who "might" be candidates, they are the candidates who are confirmed by the relevant political parties, the individuals themselves, and reliable media sources to be the candidates for the next election. Honestly, where did you hear that these are people who only "might" be the candidates? Onetwothreeip (talk) 11:13, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Those aticles for previous elections would also have appeared way too early, but I guess were not challenged by an AfD. As per WP:CRYSTALBALL 'next election' is vague term. The start of 2025 should be the earliest this page appears and be renamed to that year. However as mentioned, there is aslready coversge at Next Australian federal election#Candidates which you could supplement. The problem with this list of tables is that it is about 98% empty, with the very few names nearly all from one party. And it will remain that way as most non-retiring members, indpendants and small party candidates do not go through the same pre-selection process. So there will not be any sources to cite. You would get more names coming in the weeks prior to the election. But such a short time span again makes this article unencyclopedic. The page will only become definitive after the close of nominations, when official AEC data can be cited (2022 page uses this source also). Teraplane (talk) 22:35, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CRYSTAL says Individual scheduled or expected future events should be included only if the event is notable and almost certain to take place. The next Australian federal election is almost certain to take place. The candidates listed in the article are those who are confirmed to be the candidates. An independent or small party candidate would be added to this article if and when there are any reliable sources to support this.

If you read the history of the 2022 article and the other candidate articles, they all used various media sources to cite the inclusion of candidates into the article. After the close of nominations, the sources are replaced with the Electoral Commission sources. Onetwothreeip (talk) 00:55, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Articles like this generally become articles (and renamed to the new title) once the election date is confirmed. There will no doubt be a next federal election, this article is in preparation for one. The next one is likely 2025, a possible alternative is to draftify this. Ajf773 (talk) 08:41, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Almost every other candidates article for Australian federal elections was created well prior to confirmation of the election date. This confirmation normally occurs about two months before the election itself, well after the effective election campaigns are ongoing. Onetwothreeip (talk) 00:57, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify. Not enough content to justify the article for mainspace, in addition to WP:CRYSTAL concerns above. Would be good to keep as a draft. J2m5 (talk) 07:52, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The problem with draftifying is that these articles rely more on sporadic public contributions, than on one or two dedicated editors. Onetwothreeip (talk) 08:39, 23 January 2024 (UTC) (Keep per ITBF below - the topic clearly meets general notability and has sufficient sources backing the content. Onetwothreeip (talk) 20:35, 23 January 2024 (UTC))[reply]
True, but my concern is that there just aren't enough announced candidates for the article to be in the mainspace yet. It looks very blank. But I also want editors to be able to keep a list going somewhere on Wikipedia until it is ready for publication. J2m5 (talk) 10:13, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The article is transcluded in other articles (such as the actual page of the election) so whoever ends up deleting this (if that is the consensus) must take care to include said content in those other articles. Also noting that the creation of the candidates article is nothing unusual to what was done previously, which would eventually culminate in a proper list article. Marcnut1996 (talk) 11:41, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The election's next year, not that far away in the grand scheme of things. In my view there's already enough coverage of preselections, retirements etc. to justify a separate article. "Formal" candidacy is not relevant, we don't ordinarily wait until nominations have been closed before creating these types of article. ITBF (talk) 13:23, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Further to the above, those citing WP:CRYSTALBALL don't appear to have read that policy. "Wikipedia is not a collection of unverifiable speculation, rumors, or presumptions". This article is none of those, all candidacies mentioned are sourced with inline citations. "Individual scheduled or expected future events should be included only if the event is notable and almost certain to take place". The next election is both of these. ITBF (talk) 13:26, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

These is not a list of candidates so the title is misleading. It only shows pre-selected likely candidates of major parties (and only one so far), most probably for the election in 2025 but maybe 2024, which is all too vague. A pre-selected candidate may never actually register due to a change in circumstances. As per the nomination, you can only apply to be a candidate once the writs for the election occured. You then have to be checked for eligibility. The AEC will porgressively publish those candidates in the lead up to the election, NOT after the close of nominations. This is a merely a list of pre-selection winners, which is just where nominations are contested in the major parties. The majority of sitting members will recontest without challenge. So we are only dealing with as very small subset of seats (no Senate tables) and a subset of parties for each seat, hence the vastly empty tables. We already have good coverage at Next Australian federal election#Candidates, the handful of pre-selection results are better covered there in non-tabular form. Teraplane (talk) 22:18, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In Australian politics, "preselected" means they are the candidates. It means they have been confirmed their respective party processes, and in these cases, the reliable media sources have confirmed this. There is almost no coverage of individual candidates on the Next Australian federal election article, as this content has always existed in the Candidates article. I can't think of any other instance on Wikipedia where we wait for the election commission to publish the list of candidates, it's always been a matter of when they are confirmed by reliable media sources. Any independent or minor party candidates that are reported as being candidates in reliable media would also be added. Onetwothreeip (talk) 08:46, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The next federal election is nowhere near anything approaching scheduled. It has not been called. No writs have been issued. Anything may happen between now and the election being called in potentially a bit over a years time. Scandals, factional infighting, retirements, deaths, etc. There is no guarantee that anyone listed in this article will be a candidate at the next federal election until such time as a) the election is called, b) writs are issued, c) they place their nominations with the AEC and d) their nominations are accepted. This is definition WP:CRYSTALBALL. TarnishedPath^talk 03:56, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The reliable sources disagree with you though. According to the sources, these are the candidates. Onetwothreeip (talk) 08:40, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't matter how near or far the election is, this is currently by and large a blank article. J2m5 (talk) 23:49, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Most articles start small. Onetwothreeip (talk) 08:39, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Most articles do not start with large blank tables with empty cells. J2m5 (talk) 10:30, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify per @J2m5. Cabrils (talk) 01:04, 26 January 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 Motor Vehicles Act. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:23, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2023–2024 Indian truckers' protests[edit]

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

WP:NOTNEWS, this is a one day bandh/event (as of yet) and all the sources are from 2nd Jan. No prejudice to recreation/undeletion if this does become a huge national event like the 2020/2021 protests. Sohom (talk) 20:05, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Law, Transportation, and India. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:13, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm happy to support a Merge as well. Sohom (talk) 11:00, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP definitely an important event in the history of Strikes for New Law Systumm (talk) 16:12, 9 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!} 22:57, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~: WP:TOOSOON. It's important is not a rationale for keeping. ^Queenof_Hearts 03:55, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge with Motor Vehicles Act per below and WP:ATD. ^Queen of _Hearts 06:22, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: It seems important and has lots of sources, could be improved though BasedGigachad (talk) 19:10, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:15, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Motor Vehicles Act and move this article's text to its controversies. Charlie (talk) 14:47, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Selective merge with Motor Vehicles Act. This lacks significant secondary coverage in its own right but a few details might be relevant at the target page. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 23:52, 19 January 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!} 07:13, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Silva Iaponicarum[edit]

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

Non-notable journal. Tagged for notability and sources since 2014. Not indexed in any selective databases, no independent sources. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG. Randykitty (talk) 23:29, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academic journals-related deletion discussions. Randykitty (talk) 23:29, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:47, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:48, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. According to the journal's website, it is included in the Polish Ministry of Education and Science periodical index (40 points) and the ERIH PLUS database. Are these considered non-selective? Eastmain (talk • contribs) 00:46, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~, quick google books search ([5]) shows that articles are widely cited in English literature on the topic. Marcelus (talk) 08:46, 11 January 2024 (UTC) Changing the vote Marcelus (talk) 08:52, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: A smattering of citations is to be expected for any scientific journal. I don't see the number of citations that would indicate notability. --Randykitty (talk) 10:01, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:JOURNALCRIT: Criterion 2: The journal is frequently cited by other reliable sources. Marcelus (talk) 12:46, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, it all depends on what you think is "frequently" and whether you perhaps have sources that confirm this... --Randykitty (talk) 14:11, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not indexed in any selective databases. GScholar shows citations in single digits, sorry User:Marcelus but I don't see GNG here. PS. I started a deletion at pl wiki: pl:Wikipedia:Poczekalnia/artykuły/2024:01:12:Silva Iaponicarum. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:40, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I trust your judgment on this, I'm not fully familiar with the GNG for scientific journals. Marcelus (talk) 08:52, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Marcelus See Wikipedia:Notability (academic journals). This may survive on pl wiki which is pretty inclusionist for such entities, but English Wikipedia has a bit higher standards. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:02, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Do you want to strike the "Keep" opinion?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:09, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It exists, but I can't find anything more that can be sourced to anything but itself. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:26, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Kept on pl wiki, which is much more inclusionist and open to counting votes. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:25, 24 January 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 ‎ draftified. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:26, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Visnja Radosavljevic[edit]

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

Was draftified then moved back with little to no improvement. Non-notable artist, fails WP:NARTIST and WP:GNG. Promotional tone as well. Seawolf35 ^T--C 23:07, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists and Serbia. Seawolf35 ^T--C 23:07, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Women, Dance, and Television. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:27, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete from someone who basically rewrote the entire article to have a less promotional tone than it previously did. On January 5, I talked with the article creator regarding their COI , which they admitted to having. I also tagged the article for notability. Although the creator has moved it from the draft space, as nom mentioned, they have not improved the article, and I would posit they do not intend to do so. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 03:49, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am so sorry, this is my first article so I didn't understand it completely. I moved it back to draft to improve everything. I hope you don't mind. Petar Zurich (talk) 18:01, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

The result was redirect‎ to List of Cyprus women's international footballers. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:14, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Irene Andreou[edit]

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

Poorly sourced footballer BLP with no indication of passing WP:GNG. All I found in my searches was this interview and some very short pieces covering the subject (2020, 2021). JTtheOG (talk) 22:37, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and Cyprus. JTtheOG (talk) 22:37, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 16:37, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 16:40, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Fails in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 21:45, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: 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. Ping me if sources are added to article that meet WP:SIGCOV and are not routine mill news. // Timothy :: talk 21:44, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Cyprus women's international footballers. Suitskvarts (talk) 17:26, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for reminding me there was a Cyprus list! JTtheOG (talk) 17:52, 24 January 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. ^Complex/_Rational 22:41, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mohsin Shafi[edit]

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

I'm not finding that this artist meets notability criteria WP:NARTIST. Several of the citations are name checks only, not sure about the reliability of the others. An online BEFORE search reveals social media and primary sources. Bringing it here for the community to decide. Netherzone (talk) 22:20, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Visual arts and Pakistan. Netherzone (talk) 22:20, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:28, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Some passing mention in reliable and unreliable sources, fails to meet WP:ARTIST. M.Ashraf333 (talk) 11:30, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This has all the hallmarks of a WP:SPA-created promo. Suitskvarts (talk) 17:28, 24 January 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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 22:17, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The list of Political Repression Related Event[edit]

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

List of unclear scope that probably that could be never ending, and is unclear why a list would serve the function (it also has the risk of being highly partisan, and having many different sub-topics mixed and mingled in ways that wouldn't prove very productive). Sadads (talk) 21:57, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Owen× ☎ 22:43, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: as WP:SYNTH. I don't see much point in redirecting to Political repression, as the title is a very unlikely search term. Owen× ☎ 22:47, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not a notable topic in itself, not a helpful navigation aid, and lacking clear inclusion criteria. Mccapra (talk) 23:23, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and Lists. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:28, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Rename. In fact, the main article had these contents at the beginning, and these were regarded as the "Gallery" part. However, as the editor, I believe that these examples do not have any partisan bias. --Hzt0208042508415531 tw (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 05:57, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Hzt0208042508415531 tw I don't think you are understanding our arguments. We are not discussing the current scope of the article, but rather if its notable in a persistent, lasting sense: unfortunately political repression events or political repression related events is not a clear scope - -and the current list emphasizes that, its a random mix of murders, genocides and intelligence operations. Its impossible to maintain this list without causing conflict, where we have plenty of other lists that use more concrete definitions, such as List of genocides and the examples integrated in Political murder Sadads (talk) 12:58, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You have a point. I think the "constantly updated" template should be added to this form. Hzt0208042508415531 tw (talk) 14:45, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per WP:SYNTH The article is unsourced and rambling too.TH1980 (talk) 01:17, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- This is random list of conflicts, mixing up assassinations (normally one person), the suppression of insurrections, and other sorts of political persecution. I do not see how it can be rescued. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:50, 21 January 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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 22:18, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Goldstone[edit]

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

Not Notable: No secondary sources, bulk of article content primarily added by single-purpose IP editors. Risedemise (talk) 20:59, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Psychology, Indiana, and Michigan. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:04, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Pass of WP:Prof#C1 at least with stunning citation record. Nominator is asked to make more constructive edits. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:11, 17 January 2024 (UTC).[reply]
Speedy keep, WP:SK3, inadequate or completely erroneous nomination. One of a spree of recent nominations (by unrelated nominators) that neither take into account the criteria of WP:PROF nor evidence even the most cursory of WP:BEFORE searches. His Google Scholar profile [6] and faculty profile [7] provide clear passes of five WP:PROF criteria, one of which was also clearly stated in the article as nominated, any one of which would be enough by itself, and none of which depend on secondary sources. His heavy citation counts give him a pass of #C1, his "distinguished professor" title gives him a pass of #C5, and his membership in the American Academy of Arts and Sciences (the better of the two AAAS's) gives him a pass of #C3. His Troland Award also gives him a likely pass of #C2. And his editorship of Current Directions in Psychological Science passes #C8. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:30, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per above. Also, the subject is an elected member of AAAS [8] and the recipient of awards, including, the 2024 Howard Crosby Warren Medal from the Society of Experimental Psychologists.[9]. Jaireeodell (talk) 23:33, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets WP:NPROF handily, as above. Qflib (talk) 08:16, 20 January 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:16, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Buffseeds[edit]

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

~~I couldn't establish that it meets WP:MUSICBIO or WP:GNG. This has been in CAT:NN for 14 years; I hope we can now resolve it. Boleyn (talk) 20:27, 17 January 2024 (UTC)~~[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:41, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:41, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak keep~~ haven't done a full search yet but they do have an AllMusic bio here and album review here, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 22:33, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep moving to full keep as they pass criterion 2 of WP:NMUSIC with four singles charting on the UK Official Singles Chart and they also had an album place in a secondary chart the UK Independent Albums Chart as shown here. As well as the AllMusic sources linked above there is also coverage at PopMatters, and Exclaim here and here, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 19:10, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep after the commendable detective work carried out above by Atlantic306. Chubbles (talk) 22:47, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw nomination per above, thanks, Atlantic306, I'm convinced. Boleyn (talk) 04:13, 22 January 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. It appears that sourcing exists to meet notability that can be used to improve this article Star Mississippi 15:40, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Arthur Buchardt[edit]

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

I couldn't establish that it meets WP:BIO or WP:GNG. This has been in CAT:NN for 14 years; I hope we can now resolve it. Boleyn (talk) 20:05, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:20, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:20, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:ANYBIO https://snl.no/Arthur_Buchardt Geschichte (talk) 21:02, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The Store Norsk Lexicon link shared in the comment above this shows notability; it's also used in the Swedish article for this person. Could probably add a few more sources, but it seems ok. Oaktree b (talk) 22:18, 17 January 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!} 23:17, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

John Ronald Tovey[edit]

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

I couldn't establish that this meets WP:GNG or WP:BIO. It has been in CAT:NN for 14 years; hopefully we can now resolve this. Boleyn (talk) 19:37, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:51, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cycling-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:52, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:52, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The only information I found on him is referenced back to Wikipedia. Does not meet WP:GNG. Paulpat99 (talk) 21:22, 18 January 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 09:58, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ruzbeh Mammad[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Surə ^🗯 19:09, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Journalism, and Azerbaijan. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:26, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 19:31, 17 January 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. BLPs require strong sourcing. // Timothy :: talk 03:54, 21 January 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 09:58, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Afarin Kids TV[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:GNG, no significant independent coverage is cited here or on the linked ku.wiki or ckb.wiki pages. Searching for the channel online in both the Latin and Arabic scripts did not return any usable sources. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 18:39, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Iraq, Syria, and Turkey. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 18:39, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 19:30, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Aintabli (talk) 04:49, 21 January 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 ArchiCAD. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 02:06, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Graphisoft EcoDesigner[edit]

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

I couldn't establish that this meets WP:N. It has been in CAT:NN for 14 years; hopefully we can now resolve this. Boleyn (talk) 19:24, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:54, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:54, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture and Environment. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:55, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: absence of SIGCOV suggests this fails NSOFT. Owen× ☎ 22:54, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to ArchiCAD per IgelRM. Owen× ☎ 00:00, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to ArchiCAD [10] IgelRM (talk) 23:23, 22 January 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, withdrawn. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:29, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yutaka Sone[edit]

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

~~I couldn't establish that this meets WP:BIO or WP:GNG. It has been in CAT:NN for 14 years; hopefully we can now resolve this. Boleyn (talk) 19:21, 17 January 2024 (UTC)~~[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:55, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:55, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:56, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:56, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:57, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - He meets WP:NARTIST criterion #4, in the permanent collections of several notable museums: the Tate Modern,^[1] London, and the Museum of Modern Art, New York, ^[2] and the Museum of Contemporary Art, Los Angeles,^[3] I removed the unsourced section with the flowery unencylopedic tone, and added a section for the collections. The sourcing can continue to be improved moving forward, however, a BEFORE search revealed that he is indeed notable.

References

^ "Yutaka Sone, Highway Junction 110-105, 2002". Tate Modern. Retrieved 17 January 2024.
^ "Yutaka Sone". Museum of Modern Art. Retrieved 17 January 2024.
^ "Yutaka Sone". Museum of Contemporary Art. Retrieved 17 January 2024.

Netherzone (talk) 20:39, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - In permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums as noted by Netherzone and also a substantial part of a significant exhibition, the 2004 Whitney Biennial, which I've added a cite for in the article. Elspea756 (talk) 22:07, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The subject's work is on display in galleries and museums and in permanent collections, as pointed out above as well, both of which clearly make the subject notable. Passes WP:GNG and meets WP:BASIC. -AuthorAuthor (talk) 23:42, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw nomination per WP:SNOW. Thanks for everyone's input, Boleyn (talk) 12:15, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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!} 23:18, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Apt.core[edit]

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

I couldn't establish that this meets WP:MUSICBIO or WP:GNG. It has been in CAT:NN for 14 years; hopefully we can now resolve this. Boleyn (talk) 19:19, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:03, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Dance, Christianity, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:56, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - It's a project by a studio sideman who worked with a few notable musicians, but it was unnoticed by the reliable music media and can only be found in the typical streaming and self-upload sites. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:24, 18 January 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 nom.‎ - UtherSRG (talk) 19:12, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Abraham Solomonick[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

~~I couldn't establish that this meets WP:BIO or WP:GNG. It has been in CAT:NN for 14 years; hopefully we can now resolve this. Boleyn (talk) 19:07, 17 January 2024 (UTC)~~ Withdraw nomination, my error. Boleyn (talk) 19:08, 17 January 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!} 23:19, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Calligra Flow[edit]

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

Tagged for totability since 2020 with no improvementt in this respect - Altenmann >talk 19:06, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not enough in depth coverage from multiple reliable sources to meet WP:GNG. All I could find was an article at a tech blog named ghacks.net. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 19:17, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:06, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:06, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:06, 17 January 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. ^Complex/_Rational 22:38, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Anabell López[edit]

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

I couldn't establish that this meets WP:MUSICBIO or WP:GNG. It has been in CAT:NN for 14 years; hopefully we can now resolve this. Boleyn (talk) 19:05, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; No claim of notability or any indication that it meets WP:MUSICBIO. I could not find coverage from reliable sources to meet WP:GNG. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 19:21, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't meet WP:GNG requirements, and I couldn't find any better sources.Thebookstamper (talk) 15:38, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cuba-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:05, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:05, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:05, 17 January 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:32, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kakrail[edit]

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

Fails WP:NGEO. Does not appear to be a legally recognised, or otherwise notable subdivision of Dhaka. Sourced only to two blog posts. SailingInABathTub ~~🛁~~ 19:18, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:27, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography ~~and Bangladesh~~. Skynxnex (talk) 19:27, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:27, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article needs improvement. But here the 10th tallest building of Bangladesh and the markaz of Bangladeshi Tablighi Jamaat Kakrail Mosque are located. It is a very famous neighborhood in Bangladesh. ― ☪ Kapudan Pasha (🧾 - 💬) 19:16, 5 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!} 22:59, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

keep Quick search from Duckduckgo brought up some results. Jothefiredragon (talk) 03:55, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Please vote and comment with policy-based arguments - provide links to sources to allow evaluation of them.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NotAGenious (talk) 19:02, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

comment The article no longer cites blog posts. Six reliable secondary sources have been added, though none contain a significant depth of coverage. It is not a political unit (not a thana or ward). The census labels it a community (of 4,564 people, as of 2011). Whether it's a legally recognized neighborhood or an unofficial neighborhood is difficult to determine. If deemed non-notable, perhaps it and similarly weak articles (Kamalapur (neighbourhood), Segunbagicha, Shantinagar (neighbourhood), ...) could be merged to a new List of neighborhoods of Dhaka that would give capsule descriptions of all neighborhoods, notable and non-notable. --Worldbruce (talk) 18:33, 18 January 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. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 22:18, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Katherine Jashinski[edit]

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

I couldn't establish that this meets WP:BIO or WP:GNG. Possible WP:1E. It has been in CAT:NN for 14 years; hopefully we can now resolve this. Boleyn (talk) 19:00, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:07, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:07, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:08, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:08, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- Jashinski is widely discussed in reliable sources regarding the current state of conscientious objector laws. Here are some examples, more than enough to establish notability:

There are more, but these are the ones that are visible without subscription or a copy of the book. Try the GScholar search above to see what I mean. In any case, these sources are spread over seven years and there are other even more recent ones. They're enough both to meet the GNG and to refute any claim that this is a 1E issue. Central and Adams (talk) 20:34, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Appears to have coverage in RS. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:16, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:HEY if and only if the sources found are added to the current stub. Bearian (talk) 15:18, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I have added the sources to relevant points but I have not expanded the article. --StreetcarEnjoyer (talk) 19:56, 25 January 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. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 07:10, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of events at T-Mobile Arena[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:NLIST. Far better known venues don't list every last event. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:11, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists and Nevada. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 09:27, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:36, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Not eligible for Soft Deletion. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:59, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete: I hate to suggest delete, because unlike most of these fluff list articles, this one is well-organized and well-sourced, and has fairly unambiguous inclusion criteria. But I don't see the events being discussed as a group as per WP:NLIST, at least that isn't included in the T-Mobile Arena article. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 15:41, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I see the argument for WP:NLIST, but I also fail to see how a list such as this requires comparison to say Sphere (venue). Conyo14 (talk) 20:13, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I get that argument for WP:NLIST but I don’t see why time and time again, this is being considered for deletion. I’m feeling ClarityFriend is nominating these articles just for wanting it deleted. Rodrigo1198 (talk) 16:17, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You haven't provided any rationale for your keep lvote. Your "feeling" about my motive (or that of "ClarityFriend", whoever that is) doesn't count. Also "time and time again" for two nominations, one over six years old? Clarityfiend (talk) 11:23, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as article creator. Nothing has changed since the previous AfD. A few more points:

T-Mobile is one of the more important venues, as the premier arena in the Entertainment Capital of the World, typically one of the top 5 highest-grossing large venues in the world, and probably the arena with the most nationally televised events other than maybe Madison Square Garden and Staples Center. A record of the events occurring there serves the encyclopedic purpose of being a sort of "slice of life" or zeitgeist view of what's happening in the entertainment and sports world in a certain period, similar to articles like 1967–68 United States network television schedule or List of Billboard Hot 100 top-ten singles in 1982.
This list can be seen as a subtopic of the main arena article. A discussion of the events a venue hosts is an essential part of the topic, as the events are the venue's raison d'etre and key to its notability. But a comprehensive discussion, even if it were trimmed down to only include the blue-link notable events, would take up a large part of the page and seem disproportionate. Hence the original need for a WP:SPINOUT.
The list serves a navigational purpose to tie together articles with a common key characteristic (location), even more important now that Category:T-Mobile Arena, which previously tied those articles together, has been deleted.
Even if there were a consensus that the complete list of events is non-encyclopedic, there are options short of deletion to reduce the list with more selective criteria. In the strictest form, it could list only standalone wiki-notable events (so it would mostly consist of UFC events, boxing matches, award shows, etc.). Or it could just exclude the more routine events that are "just another stop on a tour", which would basically eliminate all the concerts.

Toohool (talk) 12:54, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 22:55, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep: Oh boy, NDRAFT. This seems to fulfil a useful navigation purpose. No prejudice against narrowing. ^Queen of _Hearts 04:01, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:NLIST, specifically due to the lack of discussion of this group by reliable sources.Esolo5002 (talk) 07:43, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails NLIST and I think meets WP:NOTDIRECTORY. I really thought this could be a keep as a WP:CLN list of notable events that happened at the location, but it is just a massive list of non-notable events, so CLN doesn't apply. There are no sources showing this has been discussed as a group, the sources for the individual events are routine mill news or promo about the individual events. Article meets NOTDIRECTORY, "Wikipedia is not a directory of everything in the universe that exists or has existed.", "Simple listings without contextual information showing encyclopedic merit". // Timothy :: talk 05:33, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, there are dozens of standalone notable events in the list, including UFC matches, boxing matches, Pac-12 tournaments, award shows, etc. Toohool (talk) 15:08, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NotAGenious (talk) 18:57, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is a poor argument. Also, these are apples and oranges. Clarityfiend (talk) 20:30, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure what you think you're rebutting. TimothyBlue said this could be kept as a list of notable events "but it is just a massive list of non-notable events". I was pointing out that that that's not correct, there are many notable events in the list. My point being, that this could be a substantial standalone list article even if it were limited to notable events. Toohool (talk) 17:02, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the article is well sourced.XavierGreen (talk) 02:16, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: this is exactly what WP:NOTDIRECTORY is about. A page that has to, by its very nature, be updated every week to stay accurate is no longer an encyclopedic article, it's a schedule. Owen× ☎ 22:44, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 01:26, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ramachandran: A Retrospective[edit]

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

Subject does not appear to satisfy WP:GNG, WP:NBOOK or appear notable enough to warrant a standalone article. References listed may not be reliable, given they link to a Google Books listing and a web shop. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 21:25, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:47, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:47, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:47, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:47, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Merge or Redirect to A. Ramachandran. The book does not seem notable enough for a separate article. I searched online for reviews of the book in reliable sources but the mentions I found were in unreliable publications or blogs or book seller sites. Does not meet GNG & NBOOK criteria. If three solid book reviews in RS's are found I may change my !vote, but for now merging or redirecting makes the most sense. Not enough content to merge, and it is already on the A.Ramachandran article, so no need for a redirect either. Netherzone (talk) 18:31, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.–Owais Al Qarni (talk) 00:52, 4 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!} 22:53, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There is nothing to indicate this meets WP:GNG nor WP:NBOOK nor any other standard of notability. Jacona (talk) 18:48, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on merging?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NotAGenious (talk) 18:55, 17 January 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:44, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mustapha Aarab[edit]

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

Subject fails WP:GNG and has not had significant roles to meet WP:NACTOR. Source assessment is below. My WP:BEFORE search finds nothing better that could be used to establish notability. CNMall41 (talk) 04:01, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source Assessment --CNMall41 (talk) 04:03, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
HITC, reference is from a writer who has a bio claiming to be an “experienced SEO writer” who has the job of “track[ing] down stories across different entertainment verticles” (sounds like someone hired to get clicks for the site. A few discussions at RSN about HITC but nothing conclusive for reliability.
Rotten Tomatoes, just a filmography similar to IMDb. Should never be used to show notability.
MUBI, never heard of this site but it is just the person’s name and link to a film.
Cine Serie, Same as above. Simple listing and nothing to be used for notability.
Ready Steady Cut, this is about the film JJ+E but only mentions Mustapha Aarab as playing a role, nothing in-depth about his career or personal life.
The Cinemaholic, same as above (Ready Steady Cut).
The Envoy Web, this mentions him as having a role in JJ+E and has an additional two sentences about him relocating from Sweded and acting in Beartown. Nothing in-depth.
Guild Baggen (Swedish), simple bio, nothing that could be used for notability.
Smorgasbord (Swedish), translating this shows it is nothing more than a funcruft blog (something similar to Networth sites). Very promotionally written and source does not appear reliable.
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, Morocco, and Sweden. CNMall41 (talk) 04:03, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails NACTOR and GNG. CNMall41 did an excellent job looking at sources. Mubi is a streaming service so it naturally has info about actors; I don't see a claim to notability. Chris Troutman (talk) 05:34, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Soft-deletion unlikely to 'stick' as a recently-created article, relisting to form clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 04:09, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note - Page creator is now blocked for abusing multiple accounts. --CNMall41 (talk) 04:29, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - He has received some secondary coverage as an individual ([11], [12], [13]) and has starred in two notable films ([14], [15]) --AlexandraAVX (talk) 13:39, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 22:53, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NotAGenious (talk) 18:54, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep per above. Acted in JJ+E and a few other films, but otherwise does not appear to have a lot of credits. Batmanthe8th (talk) 19:12, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If a person has "acted in" (note that the page on JJ+E doesn't even list them as credited because the role must have been so minor) a few films but does not have a lot of credits, what makes them notable?--CNMall41 (talk) 21:31, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, his name is listed there!! And no, it's not a minor role, it's one of the lead roles in the film as all sources show (or just watch the film).... -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 18:40, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. 2 significant roles in notable films and received coverage. Meets WP:NACTOR.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 18:42, 18 January 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. ^Complex/_Rational 22:56, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Woodie Blackman[edit]

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

I couldn't establish that this meets WP:AUTHOR or WP:GNG. It has been in CAT:NN for 14 years; hopefully we can now resolve this. Boleyn (talk) 18:45, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Barbados-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:12, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:12, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:12, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:12, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, sadly. I can find passing mentions of his books, and brief obituaries, but not the in-depth coverage of him or his works needed for WP:GNG or WP:AUTHOR. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:22, 17 January 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. ^Complex/_Rational 23:00, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alejandro Illescas[edit]

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

I couldn't establish that he meets WP:ENT or WP:GNG. This has been in CAT:NN for 14 years, so hopefully we can now get it resolved. Boleyn (talk) 18:35, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:13, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:13, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:13, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 10:02, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nick Bailey (musician)[edit]

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

I can find nothing but primary sources, for some of the songs--nothing that actually proves this person passes the GNG. Please see the history for the (unverified) songwriting resume. Drmies (talk) 18:23, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Bands and musicians, and Virginia. Skynxnex (talk) 19:24, 3 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!} 19:40, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 18:07, 17 January 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:35, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Russ Laribee[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Non-notable baseball player who never made it above Triple-A. He once held the record for most times striking out in a game (since broken by Khalil Lee), but the game in question has its own page at Longest professional baseball game and Laribee's record can be covered there. O.N.R. ^(talk) 17:23, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Baseball. O.N.R. ^(talk) 17:23, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Connecticut, Massachusetts, and Rhode Island. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:31, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I am finding coverage to meet GNG, for example [16] [17] [18] [19] [20], besides coverage of his record setting game, where he got a lot of coverage, such as in this book. Just because his record was broken is not reason to delete (in fact, if we cover his record in the game article we should at least retain a redirect from here). Rlendog (talk) 15:20, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 17:49, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The sources provided by Rlendog all meet the WP:GNG, along with [[21]]. Let'srun (talk) 20:22, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Reliable sources and a book demonstrate sufficient coverage to meet the General Notability Guideline (GNG). Additionally, the player's record-setting game received notable attention, as evident in the coverage. The fact that his record was later broken does not diminish the historical significance of his achievement, and retaining information about him in a dedicated article is justified. Therefore, deletion is unwarranted, and the article should be kept based on the established notability criteria."KarKuZoNga (talk) 05:20, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am almost sure that this is an AI-generated summary of the comments above. See this user's other AfD contributions and all of them are just summaries of other's comments written in a very AI style. GraziePrego (talk) 05:42, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Summarizing comment doesn't make it ai. Not sure about your point. If you have issue with my Keep vote and its justification please give proper argument to oppose that. KarKuZoNga (talk) 10:45, 25 January 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. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 22:15, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Features of the Marvel Universe[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This page is a huge, WP:INDISCRIMINATE mess that is used to store irrelevant fancruft. There's already a page on Marvel Universe that can explain these things in prose, making a "features" page undue and mostly of interest to fans. The 2013 discussion largely rushed it to a keep offhand without discussing why and how the article would be merited, I think inclusion criteria have become a bit tighter since then. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 16:50, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Science fiction and fantasy, Comics and animation, and Lists. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 16:50, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, wholly unencyclopaedic. CoconutOctopus talk 17:27, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. We had this exact discussion a decade ago, and nothing about the clear notability of the subject has changed since then. The Marvel Universe, as a collection of settings and story elements, is no less significant to the human experience of the modern day than the world of the Bible or of Shakespeare or of Tolkien. BD2412 T 17:43, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:NOTAGAIN. You are also making a straw man argument that I am claiming the Marvel Universe is non-notable. I believe it is, but this particular article goes against WP:NOT. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 19:04, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If the Marvel Universe is notable, then it follows that the collection of features that distinguish the Marvel Universe is also notable, as a set. This notability is borne out by substantial sources. To the extent that the article itself contains content for which these sources have not been directly provided, that is fixable, not deleteable. BD2412 T 20:52, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per BD2412 and results of previous AFD, as well as the arguments below in particular by Gonnym and Daranios. This has functioned well in its time as a merge target, and can be cleaned up as necessary to trim or restructure. This article does include an independent source (The Marvel Comics Guide to New York City), as well as several additional independent sources for different pieces of the article, and I am sure we could easily meet the GNG by pulling sources from other articles. BOZ (talk) 18:07, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I still think it should be renamed List of features in the Marvel Universe, but whatever. Many things on the list have their own Wikipedia articles. This franchise has made billions of dollars, many notable films, video games, comic book series, toys, etc. A valid navigational list and also a valid information list. Dream Focus 18:14, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There are many other incredibly popular franchises out there, but none of them get a free pass to write random lists of concepts and objects solely because they are popular. If there was a textbook "indiscriminate list", it would be this article, where "features" can encompass literally anything about the universe there is. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 19:16, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Most of these articles are called "Universe of" Category:Fictional universes so perhaps just rename it. Dream Focus 03:17, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The problem with INDISCRIMINATE is that so many things have been merged here, that if it is now indiscriminate, it's a problem substantially of the encyclopedia's own making. Zxcvbnm, how many previous fictional elements have you nominated for deletion where discussions have ended up in a merge to this or a similar list? With respect to notability, if all you need is 2-3 RS'es across this entire list, then that's easily going to be met. Jclemens (talk) 22:45, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"how many previous fictional elements have you nominated for deletion where discussions have ended up in a merge to this or a similar list?" - I'm guessing that's the reason this AFD is happening, to eliminate a possible merge target and force more actual deletions. BOZ (talk) 22:48, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete In addition to the nominator's concerns, this is inherently redundant to Marvel Universe - what else could one discuss there that isn't a "feature"? That article is bloated enough as is so there is no need to merge any additional content to it. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 00:30, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There are many things in this article not in that one. Best to split articles that get too large. Dream Focus 03:21, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In order to do a split you have to have some coherent criterion to decide what goes where. I'm not seeing one here. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 05:44, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep The quality of the article is terrible, but WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP. InfiniteNexus (talk) 08:14, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A secondary page of a topic that handles a subset of its content is pretty straightforward and consistent with how we handle things here. As BD2412 raised a comparison to the bible, even it has a page similar to this in List of biblical places. Claiming that this page is redundant to Marvel Universe ignores or hides the fact, that if that would be true and that outcome of this would be to merge into it, then that page would be very long and this content would have undue weight in that article. A more correct path forward is to actually make Features of the Marvel Universe better with layout and sourcing. Gonnym (talk) 08:48, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The name notwithstanding this is the complementary list to Marvel Universe, therefore it is notable and warranted in accordance with WP:LISTN and by no means redundant. It can fullfill two of the main purposes of a list in accordance WP:LISTPURP: There are many blue links, so it allows for navigation between the many notable topics of "things" within the Marvel Universe. Partially this is/may become a WP:LISTOFLISTS, if it is deemed reasonable to split out subgroups. As a second purpose it allows for collection of material which is not notable as stand-alone articles and is better suited to our list format here than the prose format of Marvel Universe. This has already been done in a number of merges here. The results of those discussions ending in merge decisions should not be summarily ignored and overturned here. I agree with the nomination that we do not have a very clear inclusion criteria for what should go onto this list and what should not. Spelling out such criteria solves the problem of WP:NOT/WP:INDISCRIMINATE. This, however, can be done through normal editing. So there is no reason for deletion, and WP:BATHWATER applies. Daranios (talk) 11:38, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this is actually an interesting to read article. Related to a notable topic but should not be merged to not clutter the main article, so it's good as a standalone page.--PeaceNT (talk) 02:26, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per BD2412. NavjotSR (talk) 08:50, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per BD2412 and Gonnym. The article can always be improved upon, though I find no valid reason with enough merit to delete it. Trailblazer101 (talk) 16:05, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - While I doubt this discussion is going to result in anything but a Keep at this point, from the above comments agreeing that the list is a mess but that can be solved by editing, does that at least mean that some major cleanup can occur here? I worry that if editors go in and start removing the entries that are neither blue-linked nor have any reliable, secondary sources, there will be pushback resulting in nothing being done. And something definitely needs to be done here to clean this up and make it not a indiscriminate mess. For example, that "Weapons" section has absolutely no reason to be here and should be removed entirely, and there is a lot of random topics here like that. Rorshacma (talk) 16:18, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Rorshacma: Personally, I have no objection against a cleanup, as I do see the concern with WP:INDISCRIMINATE. However, I already disagree with that "Weapons" section has absolutely no reason to be here and should be removed entirely. Despite many entries just linking to characters, there are three stand-alone articles in there (Mjolnir (comics), Iron Man's armor, Captain America's shield). And in my opinion, to be most useful for navigational purposes, we should also allow links to the sections Soulsword, Nova Force, Ebony Blade, as well as arguably Thunderstrike and Stormbreaker. So trimming in my view should be done carefully so as not to curb the usefulness of the list. Daranios (talk) 19:03, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Rorshacma: AfD is WP:NOTAVOTE, so the result is still up in the air if the keep !votes are found to have little or no rationale (which right now, is the case - it's mostly WP:ILIKEIT and WP:ITSNOTABLE). If you truly believe that it should be deleted in its current state, you should make that known. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 19:25, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Zxcvbnm: Ahm, WP:ITSNOTABLE is not what many !votes are, because that would mean that participants simply claimed the topic is notable without providing a reason why it should be. Here, in contrast, in the discussion about notability participants like me claim that this is notable because the Marvel Universe is notable. Daranios (talk) 19:37, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - While in principal I would agree that a spinout list for a notable topic can be valid and useful, I really want to emphasize that a topic being notable does not mean that lists can be created that just contain every piece of information tangentially related to that topic with no inclusion criteria and absolutely zero regard for notability of the items listed. Someone above used the List of biblical places as a precedent for a similar type of spinout, but the comparison does not work at all. That list has a very specific scope (i.e. locations) and only contains blue-linked entries, which is the exact opposite of what we have here. I have long expressed my opposition in AFDs of dealing with non-notable content by just shunting it over to some list or another precisely because the result is a massive list of non-notable content, which this is the prime example of. The reason why I have not formally recommended a Deletion as of yet is because, if massive amounts of this was removed, it could function as proper list of notable concepts. But I do worry that actually taking the axe to the sheer amount of material that needs to be excised is just going to result in accusations of trying to get around the consensus to Keep if that is the result of this AFD. Rorshacma (talk) 21:20, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Re: "taking the axe", sorry, I immediately thought of Stormbreaker. BD2412 T 21:45, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Problem is such clean-up requires knowledgeable and committed editors, who get put off by those hell-bent on deleting articles relating to certain subjects, usually after only a cursory Before. Why bother working on improving an article if someone is going to impatiently demand its deletion without making any attempt to actually constructively edit it or make positive suggestions first? No point, much easier to channel free time into other projects where you don't have to put up with people bending policy to justify personal agenda. BoomboxTestarossa (talk) 20:27, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I may well object to a cleanup, depending on who does it and why. AfD->Merge->Trim is a well-known backdoor deletion technique for people who loathe fictional content. If someone who actually likes the content wants to standardize, cite, expand, and oh, yeah, delete some redundant or overly detailed stuff here and there? All for that sort of cleanup. But I can't recall ever seeing that be what they meant when cleanup of a major multiple merge target was discussed. I'd be happy to see it here first. Jclemens (talk) 08:15, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Jclemens: I could easily see splitting off Places in the Marvel Universe (or perhaps call it Locations in the Marvel Universe). BD2412 T 14:55, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I could definitely see that working. Jclemens (talk) 22:12, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's needed. As it stands this is too much of a mess just because our coverage is *so* deep. Hobit (talk) 02:27, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's basically a list and navigational aid for our (perhaps too detailed...) coverage of the Marvel Universe. I tend to like such things but I realize not everyone does. weak keep per the ideas and goals of WP:NLIST. Hobit (talk) 02:26, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the claims of the other users....Especially since a bunch of redirects are currently redirecting to this page with some of them being the result of their respectful AFD closures. --Rtkat3 (talk) 04:30, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Withdrawn * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 23:23, 18 January 2024 (UTC)‎[reply]

Y.W.C.A. Hioe Tjo Yoeng College[edit]

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

Unreferenced since creation. No evidence of notability * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 16:45, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and Hong Kong. Shellwood (talk) 16:47, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. The subject passes Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Schools, which says:
All universities, colleges and schools, including high schools, middle schools, primary (elementary) schools, and schools that only provide a support to mainstream education must either satisfy the notability guidelines for organizations, the general notability guideline, or both. For-profit educational organizations and institutions are considered commercial organizations and must satisfy those criteria. (See also WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES)
Sources
1. "Foundation Stone for New School". South China Morning Post. 1963-10-16. p. 6. ProQuest 1506912252.
  The article notes: "The foundation stone of the Hongkong Chinese Women's Club's Hioe Tjo Yoeng School at Saiwanho was laid by Lady Black yesterday. The $500,000 school is named after Mr and Mrs Hioe, who donated $100,000 to its cost. Lady Black congratulated the members of the Club on their continued enthusiasm and enterprise in the educational field."
2. "Canning opens school". South China Morning Post. 1972-01-27. p. 7. ProQuest 1525995217.
  The article notes: "The Director of Education, Mr.J. Canning, officially opened the $2.5 million YWCA Hioe Tjo Yoeng Hioe Tjo Yo College in Homantin yesterday. In his opening address, Mr Canning said the new school marked a step forward in the expansion of secondary education and was an achievement through the co-operation of the YWCA, Government and Mr and Mrs Hioe Tjo-yoeng. Government subsidised 80 per cent of the building cost and Mr and Mrs Hioe contributed $500,000 and another $20,000 for equipment. The school has a capacity for 700 pupils. At present, however, it operates only six classes of Form and II with a total enrolment of 249 pupils. Legislative Councillor, Mrs Ellen Li Shui-pui, is the Supervisor of the school."
3. "Featuring YWCA Hioe Tjo-yoeng College". South China Morning Post. 1985-10-06. p. 51. ProQuest 1538307772.
  The article notes: "YWCA Hioe Tjo-yoeng College is a subsidised co-educational school, established in 1971 with only 280 students in form one and two. In 1974, the student level was raised to form five and it took two more years for the school to be fully developed, running matriculation classes for the Advanced Level Examination. Now the school operates 19 classes ranging from form one to seven with a total of 700 students and 33 teachers. ... There are 16 interest groups and clubs classified into four categories: Christian fellowship and intellectual, cultural and service sections. Apart from 17 classrooms, the school includes three laboratories, art, music and new design and technology rooms, a hall and an outdoor basketball court."
4. 女青年會丘佐榮中學定期開課 [Y.W.C.A Qiu Zuorong Middle School opens for regular classes]. The Kung Sheung Daily News (in Chinese). 1971-08-04. p. 11. Retrieved 2024-01-18 – via Hong Kong Public Libraries.
  The article notes: "教女青年會開辦的第一間政府津貼學校丘佐榮男女英文中學,將在九月一日開課。校由印尼橋慎丘佐榮休斑捐港幣五十萬元建校,百分之八十經費是由政府補助。"
  From Google Translate: "The coeducational secondary school Y.W.C.A. Hioe Tjo Yoeng College, the first government-subsidized school run by the YWCA, will start classes on 1 September. The school was founded by the Indonesian Professor Emeritus Qiao Shenqiu Zuo, who donated HK$500,000 to build the school, and 80% of the funds were subsidized by the government."
5. 女青年會丘佐榮中學教育司簡寧主持開幕定今日下午三時舉行 [Y.W.C.A. Hioe Tjo Yoeng College: The opening ceremony will be hosted by the Secretary for Education Jian Ning and will be held at 3pm today.]. Wah Kiu Yat Po. 1972-01-26. p. 15. Retrieved 2024-01-18 – via Hong Kong Public Libraries.
  The article notes: "女青年會麾下之丘佐榮中學,位於九龍何文田常和街六號,全部建築 ·工程經於去年初秋完 , 並於九月中旬啓用。"
  From Google Translate: "The Y.W.C.A. Hioe Tjo Yoeng College under the YWCA is located at No. 6 Sheung Wo Street, Homantin, Kowloon. All construction and engineering work was completed in early fall last year and it was opened in mid-September."
6. Chan, Elsie (2021-11-16). 丘佐榮中學50周年全方位培育IT專才 [The 50th anniversary of Y.W.C.A. Hioe Tjo Yoeng College, cultivating IT professionals in an all-round way]. Sing Tao Daily (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2024-01-18. Retrieved 2024-01-18.
  The article notes: "該校的資訊科技範疇表現出色，早年獲政府挑選加入「中學資訊科技增潤計畫」，為學生提供深入的資訊科技培訓。今個學年不少學校均有新校長上任，不少更是非常年輕，為學校帶來新氣象，其中位於何文田的基督教女青年會丘佐榮中學，今個學年除有新校長上任外，更適逢五十周年校慶，所以學校有一系列活動和大計。"
  From Google Translate: "The school has outstanding performance in the field of information technology. In the early years, it was selected by the government to participate in the "Secondary School Information Technology Enrichment Program" to provide students with in-depth information technology training. This school year many schools have new principals, many of them very young, bringing a new atmosphere to the school. Among them, the Y.W.C.A. Hioe Tjo Yoeng College in Ho Man Tin has a new principal this school year, which is more suitable for the school. It is the 50th anniversary of the school, so the school has a series of activities and plans."
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Y.W.C.A. Hioe Tjo Yoeng College (simplified Chinese: 基督教女青年会丘佐荣中学; traditional Chinese: 基督教女青年會丘佐榮中學) to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 09:36, 18 January 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) NotAGenious (talk) 18:50, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Abdou Manzo[edit]

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

No SIGCOV found. ~~The now-removed claim that he was the record holder in the marathon is disproven at this website, saying Mohammed Abbas defeated him by nearly 10 minutes.~~ InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 04:57, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Olympics, and Africa. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 04:57, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment You should retract the part about records faster than the wind, because your source is clearly named athleticsNIGERIA.org, whereas the subject is from NIGER. Two different countries... Geschichte (talk) 20:41, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Yup I deserve a trout for that. struck InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 20:43, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a national record holder and Olympic flagbearer for Niger. I think that enduring coverage exists, and as evidence I found a 2009 article describing Manzo as a (translated) "glory of Nigerien athletics" showing he is still active in some form, which I added to the article. --Habst (talk) 15:08, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. Our access to sources from Niger is extremely poor; many of their sources from today remain offline, let alone newspaper articles from the 1980s and 1990s (when Manzo would most likely be covered). There's about 15 newspapers currently operating in Niger, I don't think we really have access to coverage from the 1990s in any of them. The fact that Habst found an article mentioning him as a "glory of Nigerien athletics" is very significant considering this. Also pretty notable I think that he was able to make it to three straight Olympics – including when he was 37 – as a runner! There has to be offline coverage of him based on what has been found. It also seems that he may have played for the Niger national football team? BeanieFan11 (talk) 17:49, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 13:56, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep. Per BeanieFan11's reasoning. It's hard to believe someone who competed at 3 modern Olympics isn't really notable. I know they don't get a presumption anymore but still. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 14:19, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Per Habst and BeanieFan11 above. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 16:37, 19 January 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 14:37, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

BookAuthority[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and NCORP. All 6 sources are interviews, blogs, routine coverage, business directory listings and trivial mentions. Not able to find any sources with significant coverage of the company Jeraxmoira (talk) 07:03, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Business, United States of America, and California. Jeraxmoira (talk) 07:03, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:45, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Jacob790 It's this deletion discussion which will decide whether or not to retain it. I see you arguing on the talk page. FYI: User_talk:David_Gerard/archive_21#Crunchbase. Neutral. Seems to have some staying power. RudolfoMD (talk) 23:43, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WHoops. @Jacob0790 RudolfoMD (talk) 23:44, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Sources found are just subject nominating others; nothing significant found and fails NCORP or GNG. Toadette ^{(Merry Christmas, and a happy new year)} 11:30, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:43, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have added new sections to present a more objective and neutral picture of the topic and included additional references. Jacob0790 (talk) 22:47, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The 3 sources you added does not count towards GNG. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 09:31, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 13:36, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. I can find no significant coverage of the company or the website per WP:SIGCOV and WP:CORPDEPTH. Wikishovel (talk) 06:50, 24 January 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. As many editors mentioned, the scope of this article has significant overlap with several others. However as the Keep proponents argued, the scope is identical to none of them and is an attempt at reorganizing the information in this topic area. How to clean up the content and adjust the scopes of these articles are a matter for discussions among editors, but there is clear consensus here that this article should not be deleted because of it. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 23:49, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Human rights violations against Palestinians by Israel[edit]

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

Please don't shoot the messenger. This article is a summary WP:POVFORK of various tangentially-related pages and is full of WP:SYNTH and WP:OR. For example, "so-and-so body says X is a universal right." Then, "Israel does XX", which is implied as a violation of the previous sentence. The entire article is like this. WP:TNT. Longhornsg (talk) 04:24, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Israel and Palestine. Longhornsg (talk) 04:24, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There was no page about the lengthy Israeli human rights violations against Palestinians before the creation of this article. Neither Human rights in the State of Palestine nor Human rights in Israel seem like the correct article to add this information. At present, there are many scattered articles with information about said human rights violations. Similar articles like this are present in Wikipedia e.g. Human rights violations by the CIA.Crampcomes (talk) 04:45, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Obviously pretty much all of the content was copied from various Wikipedia articles (without the required attribution), as there's 272 broken Harvard citations. — Diannaa (talk) 14:20, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This issue has been fixed.Crampcomes (talk) 15:08, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article does need a fair amount of work to get it in shape, so that it is less of a laundry list and more focused. The cats organize via WB and Gaza and we might do the same, for instance. There should be a ready availability of scholarly sourcing on the subject that deals with the subject more in the meta and less in the weeds. The tangentially-related pages will need to reflect a summary of and wikilink to this article eventually. I see no good reason not to have a page like this, the need for which arises primarily due to the extended occupation of Palestinian territory and Israeli practices in relation thereto. Selfstudier (talk) 17:41, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Existing articles outline a range of specific issues, but as it stands, it's like having articles for raven, penguin, and chicken but no article on birds. It's important to help readers see the forest for the trees and understand the larger context. As an editor noted on the talk page, the article's text seems to be primarily lifted from the relevant sections in Israeli occupation of the West Bank which is already too long. Note that page does not have a NPOV tag, and was recently reviewed for GA status. Definitely some work is needed, but it's absolutely not a TNT situation. See also: Accusations of ExxonMobil human rights violations in Aceh, Human rights abuses in Balochistan, Human rights violations at Guantánamo Bay detention camp (for precedents re: other articles of this type). As an aside, I question whether it's even definitionally possible to have a WP:POVFORK of various ... pages since POV-forking usually implies a content fork from a single page. WillowCity^(talk) 13:14, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WillowCity and Crampcomes. This can be improved to be a useful summary article, and we do have similarly various pages on human rights violations in certain areas. Looking at Google Scholar, the topic seems to pass WP:GNG. Also look at Google Books and look at Google News. starship .paint (RUN) 14:59, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Yes, one could reasonably argue this page is a content fork of Human rights in the State of Palestine or Human rights in Israel, but this page has a different focus. My very best wishes (talk) 23:52, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- It seems that Human rights in the State of Palestine is more targeted towards actions that were by Palestinian authorities, which makes sense. starship .paint (RUN) 00:27, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  - I agree. This is a unique political situation when we do need such third page. If they followed through with one-state solution or two-state solution, that would be another story. But both "solutions" seem to be dead. My very best wishes (talk) 00:40, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Human rights in the State of Palestine and Human rights in Israel. This page is an obvious content fork of Human_rights_in_Israel#Human_rights_in_the_occupied_territories. It is common practice that the human rights articles are organized by the country or a territory. If the violations had happen at the occupied territories, they belong to page Human rights in the State of Palestine, and so on. Does it matter who committed the violations? Yes, of course. But this should be described at the proper page. It is another matter that page Human rights in the State of Palestine might need to be renamed.My very best wishes (talk) 15:27, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Occupation is not common practice, that's the difference here. Selfstudier (talk) 15:53, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The State of Palestine is occupied. So what? We have page Human rights in the State of Palestine where this content belongs. My very best wishes (talk) 16:41, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A lot of it, has for a long time been included in Human rights in Israel so it is easy to see the confusion caused by the occupation. Selfstudier (talk) 17:04, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Meaning that there is already a content overlap between pages Human rights in the State of Palestine and Human rights in Israel. Do we need to resolve it by having 3rd page? My very best wishes (talk) 18:36, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As I said in my !vote, there is work to be done, including clearing up the duplication/overlap etcetera, such that this becomes "main" and the others only need summaries/wikilinks. Selfstudier (talk) 18:41, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is bad idea. The "occupied territories" are considered a part of Israel, or at least they are treated as such on our pages, i.e. Israel#Israeli-occupied_territories. Based on that, Human rights in Israel is our main page on this subject, while Human rights in the State of Palestine is a legitimate sub-page of that page, even though there is a significant duplication in section Human_rights_in_Israel#Human_rights_in_the_occupied_territories. However, this page, i.e. "Human rights violations against Palestinians by Israel" is definitely a content fork. It should be merged to other pages, not the other way around. My very best wishes (talk) 17:09, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See? Even you are confused about which page it should be in, lol. The ongoing occupation messes things up, better to sit in its own page and links coming in. Selfstudier (talk) 17:15, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, I am not confused. Let's consider an analogy. We have Human rights in Ukraine. It has no section "Human rights at the occupied Ukrainian territories", but it could, and we could even create such sub-page. Let's assume it exists. However, in such case, yet another additional page entitled Human right violations against Ukrainians by Russia would be a content fork. My very best wishes (talk) 17:23, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The cases are not exactly the same and let's not assume it exists, haha. If the Russian occupation continues for 50 years plus, then there would certainly be a case for a separate page about that (probably would be there right now if the Russians were anywhere near as bad as the Israelis). Selfstudier (talk) 17:27, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You say if the Russians were anywhere near as bad as the Israelis. Khmm... My very best wishes (talk) 17:32, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is a big difference in the demographics. As I said, the cases are not really the same. Still, Civilian deaths in 1 month of Israeli attacks on Gaza top entire Russia-Ukraine war toll so, y'know... Selfstudier (talk) 17:40, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, Russian forces killed more than 20,000 civilians only in Mariupol during a month [22]. Also, this data by a Hamas-controlled organization are just as "reliable" as data by Russian MoD ("According to Gaza's Ministry of Health"). My very best wishes (talk) 18:14, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion for another day, meanwhile I am quite content that Israeli abuses, of which there are a lot, over an extended period of time, are worth their own page. Selfstudier (talk) 18:30, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, we have Category:Human rights abuses by country, but again, they are organized by country, e.g. "Human rights abuses in Afghanistan‎". As about by, yes, we have Human rights abuses by the Taliban, but it redirects to page Taliban. I hope we are not making the point that Israel is worse than Taliban. My very best wishes (talk) 19:17, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't recall mentioning the Taliban, just the lengthy occupation. Selfstudier (talk) 19:19, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I said "we". We/WP now have "Human rights violations by" articles only with regard to CIA and Israel. Meaning a possible WP:NPOV issue. "Human rights abuses by" are mostly redirects. My very best wishes (talk) 19:27, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

At the risk of sounding like a broken record, the pertinent point is the occupation and the length of it. I don't understand what you mean by a NPOV issue, if you have contradictory sourcing, then add that. Selfstudier (talk) 19:43, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We do not have pages on other countries entitled "Human rights abuses by...", even North Korea, although we do have such categories. I am afraid we are pushing the position that Israel is the worst country in the world. Like you said: if the Russians were anywhere near as bad as the Israelis. My very best wishes (talk) 18:48, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think you raise a very good point. Editors need to ponder the implications of this article. Coretheapple (talk) 21:53, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We kept Allegations of genocide in the 2023 Hamas attack on Israel, so much for implications. starship .paint (RUN) 23:50, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's a blot on the project. That is what I meant by "implications." Coretheapple (talk) 14:18, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I did not mean real life implications. But this and some other pages do strike me as examples of Wikipedia:Activism. My very best wishes (talk) 23:59, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per @My very best wishes, I think the reasoning presented, specifically the comparison with the Ukrainian situation as well as concerns raised regarding POV Fork as well as concerns raised by Longshorn regarding material on targeted assinations. Homerethegreat (talk) 19:43, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My feeling is that this article does indeed have real-life implications, but only for the project, If it is kept, Israel would be the only country singled out for an article accusing it in Wikipedia';s voice of human rights violations, while countries like Russia and North Korea are not. As I believe you [My Very Best Wishes] commented, Wikipedia as an institution would in effect be saying that Israel is the worst country in the world, the most egregious human rights violator on the planet.

Obviously Wikipedia has undergone self-inflected reputational harm in the past, and one can question whether we as editors should care about such things, but that is no reason to put another albatross around Wikipedia's neck. Coretheapple (talk) 15:06, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as the whole content and title are an unbalanced point of view. The more neutrally titled Human rights in the State of Palestine could include these allegations. Allegations should be clarified as to who claims them, rather than presented as facts. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 03:06, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There is an objection that the lead, for one, fails NPOV. What do we want there, the more drastically eloquent statement in the first reference by the United States Department of State?

Significant human rights issues included credible reports of: unlawful or arbitrary killings; arbitrary or unjust detention, including of Palestinians in Israel and the occupied territories; restrictions on Palestinians residing in Jerusalem including arbitrary or unlawful interference with privacy, family, and home; substantial interference with the freedom of peaceful assembly and association; arbitrary or unlawful interference with privacy; punishment of family members for alleged offenses by a relative; restrictions on freedom of expression and media including censorship; harassment of nongovernmental organizations; violence against asylumseekers and migrants; violence or threats of violence against Palestinians and members of national, racial, or ethnic minority groups; and labor rights abuses against foreign workers and Palestinian workers. Israel 2022 Human Rights Report: Executive Summary United States Department of State 2023 pp.1-69 pp.1-2.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Nishidani (talk • contribs) 03:36, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WillowCity and others. Problems noted above can be dealt with by editing, not deletion. --NSH001 (talk) 08:45, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yet another Israel-Palestine content fork. We have so many articles with overlapping scopes. Israel and apartheid, Human rights in Israel, Israeli war crimes, Israeli-occupied territories, Anti-Palestinianism, Zionism as settler colonialism, Palestinian genocide accusation. Indeed, over half of this article's sections have hatnote links to other articles at the top. I simply do not see what was the need of another article saying what so many others do. Wikipedia does not fragmentise other conflicts to this excessive degree. It makes navigating articles about this topic needlessly confusing. Merge, into all relevant articles, or perhaps merge articles into here. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 11:25, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I get this argument but I think many would agree that there are things sui generis about the AI/IP conflict that result in this fragmentation/overlapping, principally originating in the lengthy occupation. If editors were able to write a sensible article entitled Palestine and apartheid or Palestinian war crimes etcetera, they would probably do that too. Selfstudier (talk) 11:48, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No doubt about that. We have Allegations of genocide in the 2023 Hamas attack on Israel after all.

I agree that the exceptional length of this conflict contributes to us having a lot to talk about, including theorical and scholarly subjects and views. I still argue it's out of hand in Wikipedia. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 11:54, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not opposed to deletion, by the way. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 21:06, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. I also agree with WillowCity and the other members above. David A (talk) 14:25, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I agree with the nominator on a really new POVFORK. It's a very new package for old WP information. No objection to a merge, as suggested above, if there are relevant articles that do not yet contain this information for the umpteenth time. Delete is better. gidonb (talk) 15:02, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as blatant POV fork. Coretheapple (talk) 15:53, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- It is not a POV fork because you're allowed to add content from reliable sources that says "Event X was not a human rights violation." I would encourage you to add such content. starship .paint (RUN) 00:50, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  Sure, and the same can be said about any POV fork. Coretheapple (talk) 22:13, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  Maybe this 'POV fork'? Allegations of genocide in the 2023 Hamas attack on Israel, main article 2023 Hamas-led attack on Israel. It seems you said then at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Allegations of genocide in the 2023 Hamas attack on Israel: No valid reason has been presented to delete, this article. starship .paint (RUN) 15:09, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  "It seems you said then...." Please don't personalize the discussion. Thanks in advance, but meanwhile please strike out your comment. Coretheapple (talk) 15:57, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  Respectfully decline the request. starship .paint (RUN) 23:44, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as POV fork. I haven't found content which is not present in other articles listed by u:Super Dromaeosaurus but if it exists then it should be merged into those articles. Alaexis_¿question? 09:13, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Alaexis to clarify where do you think human rights violations by Israel against Gazans belongs: in Human rights in Israel or Human rights in the State of Palestine? VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 02:36, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Human_rights_in_Israel#Human_rights_in_the_occupied_territories seems to be appropriate, in addition to articles about individual events such as the ongoing war and countless other articles discussing every possible aspect of this conflict (e.g., Blockade of the Gaza Strip). Alaexis_¿question? 09:38, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Human rights in Israel is at 13,800 words, only 1,200 words away from "Almost certainly should be divided or trimmed" per the WP:SIZERULE. This article is already at 10,000 words and still has room to expand. A WP:SPINOFF is in order anyway. VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 12:35, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment A WP:POVFORK (read it please) "generally arise when contributors disagree about the content of an article or other page. Instead of resolving that disagreement by consensus, another version of the article (or another article on the same subject) is created to be developed according to a particular point of view." which is evidently not the case here. All that is happening is that unchallenged material from several articles is being consolidated for good reasons in a single article with a view to that article becoming the main article for the topic.Selfstudier (talk) 11:53, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The article is still a morass of WP:SYNTH. As one selected example from many available in the article, the Human_rights_violations_against_Palestinians_by_Israel#Targeted_assassinations is a collection of claims that editors have cobbled together into a claim that this is a collection of "human rights violations". However, nothing in the sourcing makes that connection. Textbook example of SYNTH. Unfortunately, this is rife throughout a heavily POV-written article. The notability may be there. Why I argue for a WP:TNT is how deeply embedded the SYNTH and POV is throughout. Longhornsg (talk) 12:39, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That particular section is lifted verbatim from Israeli occupation of the West Bank where it is not disputed so the material is not in itself synth. If instead your argument is that including that material in the current article is not NPOV then that can be addressed by editing and is not a reason for deletion. In fact that material should be expanded with an explanation of when targeted killings are legal and when they are a breach of international humanitarian law. Selfstudier (talk) 13:22, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that should be in the Targeted killings by Israel article, not an article about Israeli occupation or human rights violations. Do you really not see how this is SYNTH? Longhornsg (talk) 14:00, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The material is mostly about targeted killings in Gaza! This is ridiculous. Longhornsg (talk) 14:01, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Strong, speedy keep. One of the most ridiculous and offensive attempts at elimination I have ever seen, not to mention disrespectful, censorious, and imposing of a particular point of view. The topic is clearly and indisputably notable, and the arguments for elimination are far from being substantiated. RodRabelo7 (talk) 12:42, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Instead of WP:PA, care to explain why you believe policy-based deletion arguments are unsubstantiated instead of just saying a stream of invective? Editors can disagree on policy, but it’s important to AGF as you have not here. Longhornsg (talk) 12:53, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That the article treats a conflict full of human suffering doesn't make the article untouchable and sacred, not at all. One can also make a point against propagating several articles talking about the same thing with little differences. How about editors work on existing articles instead of each of them writing their own articles, which of course is easier for them, and keeping this topic area nice and clean and compact and easy to read? Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 13:13, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The editor did not mention at all That the article treats a conflict full of human suffering? While I tend to agree about the multiplicity of articles in general, this is not a new article in that sense, it is merely the consolidation of material that is better treated in one location, while any overlaps and duplication are to be eliminated. Selfstudier (talk) 13:32, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that this article is not merely the consolidation of material from other articles. It's a SYNTHed together amalgamation of new material that is then awkwardly connected to existing articles. I would be making this argument no matter the POV or subject of the article. I can come to agree with the principle of such an index-like article, but unfortunately the deeply rampant synth is why TNT is the way to go. Longhornsg (talk) 13:50, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Actually identify the alleged synth, then we will see. I already dealt with one incorrect claim of synth above. Which "new material"? Selfstudier (talk) 13:54, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is part of the issue of having multiple, overlapping articles. First, that's in Israeli occupation of the West Bank, not Targeted killing by Israel, which is the article linked to in this mess of an article. Second, that section in the Israeli occupation article has nothing to do with the topic and shouldn't even be in there in the first place. Third, there's nothing in the content that connects targeted killings with human rights violations. It just lists a bunch of "scary" facts about targeted assassinations. This is just encyclopedic malpractice. Longhornsg (talk) 13:59, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The article merely needs editing. There is a bunch of HR related stuff in occupation of the WB article which is far too long as a result. Then there is another pile of stuff in the the Israel human rights article, out of date and misplaced. I already dealt with the targeted killings thing above, again the article just needs editing. Once it gets sorted out the encyclopedia will be better as a result.

And you have not identified the alleged synth as requested, just more hand waving. Selfstudier (talk) 14:11, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is tedious. I have several times. It's too bad we've decided to turn an encyclopedia into a mishmash of file folder of reports, not to inform in a NPOV manner but to advocate, but here we are. Longhornsg (talk) 14:14, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Handwave, handwave... Selfstudier (talk) 14:23, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say the editor mentioned that, but to me it is apparent they were arguing deleting an article about such an inflamatory topic would be an act of disrespect, which I find as a very weak and improper argument. this is not a new article in that sense, it is merely the consolidation of material that is better treated in one location, while any overlaps and duplication are to be eliminated so we merge other articles into here instead? I would be okay with that too. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 14:10, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That would be the way to go, all the stuff in the Israel HR article could go apart from a very short summary/wikilink to the article here, ditto the occupation of WB article. Selfstudier (talk) 14:13, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep per WillowCity. There are some reliable sources that cite the occurrence of human rights violations, as The Guardian, UN, Human Righs Watch, so it is not a case of WP:OR. It is true that the article lacks impartiality, however, this problem can be remedied and there is no need for deletion, according to WP:POVDELETION. ✍A.WagnerC (talk) 14:23, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Socialist press outlets are all anti-Semitic as a result of their ideology. Hitler in his grave is proud of the work of all these people who kept his ideology alive after endless times. This article is the gathering of all this anti-logical thinking professed by these types of people all over the world.Gantuze (talk) 22:14, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as blatant POV fork and clear political use of Wikipedia (Socialist Propaganda). It is nothing more than a combination of theories and whishful thinking without any logical sense, a great exercise of anti-Semitism professed worldwide today using invalid sources from the anti-Semitic socialist press, a war caused by the Palestinians who started the problem unilaterally by massacring babies and innocent people who were quiet in their corner and unilaterally invading. In other words, this article is illogical and should not even exist. It's a great old wives' tale. Gantuze (talk) 20:15, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: all seems well ordered and well cited, and the nom seems wholly lacking in substance. The claim of POVFORK is made, but no page is identified as being the page that this has forked from. The main nom motivation is therefore unsubstantiated. The topic is a notable one with a justifiable scope. Iskandar323 (talk) 21:00, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~So, if you are part of the Palestine Project it is obvious that you support this anti-Semitic article. But it's an obvious conflict of interest.Gantuze (talk) 22:14, 15 January 2024 (UTC)~~[reply]

Strong keep: I see no indication that this is a fork of any one article (and therefore not a POV fork), the topic is clearly notable, some of the arguments for deletion are that the title is biased, however, there are also articles that catagorize and list human rights abuses if they're significant enough to be notable. There's precedent, the topic is notable, it isn't a fork of anything, I see absolutely no reason or argument to delete this other than WP:IDONTLIKEIT
Speedy Keep - As has been correctly pointed out, Israel has targetted Palestinian nationals outside of Palestine, therefore, it categorically cannot fall under human rights violations in israel or palestine, but against palestinians. The tile is accurate, and is the only correct title (or something semantically equivalent). DarmaniLink (talk) 22:56, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is no abuse of human rights, there is defense of the State of Israel. Those who defend human rights for criminals, murderers and people who start wars for no reason are socialists, who are the current descendants of the Nazis, using social anti-logic.Gantuze (talk) 23:02, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Documented RS in the article say otherwise

If you disagree with the sources, you should gain consensus that the sources are invalid and should not be used. :) DarmaniLink (talk) 23:08, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a soapbox for your Zionism. Salmoonlight (talk) 23:15, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge as appropriate to Human rights in the State of Palestine and Human rights in Israel. An obvious POV CFORK. // Timothy :: talk 03:11, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is clearly an important subject, and covered extensively in a large number of sources. It isn't restricted to either Israel or the OT, so merging into one of those is not optimal. Cleanup is required, but that has never been a reason for deletion. Zero^talk 10:54, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: More input would be welcome. Please remember to remain respectful and on topic (whether this is an unnecessary fork of another article or not).
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NotAGenious (talk) 13:11, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I don't think this is a POV fork as it is a specific enough topic, and one that is heavily covered in the literature. CoconutOctopus talk 17:30, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing in this article that is in disagreement with anything in any other Wikipedia article. So obviously this article cannot be a WP:POVFORK.Crampcomes (talk) 23:30, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per the "POV" problems:

First, I see a clear WP:POVFORK here as there is an attempt to inflate one area which was already covered.
Second, even the title provides non-neutral one-sided reflection of the situation without a word "alleged". As a least we can merge to a more neutral Human rights in the State of Palestine. When it's anti-Israel and pro Hamas we call "Allegations of genocide in the 2023 Hamas attack on Israel" and not "Hamas genocide accusation". But here we say "Violations". Nop, we need to be consistent.
Third, I see a WP:SYNTH problem. Some select claims are being grouped together without proper sources to show one single point of view without showing an alternative one. I haven't seem it other articles.

With regards, Oleg Y. (talk) 01:00, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't adding alleged as your own analysis when RS states something definitively, and the events are proven to have occured what MOS:DOUBT warns against? DarmaniLink (talk) 01:43, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed and hence it will not solve the problem here. We would no able to keep the article by adding such word and it needs to be deleted. With regards, Oleg Y. (talk) 12:52, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The things listed, provided they happened and the sources stating they happened are reliable, are indisputably human rights violations.

Why do we need to create a sense of false neutrality with respect to the "other side" of an ongoing conflict?

"We would not(?) be able to keep the article by adding such (a)? word..."

How come? The word doesn't belong there in the first place. Why would it need to state its an allegation when it demostratively occurred? DarmaniLink (talk) 16:28, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Have you tried to rename the "Allegations of genocide in the 2023 Hamas attack on Israel" to "Hamas genocide accusation"? Do we have an article "Human rights violations against Israel by Palestinians"? With regards, Oleg Y. (talk) 22:21, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS focus on the merits of this article, there's already precedent for articles on human rights abuses. And please answer my questions so we can build a consensus. DarmaniLink (talk) 23:23, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am well aware of this rule as well as I see that there was no attempt to remove that word in the other article as well as an attempt to say that here such word is not needed. I see it as a pure bias opinion which is not based on sources. When the cases are very similar. And now I see that one was unable to show that there is no violation of WP:POVFORK. Moreover there is an attempt to point to one direction saying "a sense of false neutrality". If one tries to hint that there was no human right violations by Palestinian terrorists of Hamas toward Israel then I have nothing to say as the initial fundamental believe is wrong. With regards, Oleg Y. (talk) 23:33, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Repeatedly bringing up Hamas in a game of "whataboutisms" in a discussion on whether or not to keep an article on Israeli atrocities is exactly why we have WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and policies like WP:FALSEBALANCE. Multiple people here have demonstrated there is no violation of the POV fork policy - by outright denying that the policy applies, as the article categorically is not a POV fork.

Also why are you still bringing up "the other side", after accepting that it isn't a valid argument? DarmaniLink (talk) 02:10, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"...no human right violations by Palestinian terrorists of Hamas toward Israel" but we do in fact have articles discussing exactly these attacks that you are referencing. So what is the issue? DMH43 (talk) 18:03, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please give examples of 1 and 3. As for 2: we have the title "Allegations of genocide in the 2023 Hamas attack on Israel" because no thorough investigation has been conducted and released to the public. In the case of this article, every reputable human rights organization agrees and has presented reports which corroborate the reports of other organizations. This includes Israeli organizations. As for "Human rights violations against Israel by Palestinians", there is no equivalence, as others in this thread have pointed out. Israel is an occupier, Palestinians are living under Israeli military occupation. DMH43 (talk) 18:10, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: An important topic covered in many WP:RS. This clearly passes WP:GNG. Any issues with the article can be addressed through editing. TarnishedPath^talk 01:09, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Selfstudier and WillowCity. CarmenEsparzaAmoux (talk) 17:25, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete POV fork that seeks to amplify and trumpet what is already covered in other articles, replete with grossly non-neutral title and rampant synthesis. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 22:49, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please explain further and give more details, since most in this thread seem to disagree DMH43 (talk) 18:00, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. There seems to be an understandable diffidence here among those who oppose this page in terms of its title. Let me address that. Human Rights in China, Human Rights in Australia, Human rights in the United States, Human rights in Russia, Human Rights in India, Human rights in Afghanistan etc.etc, seem to suggest that the title adopted is anomalous and singles out (unfairly) Israel. We have a standard Human Rights in Israel article but this does not reduplicate that. The reason for the ostensible anomaly lies in the difference between Israel and those other countries: Israel is, technically in international law, a belligerent occupying power of a foreign territory beyond its recognized and legitimate confines, and has been so for 57 years. One cannot assimilate the material here to Human Rights in Israel because the overwhelming mass of human rights violations occur outside Israel, therefore we must speak of violations by that country. Secondly, one cannot subjectivize these as allegations. The yearly reports by independent NGOs testifying to these abuses have an archival, encyclopedic mass, repeated for decades in extensive reports endorsed by Israel's premier neutral authority on human rights violations, B'tselem and most recently by the State Department of the United States, which is under a statutory obligation, often violated in the past (for reasons explained today by Stephanie Kirchgaessner, ‘Different rules’: special policies keep US supplying weapons to Israel despite alleged abuses The Guardian 18 January 2024). The politics of denial of the obvious should not interfere with our coverage, any more than the asserted bias, arising from a false premise of equivalence as the compass for neutrality. There can be no equivalence between an occupying power and an occupied people.Nishidani (talk) 00:41, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1 An entire section in Human Rights in Israel is devoted to the occupied territories, so you are quite incorrect.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights_in_Israel#Human_rights_in_the_occupied_territories This indeed points up why this is a POV fork.

2. Can you please confine such long mini-essays to beneath your own !vote or the talk page? Such walls of text, scattered around this page, make this hard to read and are disruptive. Coretheapple (talk) 16:52, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I grew up before sound bites, in a world where 309 words took (scientifically) about 1 minute 15 seconds for the average reader. That one minute's demand on an interlocutor's time can be dismissed as a 'wall of text' tells me much about the decay in literacy and patience Nishidani (talk) 00:34, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This indeed points up why this is a POV fork Er, no it doesn't. It has already been acknowledged since the beginning of this discussion that that section, which is only a part of the article, will go away after this discussion is finished. Furthermore, Nishidani comment seems quite on point afaics. Selfstudier (talk) 18:24, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:POVFORK, it would be much better to redirect this page to Human rights in the State of Palestine. Marokwitz (talk) 19:59, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Except that this article has absolutely nothing to do with Human rights in the State of Palestine, which deals overwhelmingly with the violation of P rights by the Palestinian Authority. But more important, the state of Palestine's existence is not even recognized by Israel. Nishidani (talk) 01:08, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As per discussion above, the section in Human rights in Israel about the occupied territories would be merged into this page. The situation inherently has many aspect, there are rights violations in Israel on Jewish nationals and nonjewish israeli citizens which are addressed in the Human rights in Israel article. There are rights violations in the west bank and gaza by the respective authorities, as described in Human rights in the State of Palestine. Finally, there are rights violations of Israel against specifically Palestinians, on both sides of the green line. Obviously this last category is huge. It's not unfair treatment of Israel to recognize that this last category has enough history and complexity to justify its own page.— Preceding unsigned comment added by DMH43 (talk • contribs)

Also human rights violations against Palestinians by Israel outside of both Israel and Palestine. E.g., in Lebanon. TarnishedPath^talk 05:12, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You beat me to it. Totally true. There are rights violations of Israel against specifically Palestinians, on both sides of the green line, and beyond that. Bombing Palestinians' homes abroad in Lebanon, Syria, withholding pension money of Palestinians living abroad, and preventing Palestinians from returning to their country etc. Targeted killings of Palestinians living abroad by Israel is actually terrorism and maybe we should have another article called "Terrorism against Palestinians by Israel." Crampcomes (talk) 13:49, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No we do not need that kind of article when the main problem with these wikipedia entries is lack of development to get each article to something like GA quality. I would advise all to work more consistently over time to that end, rather than risk a stub sprawl.Nishidani (talk) 02:44, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A clear POVFORK, any content that is encyclopedic can find home in existing articles, if it's not already there. Arkon (talk) 01:48, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please explain what is pov about this article DMH43 (talk) 18:00, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a WP:SPINOFF of Human rights in Israel, as mentioned by @Alaexis above. This is a big topic, clearly passes GNG, that also can't be merged back into an article that has room to accept it. Even if it was merged back into Human rights in Israel, it would create an UNDUE focus on mainly Palestinians at the expense of taking focus away from various other groups. This is exactly why we spin-off articles.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 12:46, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WillowCity and Crampcomes. Not a fork, as the content was not covered in existing articles, and the topic is notable with widespread coverage and academic studies.Vinegarymass911 (talk) 14:17, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Human rights in the State of Palestine and Human rights in Israel per My very best wishes. The title of the article as it currently exists is not neutral and, if it is kept, it should be renamed.Bookworm857158367 (talk) 23:32, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What would be a more neutral title for an article about human rights violations against palestinians by israel? DarmaniLink (talk) 02:50, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

OK, so by your logic List of Palestinian rocket attacks on Israel should be renamed also? I'll watch for your RM proposal. TarnishedPath^talk 03:23, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Purported human rights violations against Palestinians by Israel or Claimed human rights violations against Palestinians by Israel or List of reports of human rights violations against Palestinians by Israel, etc. Bookworm857158367 (talk) 02:41, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
An RM can be proposed for that in due course.Selfstudier (talk) 10:18, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This just seems like MOS:DOUBT to me. Like intentionally trying to make it appear like "But wait, its only MAYBE a human rights violation!" when all of these unambiguously are. But, that's an argument against an RM proposal. DarmaniLink (talk) 15:49, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I could understand using "purported" or "claimed" or "reports" if the reports were challenged or if they weren't corroborated by basically every reputable human rights organization and the US state department and including Israeli organizations. But the consensus is that these human rights violations by Israel against Palestinians have occurred and do occur today. Reports being challenged by the state of Israel does not mean that the reports should be treated as questionable, take for example that B'Tselem no longer files reports of human rights violations by Israel to the Israeli government since they have found the government incapable or unwilling to investigate these cases. DMH43 (talk) 17:59, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as the content appears mostly copied from Israeli occupation of the West Bank PrimaPrime (talk) 17:22, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The idea is that this will replace the content in the article you linked DMH43 (talk) 17:51, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. I see a consensus for deletion, in light of issues with the type of sources and many of them not being about the article subject herself, and the keep !votes do not refute these points. ^Complex/_Rational 22:16, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gina Coladangelo[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

As per WP:NOTINHERIT. Almost all the coverage relates to her notable husband. LibStar (talk) 01:56, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Women, and United Kingdom. LibStar (talk) 01:56, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, enough secondary cites to establish notability. Swan505 (talk) 03:55, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 02:14, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The references include significant coverage in major newspapers. Rublamb (talk) 00:35, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Neither keep !vote really refutes the nominator's rationale here, relisting for further discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 02:43, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes the issue here is that the coverage of her almost always names her husband. Would she achieve the same coverage if she didn't have a notable husband? LibStar (talk) 02:47, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There lots of coverage, most is about her having "broken the rules" during the covid lock downs... I'm not sure that alone makes her notable. Her career seems rather routine. If she had not "broken the rules" I don't think there would be enough based on the career alone to keep the article. Adding the scandal part to the story, I'm not sure that helps notability.Oaktree b (talk) 02:53, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
She basically worked in marketing and communications, not terribly notable and very much a rather routine part of any company. She didn't create any award-winning adverts, coin a new slogan that stuck in the popular memory or do much of anything really, other than direct how corporate communications are worded and presented to the public. And the length of her career hasn't been terribly long either, meaning she's not been a "trail blazing" woman with over 40 yrs in the British ad industry. Just a mid -level marketing expert. Oaktree b (talk) 02:56, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Most sources are about her husband. I concur with Oaktree b as well. TLA (talk) 03:30, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep She is notable enough to meet WP:GNG, and yet is overshadowed by her connection to two more notable people. Even if we were to delete the article, we would have to have a redirect, but to whom? She was married to Oliver Tress from 2009 until 2021, and has since been with Matt Hancock. Looks 50/50 to me, so another argument in favour of keeping things as they are. Edwardx (talk) 12:00, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Consensus seems to lead to be leading towards deletion; further input on the possibility of redirecting would however be helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NotAGenious (talk) 13:05, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Her only notability being half of a political scandal and nothing of real note careerwise outside adjacency by marriage to two bluelink men fulfills exactly why WP:1E is a good notability guideline to cite here; there should be no redirect to any of the subject's partners. Nate • (chatter) 17:38, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - including according to WP:BLP and WP:NOT policies; WP:BLP states, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives. Most of the lead focuses on scandal; the article appears to substantially be based on sensationalism (it even includes what WP:THESUN "said"), with a pseudobiography grafted onto it, and most sources dated from 25 June 2021 - 28 June 2021. The limited, sensationalized, and repetitive coverage does not amplify GNG notability. I also think the BLP issues weigh against redirection. Beccaynr (talk) 21:05, 19 January 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, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sandesh Lamsal[edit]

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

This article was created as obvious self-promotion, but has since been cleaned from the most outrageous phrasing by others. However, I still can't see, or find, any reliable sourcing supporting notability. The references look like press releases at best. Bishonen | tålk 13:03, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Medicine and Nepal. Owen× ☎ 13:36, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Self-promotion by a spammer. Not a shred of notability. Maliner (talk) 03:59, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, the subject is promoting himself. Macbeejack ☎ — Preceding undated comment added 10:43, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The article was initially written by the author probably with COI on promotional tone, but other editors have significantly edited it with Neutral POV. The articles about the subject in International Business Times, Online Khabar, Mero Film, Celebrity Nepal, Swasthya Khabar, Tulsipur Online, News X, APN News, Nepal Live Today etc seem to be reliable and Notable to me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WikiEditorNepali (talk • contribs) 11:38, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Do they? I recommend you to read WP:Reliable sources. Note too that what the references say about the subject is also important. There's no depth, it's all breathless praise, and the statements in those outlets are all very similar - they all sound like they're based on press releases or interviews with the subject. Such things are not independent of the subject. Bishonen | tålk 14:42, 18 January 2024 (UTC).[reply]
Sources from Online Khabar are paid spam. I want to note that the subject of this article works there. So not at all contributing towards notability. Maliner (talk) 15:52, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(There was a problem with your link, which I have now fixed, Maliner.) Yes, his work there is indeed mentioned in our article: "From 2021, he has been writing medical articles in the national Online portal Online Khabar to provide medical knowledge in an understandable language for the local public.. Online Khabar is hardly an independent secondary source in relation to Lamsal. Bishonen | tålk 15:59, 18 January 2024 (UTC).[reply]
Thanks Bish. Please see

Ref 3

Ref 15

Both sources do not mention the author's name. It's reasonable to assume the subject authored both sources as part of a self-promotion scheme. Maliner (talk) 16:19, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Bishonen, Thank you for your comment. I agree with some of your points. But let me clear my point once again so that this will be the final statement from my side as a Editor from Nepal who contributes the articles here in Wikipedia related to Medicine(Hospitals, Doctors, etc).

1. While doing deep investigations on the issue you raised, I found that the articles about the subject were written in Nepali Version first (on January 2021) whereas the subject seems to have started contributing Medical articles in the English version of Online Khabar only after (July 2022), which declines the argument that there might be the COI on those articles.

2. The Online Khabar clearly mentions authors as their employee on the bio of the Writer profile of authors, but on the case of this subject there is nothing like this mentioned which again declines the argument that the subject works there.

In my opinion, it is fine to write medical articles by any professional individual on any online websites with the motive to create awareness related to health irrespective of what the news is published about the subject in another version of that website years ago.

3. In Nepal when the articles are written by the Media itself they don't mention the name of author. Rather I feel the articles with the particular author name might give the hint of COI of the author with the subject. I support that the articles about living people should be independent and written either by the Website itself or the Respective desk (News Desk, Sport Desk, or Entertainment Desk of the Newspaper).

4. These references can't be a part of press release because I found that the articles are written about the subject for over a long period of time. Press releases are published in a certain date and there is no mentions about it after it.

5. Lastly, I think that the articles clearly mentions the subject on the heading and these articles revolve around the subject till the last, digging deep about the subject. The articles can be on praise or negative opinion depending upon the works of the subject and his / her contribution to the society.

6. I am just a medical enthusiastic focused to create medical articles, articles about hospitals of Nepal and Notable doctors. I merely edited the article Sandesh Lamsal 2 or 3 times, that also on the basis of the argument on the talk page. Please don't drag me everywhere on this topic. I declare no COI on this subject neither want to create my Wikipedia journey defending this subject till the end. Happy Editing! Cheers WikiEditorNepali (talk) 10:10, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't drag me everywhere on this topic. Who dragged you here? Usedtobecool ☎️ 10:37, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Discussions among the editors before the Nomination For Deletion Here and Here, and their Vote for the Deletion here, dragged me. WikiEditorNepali (talk) 10:46, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Extremely ridiculous sources with extremely ridiculous claims, nothing indicating notability. Usedtobecool ☎️ 10:47, 19 January 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 12:35, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Crypto Leaks[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:GNG. Only secondary reliable SIGCOV only trivially mentions Crypto Leaks. The artticle almost exclusively covers one single leak and the consequences it had for the law firm.

The content would be better served in an article about the law firm and/or the leak, if that would be notable as a stand-alone article. AlexandraAVX (talk) 11:51, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism and Cryptocurrency. AlexandraAVX (talk) 11:51, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media and Organizations. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:56, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Might be a case for the lawyer/law firm to have an article, this anonymous group is mostly mentioned in article surrounding the lawyer. I don't see enough notability on their own. Oaktree b (talk) 16:12, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Another WikiLeaks clone, just with added Web 3.0 baggage to try to compete. Nate • (chatter) 17:40, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom fails WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 07:09, 24 January 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 12:35, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gavin Araujo[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. The citations only tell us that he went on some courses. My before search returned only routine coverage, news from a connected source e.g. clubs he was working for, or interviews. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 10:53, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, India, and Goa. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 10:53, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 16:37, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 16:39, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Fails in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 21:45, 19 January 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 nomination withdrawn after a reference was added (non-admin closure)‎. Ouro (blah blah) 12:44, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Pot Bears a Son[edit]

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

~~This sounds like it should be notable, but I couldn't verify that it is. Boleyn (talk) 09:40, 17 January 2024 (UTC)~~[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:50, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. @User:Boleyn: The feeling is correct. It is a tale found in textbooks (for instance here), and the researcher Haim Schwarzbaum [de] talks about it in his Studies in Jewish and world folklore on page 104 that it is a motif that has innumerable variants. Based on this perfunctory search I believe the article should be kept and warrants expansion. --Ouro (blah blah) 10:17, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment to comment. Added reference and removed single source tag. --Ouro (blah blah) 11:43, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw nomination thanks, Ouro. Boleyn (talk) 12:05, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:55, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hiroko Tsuji (musician)[edit]

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

This AFD is to follow up on comments made by User:Nuraa.sinora at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kento Masuda and by that user and others at the talk page. It appears that all the claims of importance are dubious or promotional (e.g. Global Music Awards) and I'm unaware of independent reliable sources. See also the corresponding Japanese AFD ja:Wikipedia:削除依頼/辻寛子 (deleted based on editors evaluating awards/honours and looking for other sources in Japanese). All content was contributed in 2016 by User:Orugoro's multiple accounts plus an IP 198.24.221.114. Adumbrativus (talk) 09:27, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Japan and Bands and musicians. Adumbrativus (talk) 09:33, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:50, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: the relationship with the Kento Masuda (AfD) article is not very clear (they certainly appeared together at some point), but the content and style is extremely similar, and as for KM, none of the references withstand scrutiny. @Michitaro, Nuraa.sinora, Loriendrew, Kaori Muraji, and Tal Essen: Pinging other editors who have made significant edits to either of these articles. Imaginatorium (talk) 05:28, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The Japanese AFD was based on very careful and considered investigation of her recordings and awards. The conclusion should be the same here. Michitaro (talk) 17:41, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not meet notability standards of WP:MUSICBIO or even GNG. Even after article overhall, all that is left is promotional grasping.--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 15:37, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 10:04, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mawlana Murad[edit]

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

Historical scholarship does not document our subject except once but as per Wikipedia:Notability is not inherited, this is not enough. Fails WP:N with no significant level of coverage. Article contains too much Original Research. Jaunpurzada (talk) 14:45, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bangladesh, India and Islam. Jaunpurzada (talk) 14:45, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:47, 10 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!} 09:02, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure)‎ Geschichte (talk) 20:46, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Beyond Desire[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG, WP:NFO and WP:NFSOURCES. I found no reviews on Rotten Tomatoes. I did a WP:BEFORE and found a suitable and reliable review from TV Guide. Needs one more suitable and reliable review per NFO, NFSOURCES and WP:NEXIST. The Film Creator (talk) 08:21, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. The Film Creator (talk) 08:21, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Added a few sources to the page, including the TV Guide review mentioned above. See for yourself.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 09:55, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: There is also a review in the Montgomery Advertiser. Somebodyidkfkdt (talk) 12:21, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I speedy withdraw nomination per consensus and per newly added sources. The Film Creator (talk) 15:54, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nevada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:43, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure)‎ Geschichte (talk) 14:23, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sex and the Other Man[edit]

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

Article fails WP:NFO, WP:NFSOURCES and WP:GNG. I found no reviews on Rotten Tomatoes. Per WP:NEXIST, the sources have to be “suitable” and none of the sources are suitable or reliable enough. I did a WP:BEFORE and found one suitable and reliable review from TV Guide. Needs one more suitable and reliable review in order to be eligible. The Film Creator (talk) 08:06, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. The Film Creator (talk) 08:06, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Added sources to the page, including TV Guide mentioned above. See for yourself.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 08:38, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent work, User:Mushy Yank. I speedy withdraw this nomination. The Film Creator (talk) 08:47, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:50, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gerald C. Olesen[edit]

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

Successful career, but I couldn't establish how he meets WP:BIO or WP:GNG. Has been in CAT:NN for 14 years; hopefully we can now resolve it. Boleyn (talk) 08:03, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military, United States of America, and Wisconsin. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 08:19, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. A member of the military reserves may also be notable for what they accomplished in civilian line. In this case, I wasn't able to find anything non-military that he did, apart from graduating from [Upper Iowa University]]. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 08:24, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG. Mztourist (talk) 10:26, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Brigadier generals are usually on the borderline of notability. There is an image and more details but he seems to have spent his whole career with a unit of the Wisconsin National Guard. No credible claim of significance. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:25, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:49, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph (Yoske) Levy[edit]

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

If everything in this article is correct, he should meet WP:N. However, I couldn't verify it. It has been in CAT:NN for 14 years; hopefully we can now resolve it. Boleyn (talk) 07:54, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists and Israel. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 08:29, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I am not finding any references to support this. Claims llike "part of important collections around the world" are unsupported. One of the books listed as a reference in the article, "Depiction & Interpretation: The Influence of the Holocaust on the Visual Arts"," seems to only mention the name "Levy" three times, and every time it is instead art dealer Julien Levy they are writing about. Elspea756 (talk) 12:59, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Like others above me, I could not establish notability. Names like Joseph and Levy are difficult so I may be off but I really tried. Hewiki has an article about another Yosef "Yoske" Levi who was mayor of Eilat and is notable. gidonb (talk) 00:30, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, reluctantly. @Netherzone and CT55555: and I tried to tackle this when I found it in the same backlog. I don't read Hebrew so I had even less luck than Gidonb did in tracking down sourcing. As Boleyn says, he should be notable. If sourcing eventually comes to light, we can recreate. Star Mississippi 03:28, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete, I haven’t done as much research as the rest of you, but the article felt wrong and possibly hoax-like to me especially the total lack of references, so I’ve done some research. As Boleyn says if what the article says is true there’d be some mention of this person somewhere, but

nothing on the internet about them, taking into account what gidonb said about how common the name elements are
nothing on the internet about the two pretty generically named paintings mentioned in the article
Neither of the Hebrew articles in the bibliography mention this person. They talk about Holocaust art, but don’t mention him.
The article was created by a banned sockpuppet, part of a farm, still seemingly active (click on the name in the history and look at the ban log)
At least one article involving the same sock was deleted for lack of notability (Articles for deletion/Jonathan Kis-Lev)

At the very least, if this artist exists, they’re not notable. Ayenaee (talk) 11:29, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – As per WP:NOTABILITY. Searches on Google Web, Books and Scholar return absolutely nothing. He might as well be made up. --Jkaharper (talk) 14:07, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not notable, and due to lack of accessible sources I'm not convinced this artist is real. Marokwitz (talk) 20:23, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. I see a rough consensus that this article should be deleted. If an editor wants to create a Redirect from this page title, feel free. If anyone objects, they can take it to WP:RFD. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:46, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Zionist entity[edit]

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

The article is a polemic attack on the supposed ideological enemies of the state of Israel. Right from its very beginning it dispenses with any cloak of WP:NPOV and goes straight to attacking all Arabs, Muslims and left-wingers as being enemies of Israel. This sort of POV pushing has no place on Wikipedia as it offers no encyclopaedic value at all. This requires WP:TNT TarnishedPath^talk 07:28, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics, Israel, and Palestine. TarnishedPath^talk 07:28, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Note that deletion is not cleanup. Curbon7 (talk) 08:03, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Islam and Middle East. TarnishedPath^talk 09:33, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Redirect to Legitimacy of the State of Israel#Rhetoric of delegitimization or something of sorts. It's a nickname for Israel used by some Arabs and Muslims. Not notable per se yet in existence. gidonb (talk) 00:43, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to WP:NPOV. Not much can be here other than TNT. With regards, Oleg Y. (talk) 12:54, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think is a real and notable term widely used even today by various middle eastern media outlets and politicians, just listen to a recent Nasrallah or Khamenei speech. Like the article references show, the term been in use for decades. For reference, Wikipedia does have pages for various epithets of certain countries, for example Great Satan, Banana Republic, Hermit Kingdom, or Sick Man of Europe. Also, there are several pages for epithets directed towards ethnicities, for example Yankee, Kraut, and Jap. If the problem is that a the article is biased, it would be better to rewrite it from a more NPOV rather than outright deleting it. AuburnDistrict (talk) 17:06, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The only problem I see with the lead is that someone recently added left-wingers to the list without proper citations. There's currently four different citations, none of which actually state that left-wingers use this term. Some surely might do so but it would require a better reference, rather than an article that generally discusses left-wing opposition to Zionism. AuburnDistrict (talk) 17:19, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete To begin, from the first sentence of the article: Zionist entity (Arabic: الكيان الصهيوني, al-kiyān al-Sohyūniyy), Zionist regime (Persian: رژیم صهیونیستی, rezhim-e Sahyonisti), and Zionist enemy are interchangeable pejorative terms used predominantly by Arabs, Muslims and left-wingers in reference to the State of Israel. According to what reliable source are these three distinct phrases in different languages interchangeable? The whole article is an OR POV mess. Support TNT. إيان (talk) 05:22, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless the editor in question can provide page numbers for all book sources (those I controlled, like Cohen's wonderful book or Suleiman's 2011 book p.131) does mention one term but he is used in a sentence re terminological interchangeability which I can find no corroboration for) Nishidani (talk) 06:06, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A bunch of the sources I looked at only mentioned the term in passing if at all, so there's definitely WP:OR going on. The article has a definite problem with over-sourcing and this appears to stem from an attempt to overcompensate for the aforementioned fact. However for me the more glaring issue is the WP:NPOV mess that needs WP:TNT. TarnishedPath^talk 07:20, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless can be completely rewritten, entirely non-neutral. Alextejthompson (Ping me or leave a message on my talk page) 20:09, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment pretty much the entire article is sourced to citations that are books where the page number is missing. This makes the entire existing article difficult to verify. Its not clear what exactly the sources are referring to and whether there is original research going on or not.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 05:17, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notability doesn't depend on what is currently written in the article, and it doesn't seem beyond repair. There is plenty of direct and in-depth discussion of the terms "Zionist Entity" and "Zionist Regime" in WP:RS, including academic discourse directly on this topic, as anyone who takes a moment to search will see. For example, [23] [24] [25] [26] Marokwitz (talk) 08:02, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your argument doesn't refute that the article qualifies for WP:TNT. TarnishedPath^talk 10:25, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't see any argument why it is so hopelessly bad that WP:TNT is the only option. TNT is always the last resort. The TNT essay explains that you need to show that the article's content is entirely useless (including all the versions in history). Marokwitz (talk) 19:06, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or redirect to Israel. The term has enough coverage in academic journals for it to meet WP:GNG. If the article is considered so subpar as to merit WP:TNT, then I would support a redirect to Israel. MarioGom (talk) 14:51, 23 January 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 04:42, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tirioro Willie[edit]

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

Unable to find any SIGCOV outside of databases. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 04:43, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Olympics, and Oceania. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 04:43, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would expect one of the newspapers in Kiribati would have published something when one of their most prominent athletes died at age 22. BeanieFan11 (talk) 17:32, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 04:23, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, the athletes from the smallest countries compete on quotas, which unfortunately doesn't change the fact that they are not accomplished athletes - having recorded results that are probably matched by several thousand 16-year old boys all over the world every year - resulting in a lack of significant coverage. The ideal would be a merge to athletics in Kiribati or Kiribati at the World Athletics Championships. Geschichte (talk) 14:22, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Unable to find the requisite coverage for this subject to meet the WP:GNG. Let'srun (talk) 04:32, 24 January 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. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) ––FormalDude (talk) 10:12, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Corey Jackson[edit]

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

Player appeared in only a single NFL game. Has not received significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources, so fails WP:GNG and WP:NSPORT. ––FormalDude (talk) 04:11, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and American football. ––FormalDude (talk) 04:11, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Sportspeople, Colorado, Nevada, Ohio, South Carolina, and Texas. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:55, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The article in its current state leaves much to be desired, but I have a hard time believing that a Defensive MVP of the NFL Europe league didn't receive enough SIGCOV to be considered notable. I have a feeling someone will dig up enough to demonstrate notability, though I myself don't have time to do so at the moment. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:23, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes GNG [27][28][29][30] I'm sure there's more but I don't feel like looking right now. I don't think a modern NFL player who actually played has ever been deleted. They usually have enough coverage. Also, I cleaned up the article. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 14:10, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets GNG per above sources. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 17:05, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Clearly notable per the sources presented above by WikiOriginal-9. Just about anyone who's played in the NFL in modern times (excepting the 1987 replacement players) will be notable. BeanieFan11 (talk) 19:24, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per GNG. Playing in "only" one NFL game doesn't negate that. Rlendog (talk) 19:36, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This subject easily meets the WP:GNG, although it should be noted that there are no longer any participation criteria for American football players. Let'srun (talk) 21:59, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes GNG with the above sources and others in the article (I've cleaned it up considerably). Modern day players who reach the NFL tend to have had a notable college career, which is the case for Jackson who was notable for both football and basketball in college. For these players, Newspapers.com is a much better place to find sources rather than Google. Alvaldi (talk) 09:46, 20 January 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.

Friends, Lovers, and the Big Terrible Thing[edit]

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

The result was nomination withdrawn by nominator as below hence keep. And that my friends is what they call (non-admin closure)‎. Ouro (blah blah) 05:53, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article doesn't have enough content to warrant its own page. Also, as it is an autobiography, anything revealed in it would be best suited for the MattheW Perry page itself. ChimaFan12 (talk) 03:16, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak oppose.~~ Article can definitely be expanded and work standalone rather than just as a section in the author's article. ~~Might get around to doing that.~~ This work is important and unique in the sense that it is uncommonly candid. --Ouro (blah blah) 06:57, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

All right, I expanded it a bit. ~~Can someone make the references nicer? I don't know how to do that yet.~~ --Ouro (blah blah) 07:24, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Refs nicely filled in. --Ouro (blah blah) 07:36, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just keep. --Ouro (blah blah) 11:36, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:55, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Reviews added by Ouro are more than enough to meet NBOOK. There's also a few more reviews/coverage on ProQuest. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 13:46, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Autobiography of famous person released by a major publisher, pretty obviously notable. Keep per added reviews. Toughpigs (talk) 16:53, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The article is notable as per WP:Notability (books): "The book has been the subject of two or more non-trivial published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself." It's just I never got around to expanding the stub. I'm glad it has been expanded following the nomination, though. Nataev ^talk 01:31, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I’ve seen the edits and now support keeping it. I don’t know the correct procedure to close this, but I withdraw my nomination to close it. ChimaFan12 (talk) 03:00, 18 January 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 10:07, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Border Areas of Punjab, India[edit]

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

No source referring to these districts/a specific border area as a particular grouping, appears to be WP:OR. ChaotıċEnby(t · c) 15:14, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations, Geography, Pakistan, India, and Punjab. Skynxnex (talk) 16:07, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:48, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, agreed it seems like WP:OR, sources used are about specific border areas or just listing/mapping parts of Punjab that border. Certain parts of the article may be worth merging into appropriate other articles, but the subject/scope of this article is OR. EmeraldRange (talk/contribs) 20:29, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. This AFD was started about 30 mins. after the article was created and it has been edited quite a lot since its nomination. Could the article be re-reviewed?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:57, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator, article mainly provides synthesis of border districts articles, there's a list too where all the districts of Indian Punjab are given. Muneebll (talk) 10:32, 21 January 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 02:29, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ana Paola Andía[edit]

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

I am unable to find sufficient coverage of the subject, a Bolivian women's footballer, to meet WP:GNG. All I found were passing mentions (1, 2, 3, etc.) JTtheOG (talk) 02:30, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and Bolivia. JTtheOG (talk) 02:30, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 16:37, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 16:39, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 21:44, 19 January 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. An article on this subject has already been deleted 4 or 5 times and I don't see that this version is an improvement. It's clear that editors advocating "Keep" do not understand Wikipedia's standards for Notability because merely being mentioned in an article is insufficient. Since previous versions of this article were created by sockpuppets, I'm wondering if a return trip to SPI is called for. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:32, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nabin Luhagun (thespian)[edit]

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

This article was presumably created at this location to circumvent the creation protection at Nabin Luhagun, which was part of a concerted sockpuppetry campaign to add an article about this person to the English Wikipedia. (Note the existence of an equally poor article at the Hindi Wikipedia here, created by translating the now-deleted and similarly-protected Nabin Luhagun (actor), which indicates that the subject is Nepali, as was the case with the deleted versions here, rather than Indian.) The given references only include mentions in cast lists and are of dubious reliability. A search suggests that there is not enough third-party coverage to warrant a biographical article and that the subject does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NACTOR. Kinu ^t/_c 02:29, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Kinu ^t/_c 02:29, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:10, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maharashtra-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:10, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:10, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:11, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

•Keep.and move to Nabin Luhagun without (thespian) if possible, since there isn't any other articles which exists with that name. Thank you. AasifShrestha (talk) 05:32, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As you are the creator of the article, it would be helpful for you to address the notability concerns raised in the nomination. --Kinu ^t/_c 05:43, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 02:43, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Every source has mentioned the subject as an actor, and this is enough for WP:GNG. RomanRaju (talk) 10:30, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Given that WP:GNG literally says "significant coverage is more than a trivial mention", this !vote makes absolutely no sense. --Kinu ^t/_c 14:28, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Kinu, thank you for this response, I was trying to say that the subject is mentioned as an actor which is enough for WP:GNG. RomanRaju (talk) 14:35, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Any reasonable closing admin will realize that the given sources are absolutely worthless toward establishing notability, so I will refrain from further responses per WP:BLUDGEON. --Kinu ^t/_c 14:39, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: It is unclear the extent to which the subject may have a role in Waltair Veerayya: even verification requires more than inclusion in a list of names. But, regardless, this is insufficient for WP:NACTOR, and the present instance's creation under this variant title indicates evasion of the protection applied with the deletion of prior instance titles. AllyD (talk) 12:20, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom does not meet NACTOR.Tame Rhino (talk) 00:39, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You just have 11 edits, how you know about WP:NACTOR. AasifShrestha (talk) 06:03, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

.Redirect. The title is connected to Waltair Veerayya; it is better to redirect the page to Waltair Veerayya, no deletion.2400:9700:113:1547:45B5:4F14:BC2E:F828 (talk) 10:27, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RomanRaju (talk) 08:48, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Regarding the IP's suggestion of redirecting to the Waltair Veerayya article, I would prefer if there was some solid source for associating the subject with the film. The subject is not mentioned at the film's IMDb article's full cast and crew, for example. AllyD (talk) 09:11, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Given the deletion history of this article in its previous forms, I'm almost inclined to believe that this is some sort of astroturfing campaign. I find absolutely nothing reliable to support the alleged acting credits except for name checks from the content aggregator-type sites like those presented as sources in this version. Is some or all of it a hoax? I don't know for sure, but if nothing else the sourcing is hardly sufficient to support a WP:BLP. Kinu ^t/_c 03:58, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This is actually the second relist. The one indicated on top of mine was tagged incorrectly by a discussion participant so the discussion was not reposted.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:12, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. While additional citations appear to have been added to the article since the nomination, precisely zero of them constitute significant coverage from reliable sources. --Kinu ^t/_c 16:38, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Since the nomination, additional citations have been added from reliable sources. If possible, move to Nabin Luhagun without (thespian), since there isn't any other article with that name.AasifShrestha (talk) 05:58, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The page can be improved; regarding AasifShrestha's suggestion of moving Nabin Luhagun without (thespian), it can be moved where reliable sources have been added since nomination, and it would be sufficient for WP:GNG.RomanRaju (talk) 11:41, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is not possible to improve the page if no reliable sources exist. Kinu ^t/_c 16:21, 22 January 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 10:09, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cambodia–Kosovo relations[edit]

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

There is not much to these relations except lack of recognition by Cambodia which is already covered in International_recognition_of_Kosovo#Countries_which_have_not_recognised_Kosovo_as_an_independent_state. LibStar (talk) 03:13, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations, Cambodia, and Kosovo. LibStar (talk) 03:13, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article helps as a split to address WP:SIZE issues at said article. A move can be considered if needed, such as Cambodia's reaction to the 2008 Kosovo declaration of independence. --NoonIcarus (talk) 02:31, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

nah bro this is a very important article we MUST keep it — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cringlebob (talk • contribs) 14:03, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Per nom. Relationship without any established notability. Svartner (talk) 20:11, 14 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!} 02:08, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as there is nothing substantial or notable here. ― novov (t c) 09:13, 17 January 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. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 23:07, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

AzzyLand[edit]

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

It doesn't seem like this Youtuber meets WP:GNG or WP:ENT. The best I can find are non-RSees, the BI article listing creators with high view counts, and recent articles about SSSniperwolf's ongoing disputes with different content creators including Azzyland. BuySomeApples (talk) 00:02, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Internet. Shellwood (talk) 02:21, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously, this article should be kept. AzzyLand is one of the most viewed YouTubers in the world. I cannot understand how somebody can get over 1000000000 views in a year and not be notable enough for Wikipedia. I was very surprised when I found out that she was not on Wikipedia already. Please keep this article. Madison Elizabeth Michelle (talk) 22:27, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- That's because you don't understand notability, which is nothing whatsoever to do with views on YouTube. Notability is not fame nor importance. You also need to learn about reliable sources. An autobiography on YouTube, another autobiography elsewhere, and a wiki are not the way to source biographical articles, or indeed any articles. Uncle G (talk) 03:38, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sources:

A 7-minute video interview published by Forbes hosted by Moira Forbes
A 3-minute video interview with Cosmopolitan Middle East
The Business Insider piece already cited in the Wikipedia article, which covers the subject briefly but more than a passing mention, so probably counts as "half of a source"
An article by GirlTalkHQ, a magazine I haven't heard of but might be reliable

Left guide (talk) 09:05, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: BLP, fails GNG and NBIO. Found name mentions, interviews, promo, nothing meeting SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth. BLPs requires strong sourcing. Sources in the article are:

Comments	Source
Official website, fails WP:IS	1. https://www.azzyland.com
Social media channel	2. ^ https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCzeB_0FNcPIyUSjL_TL5lEw
Promo item in list of social media channel, database style info.	3. ^ https://www.businessinsider.com/youtube-most-viewed-creators-pewdiepie-david-dobrik-mrbeast-azzyland-lazarbeam-2019-12

BLPs require strong soucing. Ping me if WP:IS WP:RS with NPOV SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth is found. // Timothy :: talk 19:04, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:35, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep Per left guide's sourcing. 2 of those are RS and have significant coverage. Meets the "ugh, fine, I guess" threshold. There's also some additional coverage of recent plagiarism accusations involving SSSniperwolf. This is a MREL source about it. [31][32]. Don't use those for notability, but they might help be usable to de-orphan the article. Acebulf ^{(talk | contribs)} 01:02, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Fails notability guidelines; I couldn't find more GNG passable sources other than this and this, other than several stories of the mentioned dispute, lists, and profiles. Toadette ^{(Merry Christmas, and a happy new year)} 22:36, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Although the article currently does not meet notability, there are sources cited above that would allow this topic to achieve notability. Using the guideline that an article should not be deleted if the sources exist to improve it, this article should be retained. Rublamb (talk) 00:40, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for the reasons I stated above. Also, the article could be improved with reliable sources. Madison Elizabeth Michelle (talk) 21:41, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 02:31, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Just not enough coverage to meet notability. Dexerto has a few articles about the feud with SSniperwold [33] and [34], but it's a marginally reliable source per our guidelines. A forbes interview [35] is fine but there is little to no information outside the interview, so it's still a primary source. I was surprised to learn she's from Toronto and actually has set up a foundation for the SickKids Hospital here, one of the best pediatric hospitals in Canada, but there is no coverage about it! Using her real name, the best I could find was [36] where she guest stars on a CBC web series/tv show. I'm frankly surprised she hasn't been interviewed by more media here. Oaktree b (talk) 03:06, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. But, honestly the article could be improved with reliable sources could be said about every single article on the project.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:44, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Agree with Oaktree b, and as the user has pointed out, there's little reliable secondary sources that cover the subject extensively. The article can always be restored if the subject becomes notable. Spinixster (chat!) 02:17, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I was on the fence, but being picked up by Forbes, even if only for an interview, tipped the scales for me. Seems to meet NBIO. Owen× ☎ 13:44, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as meeting NBIO. Alextejthompson (Ping me or leave a message on my talk page) 18:46, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify: Fails NBIO per Timothy and Oaktree b's source analyses. I also don't believe that the sources provided by Left guide establish notability. Interviews are generally non-independent primary sources. While the Forbes and Cosmo interviews are in-depth, and both are RSes, they lack independence and nobody has offered any independent, secondary sources that provide SIGCOV, and I can't find any. However, per Oaktree b, it's possible we'll be able to establish notability in the near future, so that's why my !vote is draftify. voorts (talk/contributions) 20:18, 21 January 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 Indonesia–Ukraine relations. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:47, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Embassy of Indonesia, Kyiv[edit]

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

This article doesn't say much except confirms it exists and lacking indepth coverage. The Ukrainian and Indonesian language versions of these article have more sources but they merely confirm former ambassadors. Fails WP:ORG. LibStar (talk) 01:27, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations, Indonesia, and Ukraine. LibStar (talk) 01:27, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: These should also be deleted: Embassy of Indonesia, Brasília, Embassy of Indonesia, Caracas, Embassy of Indonesia, Bandar Seri Begawan, Embassy of Indonesia, Tokyo, Embassy of Indonesia, Ankara, Embassy of Indonesia, Brussels, Embassy of Indonesia, Prague, Embassy of Indonesia, Athens, Embassy of Indonesia, The Hague, Embassy of Indonesia, Wellington. CakalangSantan (talk) 18:16, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting in hope of more participation. However, if you wish other articles to be considered for deletion, you need to make a bundled nomination at AFD, just mentioning them in a comment has no effect.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:31, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Just how many of these articles are there? Cortador (talk) 11:19, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Indonesia–Ukraine relations: no independent notability. Owen× ☎ 13:56, 17 January 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. If an editor wants to work on this article in Draft space, let me know or go to WP:REFUND Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:45, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Jazja[edit]

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

Fails GNG and NEVENT. Minorincident, No sources found showing this has WP:SIGCOV from WP:RS addressing the subject directly and indepth. // Timothy :: talk 01:04, 10 January 2024 (UTC) // Timothy :: talk 01:04, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:06, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hey I don't understand why this article is being deleted, could you explain what's wrong with it ? Yubudirsi (talk) 05:41, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I see no significant notability to warrant its own article. Same goes for 2nd Battle of Yedaya Socialwave597 (talk) 06:59, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I added another secondary source, I think that makes 3 Yubudirsi (talk) 17:40, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ethiopia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:06, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and History. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:53, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Added another secondary source Yubudirsi (talk) 17:40, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to assess new sources. Of course, this AFD discussion can be closed at any time. But it would be helpful to get an editor to review new content.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:29, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete though I’ve no objection to draftification. The creator appears to have gone through the chronicles and written an article about every armed conflict that ever took place between Ethiopia and Adal using the formula “battle of [place mentioned] whether the source describes that as “[battle of place mentioned]” or not. I think there is sufficient sourcing for several more broad-based articles talking about each war, or each campaign, or each period, but not one for each “battle”. This is an area of history which is currently under covered, but that isn’t a license to embroider and expand on what sources say. Draftification would allow the creator to figure out some way of repurposing the material they’ve researched and combining multiple current articles in the series they’ve created in the NPP queue, but unless they ask to do that, I agree we should delete. Mccapra (talk) 03:57, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: There are five citations, this should pass GNG. Wikiexplorationandhelping (talk) 03:49, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Which of them is more than just a passing mention? What coverage is WP:INDEPTH? Mccapra (talk) 21:23, 22 January 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 02:30, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ali-Mohammad Mirza[edit]

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

Delete Cannot find any sources demonstrating this individual existed. Tooncool64 (talk) 01:14, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Royalty and nobility and Iran. Shellwood (talk) 01:43, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete me neither. A search in Farsi brought up a single page on an official Iranian state website that is blocked in the UK, linking to a “Printed copy of the payment of the pension of Ihtisham al-Malamek” but who that person was I can’t say. That’s all I can find so nothing in our article is verifiable. Even if it was he still wouldn't be notable unless there was quite a bit more to be said about him. Mccapra (talk) 04:09, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no SIGCOV in RS. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:03, 17 January 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 Saint John River (Bay of Fundy). There is clear consensus that this article is about the same topic as Saint John River, making it a WP:POVFORK. Salting is not necessary unless there are disruptive edits to the redirect, which doesn't appear to be the case based on the article's history. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 22:58, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wolastoq[edit]

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

This article seems to be a WP:POVFORK about the river known as the Saint John River (Bay of Fundy). While some have proposed the river be renamed Wolastoq, governments in Canada and the US have not done so. It seems clear that the widely accepted name is "Saint John River". This article has been discussed at WP:CANADA and there seems to be a consensus, at least there, that this page should be deleted or merged into Saint John River (Bay of Fundy). Some editors there said that once this page is a redirect it should be WP:SALTed to prevent re-creation. Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 01:01, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 01:44, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Canada, and Maine. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:07, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I invite attention to this discussion to understand the origin of this article. The status of this river as an international boundary artificially splits the region's previous history as a single first nation with important contributions to preservation of the Acadian way of life. I am of the opinion this material might be integrated into the Saint John River (Bay of Fundy) article from which it was removed by Cornellier. Failure to keep this information together needlessly fragments background circumstances important to understanding of that history. This situation may justify application of WP:IAR to the WP:WikiProject Rivers guidelines. Thewellman (talk) 03:57, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really understand this point of view. A river being an international boundary does not preclude coverage of subjects that cross that international boundary. JM (talk) 08:12, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Saint John River (Bay of Fundy). Salting seems necessary, given the political nature of the differing names. G. Timothy Walton (talk) 05:08, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge, and salt as a WP:POVFORK rewrite of the Saint John River (Bay of Fundy) article covering the exact same subject but from a certain POV. Even the first sentence of the article makes it an obvious POVFORK, covering the same exact subject as Saint John River (Bay of Fundy) in a First Nations POV rather than the conventional geography: Wolastoq (Maliseet-Passamaquoddy: “The River of the Good Wave”), changed in 1604 by Samuel de Champlain to Fleuve Saint-Jean (English: Saint John River), is a river flowing within the Dawnland region for approximately 418 miles (673 km). NPOV is a pillar, and having 2 articles about the same subject with one from NPOV and one from a First Nations POV violates that pillar. JM (talk) 08:10, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge (or Delete) then salt. Definate POV Fork. Masterhatch (talk) 09:28, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SALTing this unique indigenous name in favor of the ambiguous term Saint John would reject a name used for thousands of years in favor of a recent identification used for a few centuries. Rejection of the indigenous name would be a continuation of European Christian devaluation of the ethnicity of the river valley's indigenous people. This river unified an early civilization as the Nile unified Egypt and the Tigris and Euphrates unified what is now know as Iraq. A merged article entitled Wolastoq would uniquely identify this river while Saint John River (Bay of Fundy) could redirect modern users to the article including a history of the renaming. Thewellman (talk) 18:44, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In English (and this is the English wikipedia) Saint John is the common name. Wolastoq is the name in the Maliseet-Passamaquoddy language. Deleting this article doesn't "reject a name used for thousands of years in favor of a recent identification used for a few centuries" as Wolastoq is not English. If we had a Maliseet-Passamaquoddy language wiki, then it would make sense to name that river Wolastoq there. Having two articles like this about the same subject is a clear POV fork. Masterhatch (talk) 19:08, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS and WP:COMMONNAME for why that's wrong. Saint John River (and its translations and transliterations) is the name used by most of the world now, including all provincial, state, and federal governments involved. It doesn't matter what name was used hundreds of years ago, whether it was used for 10 years or 10,000 years, because it's not used now. JM (talk) 20:55, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The official name in French is Rivière Saint-Jean; the fact we don't use it in the title here is the best parallel to this issue. G. Timothy Walton (talk) 21:02, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You're right (although to my knowledge it's fleuve Saint-Jean), and the reason we don't use it in the title is because it is not the English common name. This is English Wikipedia. JM (talk) 21:05, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The comparison to the French version of the name isn't exactly apt. There are efforts to rename the river in English by adopting the indigenous name as the official English (and perhaps French) name for the river. It's just that those proposals haven't been successful yet (and might never be). There has also been attempts to compromise by adopting "Wolastoq Saint John", but that hasn't happened yet either. At the end of the day, the article should be where readers will look for it per WP:RF. Though, I would suspect the other name should be mentioned in the Saint John River (Bay of Fundy) article perhaps in the history section where it could be mentioned that the river was known as Wolastoq prior to European colonization, in a section or paragraph about efforts to change the official name back to Wolastoq, or, if appropriate, in the lede. The way to recognize the name is not to create a WP:POVFORK though.-- Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 21:24, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, if the former common name pre-colonization and the attempts to change the name are notable, then they can be in the main article. The comparison to the French name comes from the fact that neither name is the English common name, although of course there are no significant attempts to rename the river in English to its French name. JM (talk) 21:43, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Even if the name is officially changed, the wiki article might not change due to common name. Examples are Turkey and Ivory Coast. There are lots of other examples out there where the common name and official name aren't the same. Anyways, we'll cross that bridge when we get to it if the name is ever officially changed. Masterhatch (talk) 22:03, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Of course. Wikipedia goes by common name, not official name. JM (talk) 22:08, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In the absence of persistent disruptive editing, I question both characterization of this river history as a POV fork, and it's relevance to present renaming discussions, since its creation was motivated solely to preserve, in intact format, material deleted from the Saint John River article by a single editor based on interpretation of WP:WikiProject Rivers guidelines. Thewellman (talk) 17:38, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Because even the title and opening sentence are POV. Paraphrasing, but "Wolastoq is a river in the Dawnland" is not at all in conventional geography. Neither of those terms are common names. If it weren't a POVFORK, it would say "Saint John River is a river in New Brunswick and Maine" or something.

Regardless if it's a POVFORK or not (although I believe it is), if material is deleted from the Saint John River article and there is a consensus to keep it out, then people shouldn't go create another article on the same river with that deleted material, because that makes two articles covering the same subject differently. I notice that you've now voted merge, so you must see a similar problem by now. JM (talk) 20:37, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As should be clear from this discussion, I preferred merge from the onset; but drafted this amplifying history article at the suggestion of the editor who deleted the material. The consensus was to put the history in a different article. Disagreement appears to have arisen about the title of that history article. Thewellman (talk) 04:57, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge any relevant text, then salt. "Saint John River" is the official name in both countries. No need to confuse readers with two articles about the same topic. Magnolia677 (talk) 18:52, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into the Human history section of the Saint John River (Bay of Fundy) article, but retain as a redirect. WP:SALTing this unique indigenous name, in the absence of persistent disruptive recreation, would be a disrespectful continuation of European Christian devaluation of the ethnicity of the river valley's indigenous people. Thewellman (talk) 17:38, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I don't agree with a merge nor do I think the article has to be a POV fork; it should be rewritten if possible. It states "it remains a cultural centre of the Wabanaki Confederacy to this day" so if it was rewritten to support that, then it would be its unique article. I wrote a similar article at Bdóte which explains how it is culturally significant to Dakota people and something similar could be done to this article if there's sources to support it. oncamera _{(talk page)} 21:04, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The difference is that your article seems to be on a subject that is not covered elsewhere, whereas this article is about the Saint John River under a different name but with a very conspicuous First Nations POV. It can't be rewritten and saved because no matter how it is rewritten it still covers the exact same river under a different, and non-English, name. JM (talk) 21:24, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If the article covered why it's "a cultural centre of the Wabanaki Confederacy to this day", it would be its own article and not just covering the river. I see on this site, Wolastoq National Historic Site of Canada:
"as the river running the length of their territory, it has nurtured the Wolastoqiyik physically, culturally and spiritually over millennia. Tradition tells that the watershed itself was created by a great man who saved the people and brought water to them by felling a tree on the monster Aglebe’m, and the Gluskup stories record the creation of many of the river’s features;"

"Wolastoq means “the Beautiful River” in the Maliseet language, while Wolastoqiyik means “the People of the Beautiful River”. While this territory includes many sites of settlement, communication, resource utilization, and spirituality, it is specifically the Wolastoq itself, its lakes and tributaries that connects these sites and unites the Wolastoqiyik as a nation. The watershed represents the traditional territory of the Wolastoqiyik and includes many sites of settlement, communication, resource utilization and spirituality. The many Indigenous place names throughout the watershed link past and present, complementing elders’ stories of traditional uses and evidence from archaeology."

"places along its length speak to the importance of “the Beautiful River” to the Wolastoqiyik over time and space, including their 17th-century habitation at Menahkwesh near the mouth of the river; their Grand Council Chamber and annual gathering spot on Kani Uten, an island at the head of tide; and on land located at the divide between the middle and upper parts of the river valley that became part of a Wolastoqkew reserve in 1801, at the upper part of the river, on River Road, Tobique First Nation."
With more research on this topic, it can accurately cover Wolastoqiyik continued history to this location that belongs at this article name and not at Saint John River (Bay of Fundy). oncamera _{(talk page)} 21:34, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There was a consensus here that language imitating or reflecting the practice of a First Nations "land acknowledgement" would be non-neutral and inappropriate on Canadian city articles. I believe it could be extended to an article about a river. Magnolia677 (talk) 22:35, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? This isn't a land acknowledgement and has no relevancy to writing an article that explains the history and cultural significance that a tribe has to a sacred location; Native peoples' history is embedded in the land and the two are intrinsically connected. Writing about the history, oral traditions that go back thousands of years is not the same as a white government putting a land acknowledgment on their website. I can rewrite this article using sources that go over the bullet points listed above in the same format as Bdóte if it's not salted. oncamera _{(talk page)} 22:42, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The history or cultural significance of the river should be contained in the article about the river. If that article gets so long that it can't be contained there, a neutral sub-article (ie fork) titled something like History of the Saint John River could be created. But until that happens, historical, anthropological and cultural information should be in the main article. If editors there can't be convinced that it belongs there, then a WP:POVFORK that looks at the river only from an indigenous perspective is not the answer.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 23:15, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wolastoq should be written beyond the river itself and include the Wolastoqiyik relationship to the river, valleys and tributaries since their geographical relationship isn't bound to simply the river itself per Wolastoq National Historic Site of Canada, which is a Canadian government website. This article could even be redirected to Wolastoq National Historic Site of Canada, which shouldn't be a redirect to the river. The Canadian government sees it as a "Designation of National Historic Significance", not as the river. oncamera _{(talk page)} 23:33, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The national historic site covers most of NB (thousands of square kms). It seems like a way of giving some limited recognition to the historic territory of the Maliseet and perhaps to drumb up tourism in the area. Why can't information about the Maliseet's historic territory and their relationship with it be dealt with in the article about them? Insofar as it relates to the river itself, in that article? This seems like a pretty obvious POV fork.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 23:56, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wolastoq National Historic Site of Canada is different from Saint John River (Bay of Fundy) just like Pipestone National Monument is different from Pipestone, Minnesota. As its recognized by the Canadian government as a significant heritage site, it's not a "POV fork" to write about Wolastoqiyik significance of Wolastoq as its own article. oncamera _{(talk page)} 00:00, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If there is significant coverage and it's not OR, having an article about the national historic site is fine. What's not fine is having an article about a river when there is already a pre-existing article about that same river except this new article frames it from a First Nations POV. The article is about the river, not the historic site or the cultural area or the ethnic group. JM (talk) 01:33, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There are numerous sources for Wolastoq as a historic site that go into great scholarly detail:

W∂last∂kwey (Maliseet) Homeland: Waterscapes and Continuity within the Lower St. John River Valley, 1784-1900
Wolastoqiyak Ajemseg, The People of the Beautiful River at Jemseg: Important Stories and Spoken Histories
Wolastoqiyak Ajemseg: Archaeological Results
Maliseet Cultivation and Climatic Resilience on the Wəlastəkw/St. John River During the Little Ice Age

oncamera _{(talk page)} 02:19, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is a well-developed article, which has potential for further development as outlined above. There are plenty cultural geography articles; no reason to eliminate this one. Yuchitown (talk) 00:33, 19 January 2024 (UTC)Yuchitown[reply]

This discussion isn't about what the article "could be", it's about what it is "right now", and if you read the article, it mostly documents the history and geography of the river, which duplicates content at Saint John River (Bay of Fundy). User:Yuchitown, why should we have two "well-developed" articles on exactly the same topic? If your point is, in fact, that this river has unique mythical/religious significance to First Nations people, which some editors like User:Oncamera or User:Masterhatch are arguing, then this could be added to Saint John River (Bay of Fundy). A discussion about the naming dispute could also be added to Saint John River (Bay of Fundy). No one has said these topics are not important, or should not be included somewhere on Wikipedia. It's just that...decisions on Wikipedia are not made based on feelings or politics or what "could be", they are based on what is in the best interest of Wikipedia's readers, and having two articles about exactly the same topic--one using a common, officially-recognized name, and one without--does not advance that cause. Magnolia677 (talk) 11:40, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I can start adding the new information about the cultural significance of the heritage site as I posted a number of sources to do so. The heritage site is recognized by the Canadian government. Your renaming rant seems to be about something neither I nor Yuchitown are talking about. Please refrain from making strawman arguments against us. oncamera _{(talk page)} 11:55, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I’m voting “Keep” based on exactly what it now. It’s well cited and notable. Yuchitown (talk) 13:58, 19 January 2024 (UTC)Yuchitown[reply]

That's ignoring the fact that it has the exact same subject as another article but under a POV name. Yes, it's well-cited and notable, but it's a duplicate article except with a POV. JM (talk) 19:05, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge based on common, current name. Intothat darkness 15:12, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and rename to Wolastoq National Historic Site or something, per oncamera and Yuchitown. While the article does contain reduplicated content, it should be expanded and rewritten to be more about the river as a heritage site rather than a fork of the main article.

PersusjCP (talk) 18:50, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that the Wolastoq National Historic Site is not a park or something but essentially the entire Canadian portion of the Saint John River Valley. The government site describes a broad area including public, private and indiginous lands that make up [t]he entire drainage system has nurtured the Wolastoqiyik (ie the Maliseet). In my view this should be dealt with in the Maliseet article or the Saint John River (Bay of Fundy) article. But if not, something like Wolastoq National Historic Site or Saint John River Valley (region) might be okay. Leaving the article at its current title, is going to welcome an article that looks at the region/historic site only from an indigenous perspective. That is WP:NOT what Wikipedia is about. If this article's content remains, it must do so somewhere where a WP:NPOV will be followed, and where the topic is covered from a broad perspective.-- Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 20:49, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just a thought, and I agree with 'Keep, but would it be easier to draftify and allow editors to make the changes suggested?

I think we shouldn't ignore the significance of this historic cultural place to First Nations people. I could see if it was completely unsourced but that obviously isn't the case. I do think it should avoid being solely about the river or that risks being a fork of the main article. But I think what is proposed by oncamera and Yuchitown would make sure the article is original enough and display the historical significance of the river and site to First Nations people that would benefit the encyclopedia. The article subject is notable and while I don't believe the intention of those in opposition of keeping the article is to downplay its historical significance that often is the result to the detriment of Wikipedia, our readers, and our Indigenous editors who are here to improve Wikipedia in good faith while also increasing the visibility of topics that have an affect on their lives personally and their communities. There is no reason to be insensitive even if you oppose keeping the article. --ARose Wolf 19:44, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge into the Saint John River - a source review shows that none of the accessible sources actually discuss the primary topic here, the Wolastoq, making this mostly WP:SYNTH, and maintaining it means we would have two different articles on the same title. The COMMONNAME article has plenty of space for expansion as well. There's plenty of encyclopedic stuff here, but our policy on forks, along with the fact the sourcing doesn't exist to support this, means this should not be a stand-alone article at its current title. SportingFlyer T·C 23:59, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Saint John River (Bay of Fundy). Volcanoguy 18:57, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Saint John River (Bay of Fundy) then salt per @G. Timothy Walton. B3251 (talk) 17:30, 24 January 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. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 02:25, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Goettems (surname)[edit]

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

Article looks fine on the surface, falls apart on further examination. First of all, the name fails WP:NNAME. More importantly, almost nothing comes up when I google anything with "Goettems" or "Goettems family" in it. The sources seem to be lists and mentions, nothing substantial or establishing notability. Several assertions throughout the article make me think that it could have been created by a family member (no solid evidence for this, of course). Just seems like a totally unremarkable family tree. I could probably write something similar about my own family and make it as verbose. AllTheUsernamesAreInUse (talk) 00:29, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Ethnic groups, History, Germany, and Brazil. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:21, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Improve as necessary, don’t delete. The purpose of an encyclopedia should be to provide information, not to withhold information. I think the major problem with all of these similar deletion nominations is with the policy itself. Bookworm857158367 (talk) 07:27, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to change the policy, you have to do so in the right venues. Article creation should not precede such a change. Every one of your arguments so far is invalid. Geschichte (talk) 14:16, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'd point to this policy WP:IAR since I think the other rules that are being cited here are bureaucratic, legalistic, and are getting in the way of maintaining a quality encyclopedia. If the information is accurate and backed up with a reference, an article really should not be deleted. It should definitely be improved upon as additional sources are found. Bookworm857158367 (talk) 13:06, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reply You think notability guidelines are bureaucratic? I cannot find any sources online about this family. It is a random family tree possibly created by a member that does not belong on Wikipedia. Accurate, referenced, and notable, which you have omitted, are the basic critera. I don't know why you think notability doesn't matter. AllTheUsernamesAreInUse (talk) 23:56, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, the article fails WP:NOTGENEALOGY. Geschichte (talk) 14:16, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and NNAME. If there's nobody significant by that name, then the article has no basis for existing. Clarityfiend (talk) 20:26, 17 January 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 List of World War II battles. Star Mississippi 01:49, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of military engagements of World War II[edit]

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

Article is same as List of World War II battles, there is no reason to have 2 articles based around the same thing. Should be merged with List of World War II battles — Preceding unsigned comment added by Antny08 (talk • contribs) 12:30, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge, it's certainly remarkable we've had WP:CFORKs on this topic for so many years. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:11, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom or possibly rename List of World War II battles by year (because List of World War II battles is rather long) and also rename the other list as List of World War II battles by theater. Clarityfiend (talk) 20:29, 17 January 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.

[Tate-1] "Yutaka Sone, Highway Junction 110-105, 2002". Tate Modern. Retrieved 17 January 2024.

[Moma-2] "Yutaka Sone". Museum of Modern Art. Retrieved 17 January 2024.

[MoCA-3] "Yutaka Sone". Museum of Contemporary Art. Retrieved 17 January 2024.

[1]

[2]

[3]