Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 March 13

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< March 12 March 14 >

Purge server cache

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

The result was keep‎. (non-admin closure) The Herald (Benison) (talk) 02:13, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

TM 31-210 Improvised Munitions Handbook[edit]

TM 31-210 Improvised Munitions Handbook (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Military manual. Nothing in the article suggests it is notable. Effectively unreferenced outside a popculture trivia note. As such, this fails not just WP:GNG but also WP:OR. My BEFORE shows next to nothing, at least under the current name. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 13:08, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Which of these meet WP:SIGCOV? Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 01:36, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Surely the article reported in We Are The Mighty written by Logan Nye, an Army journalist and paratrooper in the 82nd, meet WP:SIGCOV criteria. It addresses the topic directly and in detail, and conclude with: "The whole handbook is interesting from an engineering, MacGyver, or historical perspective". 82.54.189.142 (talk) 13:29, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'd let it pass. But SIGCOV (GNG) requires multiple such sources. Now, that means we need at least one more - can you point out to the second one? Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 00:38, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The book by Ann Larabee (The Wrong Hands: Popular Weapons Manuals and Their Historic Challenges to a Democratic Society), as mentioned in my comment of 12 March 2024, 13:49. 82.57.203.36 (talk) 12:02, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep, there exist references per 82.54.189.142.
🇺🇲JayCubby✡ plz edit my user pg! Talk 22:33, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Followup comment. Before the discussion reaches its 7th day, and is evaluated by a volunteer "closing admin", I would like to summarize below the reasons why I believe this page should not be deleted.
The page concerns an object (TM 31-210 manual) that:
– was owned by guerrilla or terrorist groups who used it to wage wars, for example in Afghanistan, which influenced the history of recent decades (see Dilip Hiro's book)
– is mentioned in many media (BBC, etc.), and also by an online newspaper written by and for veterans (We Are The Mighty) who find it interesting: Logan Nye's article reaches WP:SIGCOV
– appeared in a world famous film (Toy Story)
– is mentioned in articles and books of scientific and historical literature that use it as a basis, source or reference to develop their analyses: see for example the book by Ann Larabee, which reaches WP:SIGCOV, which also covers other similar manuals that have their own dedicated page (see: La Salute è in voi).
It should be noted that the page has thousands of views every month and it is included from time to time in WikiProject_Books/Popular_pages. A clear sign that it deals with an interesting subject for the Wikipedia community, maybe deleting it could be a disservice.
Considering all of this, I believe the TM 31-210 manual has sufficient notability to be included in its own Wikipedia page. 82.54.189.142 (talk) 13:49, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:31, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The book has had significant impact, as shown above. PARAKANYAA (talk) 23:50, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Per 82.54.189.142, useful and popular handbook. 🍪 CookieMonster 01:05, 21 March 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. Closing as keep but the consensus also says the article needs cleanup and editing. (non-admin closure) The Herald (Benison) (talk) 02:15, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of solar eclipses visible from the United States[edit]

List of solar eclipses visible from the United States (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This list is incomplete to the point of being misleading. Taking the Charlotte, NC section as an example: it lists only 14 of the 440 solar eclipses visible between the dates selected 1001-2251 (https://eclipse.gsfc.nasa.gov/JSEX/JSEX-USA.html). This list can never be made complete, nor should it. To accurately list solar eclipses from the 90 cities on the list would require ~50k bullets. That's excessive.

Suggest deleting this, and starting over with a more focused view, and shorter time period (e.g. 1900-2100). A section on the most notable eclipses such as those with the longest duration, coast-to-coast paths, etc. Rather than have 90 sections for individual cities, have sections for each state and list only eclipses where path passes through that state. MadeYourReadThis (talk) 17:02, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Astronomy, Lists, and United States of America. Skynxnex (talk) 17:37, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep – Per Wikipedia:Deletion is not cleanup. If necessary, editors can use WP:TNT to rewrite the article. Up the Walls (talk) 23:21, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Read WP:SKCRIT. Quoting that page, said criteria is as follows:
    1. Absence of delete rationale. Normally the nominator will provide grounds for deletion in the delete rationale, but if (a) the nominator withdraws the nomination, perhaps because of improvements to the article that happen during the AfD, or (b) the nominator failed to give intelligible grounds for content deletion (i.e. arguments that would support deletion, userfying or redirection, perhaps only proposing an alternative action such as moving or merging) and no new delete rationale appears in the deletion discussion. Exceptions:
    a) If the nominator indicates that the nomination is procedural in nature, then the nomination is ineligible for speedy keep. This includes a "relist" result from deletion review, fixing errors in the nomination process, or if a user stated a page should be deleted on a talk page without actually nominating it.
    b) If the nomination would otherwise qualify for close to speedy redirect then suggestions to redirect the page are treated the same as moving or merging.
    c) Where the nominator withdraws their nomination, check whether other editors still recommend a delete or redirect outcome before speedily closing. If a good faith editor in good standing recommends delete or redirect, the AfD should not be speedily closed using this ground.
    2. The nomination was unquestionably made for the purposes of vandalism or disruption and, since questionable motivations on the part of the nominator do not have a direct bearing on the validity of the nomination, no uninvolved editor has recommended deletion or redirection as an outcome of the discussion. For example:
    a) obviously frivolous or vexatious nominations (such as recently featured content)
    b) nominations which are made solely to provide a forum for disruption, e.g. when a contestant in an edit war nominates an opponent's userpage solely for harassment
    c) making nominations of the same page with the same arguments immediately after they were strongly rejected in a recently closed deletion discussion
    d) nominations that are clearly an attempt to end an editing dispute through deletion, where dispute resolution is a more appropriate course
    3. The nomination is completely erroneous. No accurate deletion rationale has been provided.
    4. The nominator was blocked or banned at the time of making the nomination, so they were not supposed to edit. In that case, the nominated page is speedily kept while the nomination can be removed from the log, tagged with (db banned template) and speedily deleted as a banned contribution. However, if subsequent editors added substantive comments in good faith before the nominator's blocked or banned status was discovered, the nomination may not be speedily closed (though the nominator's opinion will be discounted in the closure decision).
    5. The page is a policy or guideline. The deletion processes are not a forum for revoking policy.
    6. The page/image is currently linked from the Main Page. In such cases, please wait until the link is no longer on the Main Page before nominating. If the problem is urgent, consensus should be gained at WP:ERRORS to remove the link before nominating for deletion.
    ———
    Now I am no expert. But I don’t see anything here that qualifies for speedy keep. I mean there is certainly a delete rationale. Evidently a rationale that a lot of people agree with. There’s no reason to believe that the nomination was made intentionally to vandalize Wikipedia. The nomination is definitely not erroneous. I don’t see anything that suggests the nominator (MadeYourReadThis) was blocked or banned at the time of nominating the article. And this article is clearly not a Wikipedia policy and it clearly is not linked to the main page. Nothing in here says that the speedy keep criteria has been met. 2601:5C5:4201:68B0:F548:3898:596F:F4E7 (talk) 01:41, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as egregious eclipse cruft. And if you like, per WP:NOTDB and as a WP:CROSSCAT. Does it matter if an eclipse 1000 years ago was visible within a current geopolitical boundary? Or one 1000 years in the future? Why are these broken down by city? Stuff like this can be automatically generated from a database (and indeed appears to have been for this article), and doing so city-by-city is completely pointless and serves no purpose. What's here is unsalvageable, so appeals to clean up are inadequate as well. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 04:19, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The topic of when an eclipse path might pass through your city is interesting enough, even so far in the past or future, but the scope here is just too broad to be covered to any level of usefulness (to your point). This is an unfixable article. MadeYourReadThis (talk) 17:42, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This article is NOT computer generated (despite the fact that it does look like it if you didn’t know any better). I know that for a fact because I spent the better part of an hour rewriting that article. It is NOT unfixable unlike what some others on here claim. It is NOT unsourced, nor is it original research. NASA and others produce eclipse maps. Some of them on commons, some elsewhere. See my full rationale of my keep vote below. 2601:5C5:4201:68B0:9839:C46C:DCAD:F9B1 (talk) 06:21, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NLIST. Eclipses visible by city is a weird idea, plus the cities (and nation) in question didn't even exist at the time of many of them. Clarityfiend (talk) 11:08, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as city choices seem to be arbitrary, especially with some cities listed being close to each other (relatively speaking at least), and some states left out entirely. The timeframe also seems to be arbitrary, with no real reason for it. Sadustu Tau (talk) 10:28, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as stated by the nominator, any list of eclipses without established bounds cannot possibly be complete. This largely seems to be cruft. ArkHyena (talk) 03:53, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep bc Wikipedia is not a directory. This doesn't promise to be an index of every eclipse. It's an incomplete list. The solution is editorial cleanup, not deletion. jengod (talk) 17:53, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    While this article is not perfect, it is sufficient for a large amount of the public and more than accurate enough to satisfy them. There is no reason to delete it until someone comes up with an easily readable more accurate version. Today, this gives a lot of readers an approachable way to understand eclipses. It is good enough to keep until it can be replaced by something better. 2601:19C:C100:64A:F0D5:48D5:309C:4F98 (talk) 01:56, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    But I also have a suggestion on that easily readable version. Format it like the British list. Have lists for each state. But do each state list like the British list. 2601:5C5:4201:68B0:340C:2B84:1E36:D409 (talk) 06:35, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Being imperfect isn't sufficient rationale to keep an article. There has to be some hope of making the article useful. The current information in the article is not only a scatter shot, the subject the article lacks sufficient focus to ever produce a useful article. 2605:A601:A687:B900:9932:AA06:BB3E:90F9 (talk) 22:18, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. If you are suggesting an article split, please outline what articles should be created and whether you are willing to do or at least assist this process.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:29, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep As has been said, there's no reason to delete this article as opposed to revising it, starting over is completely unnecessary and would be a waste of time.
AveryTheComrade (talk) 20:43, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And if the article was split. I probably would assist in the process wherever and whenever I’m able to. 2601:5C5:4201:68B0:9839:C46C:DCAD:F9B1 (talk) 06:30, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This was useful for me do not delete. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.244.170.170 (talk) 11:14, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I think it should be fixed and formatted similarly to the British list. The article is NOT unfixable (unlike what some people on here claim). The British list can attest to that. It is NOT original research (there are maps from NASA and others). It is NOT unsourced, I just didn’t want to have to put all those citations in there. NASA has a dedicated eclipse website. If necessary, someone can use the under construction/in use templates too. 2601:5C5:4201:68B0:9839:C46C:DCAD:F9B1 (talk) 06:02, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It is useful to us. It doesn't violate any deletion rules. It's far from perfect. Needs tagged for cleanup and it needs editing. Keep it. Zootsuit7 (talk) 02:17, 19 March 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 Arab citizens of Israel. While there's no consensus that the article is a POVFORK, all seem to agree that there's a fair amount of content overlap between the two articles, even if the two population groups are not identical. This is a key criterion under WP:MERGE. Once we discard the views that are based on the "not the exact same population group" argument, we are left with a policy-based consensus to merge. Owen× ☎ 13:28, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Palestinian citizens of Israel (PCI)[edit]

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

Request to redirect this article to Arab citizens of Israel#Terminology and identity

Why?: Palestinian citizens of Israel (PCIs) are the exact same population group as Arab citizens of Israel (ACIs). In fact, "Palestinian citizens of Israel " is one of at least 14 terms that are used to describe ACIs: as well as

see Arab_citizens_of_Israel#List_of_demonyms.

The list of demonyms/ethnonyms and the implication of each is extensively discussed in the main article for this population group, which is Arab_citizens_of_Israel

Current article insists on an unsupported (and IMO false) thesis: There are no RS stating what the current article claims, i.e. that PCI is a different ethnoreligious group from ACI, because (supposedly) PCIs are those people who "self-identify" as Palestinian (implying that ACIs do not identify as Palestinian). The two sources given mention no such thing i.e. they WP:FAIL verification and I have been able to find no other resource supporting the self-identification theory. Furthermore I've been in extensive discussions with User:Selfstudier who defends that thesis and they have not provided any RS supporting the "self-identity" theory either.

Organizations stating the same group (ACI/PCI) uses the different terms:

  • Inter-Agency Task Force on Israeli Arab issues which says "Arab citizens’ identities are more nuanced than either “Israeli” or “Palestinian.” Members of this population group describe themselves (and are described by others) with many terms. Some common terms include: Arab Israelis, Israeli Arabs, Palestinian citizens of Israel, Arab citizens of Israel, 48ers, Palestinian Israelis"[5]
  • iCenter, which says "What are some names for Arab citizens of Israel? Palestinian citizens of Israel, Israeli Arabs, Israeli Palestinians, Arab Israelis, and Palestinian Israelis. Each of these names, while referring to the same group of people, connotes something different."[6]
  • International Crisis Group which says "The Israeli National Security Council (NSC) has used the term "Arab citizens of Israel". Virtually all political parties, movements and non-governmental organisations from within the Arab community use the word "Palestinian" somewhere in their description – at times failing to make any reference to Israel. For consistency of reference and without prejudice to the position of either side, ICG will use both Arab Israeli and terms the community commonly uses to describe itself, such as Palestinian citizens of Israel or Palestinian Arab citizens of Israel."[2]

Authors describing the use of ACI, PCI and other terms for the same ACI/PCI group:

  • Muhammad Amara (author): "Many identity constructs are used to refer to Palestinians in Israel; the Israeli establishment prefer Israeli Arabs or Arabs in Israel. Others refer to them as Israeli Palestinians, Palestinian Arabs in Israel, the Arabs inside the Green Line. Nowadays the widespread terms among Palestinians are Palestinians in Israel or the Palestinians of 1948."[3]
  • Columbia Journalism Review: "Palestinian citizens of Israel—also called Israeli-Arabs, Palestinians in Israel, ’48 Arabs, or Palestinian Arabs—"[1]

Press stating the same group (ACI/PCI) uses the different terms

  • Foreign Policy (2021): "Only 16 percent of this population wants to be called “Israeli Arab,” according to a 2017 survey by the University of Haifa professor Sammy Smooha provided to Foreign Policy. 'The largest now and the most growing identity is a hybrid identity, which is Palestinian in Israel or a similar combination'"[7]
  • Mosaic: The question of how both Jews and Arabs in Israel should refer to the country’s Palestinian population has been a vexed one... these “minorities” have often spoken of themselves, and been spoken of in the Arab world, as “the Arabs of ’48” or “the Palestinians of ’48,”...It’s no accident that [Israeli] Jews have insisted on the usage “Arabs of Israel.” ...to erase the Palestinian component from the identity [of the country’s Arab population] . . . to create an artificial distinction between those Palestinians who remained within the borders of the new state [of Israel] and those elsewhere, and to suppress the formation [among Israel’s Arabs] of any kind of national identity. And for this reason, too, more and more Israeli Arabs have in recent years come to prefer the term “Israeli Palestinian” (filastini isra’ili, in Arabic) to “Israeli Arab.” This is a direct result of the Palestinian nationalism... “I am not just an Arab,” the term “Israeli Palestinian” says. “I am one who shares an identity with the Palestinians of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, and who belongs to the same people that they do."[8]
  • New York Times (2012): "After decades of calling themselves Israeli Arabs…most now prefer Palestinian citizens of Israel"[9]

Press using the term "Palestinian citizens of/in Israel" for the same group (ACI/PCI)

_______________________________

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Palestine-related deletion discussions. Keizers (talk) 21:55, 6 March 2024 (UTC) Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 22:00, 6 March 2024 (UTC) Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 22:00, 6 March 2024 (UTC) ________________________________[reply]

  • There was no "spinout", i.e. there was no material in this article that uniquely supported a so-called PCI separate from ACI. All material to support this population group (PCI) supported ACI, as they are the same population group, so it made sense to copy the small amount of unique information over to the Arab citizens of Israel article.Keizers (talk) 13:21, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That's precisely how the article was created, as a spinout from Arab Citizens of Israel, as described in my Initial comment below. Selfstudier (talk) 13:24, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Understood, but what I am saying is that literally all of the unique content in this article supposedly about "Palestinian citizens" as opposed to "Arab citizens",, applied to all Arab citizens of Israel, which is obviously going to be the case since ACI=PCI.Keizers (talk) 21:17, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Initial comment Since it seems possible that nom is unaware of the history behind the creation of this article and for the benefit of other editors, please see the RM of 27 October 2021 proposing the move Arab citizens of Israel → Palestinian citizens of Israel. The result of this discussion was "Not Moved" with the closer commenting The main argument against was accuracy/precision, particularly as not all Arab citizens of Israel are of Palestinian origin. It is notable that this latter argument caused one of the support voters to change their !vote and as such was particularly persuasive.
Immediately following the RM closure, the discussion Talk:Arab citizens of Israel/Archive 8#What should we call the new page for Israelis that identify as Palestinian? concluded that the best way to proceed would be to create a new article, the closer of the RM opining "I think the best way to proceed may be just to write the damn article and then see which title fits best when you've got the first draft down. Or even just boldly create and leave perfecting the title to others." which led to the creation of the article under discussion here. Selfstudier (talk) 04:25, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • More history Following the creation of the article, there was a 6 week (!) RM discussion proposing Palestinian citizens of Israel → Palestinian identity in Israel which resulted in no consensus to move, with the closer commenting It appears to be undisputed that there are some number of individuals who are citizens of Israel, and who identify as Palestinians". The discussion, such as it was, covered the issue of the article being a POV fork as well but notably no-one at the time proposed AfD and the relevant facts have not changed since in that regard.Selfstudier (talk) 05:21, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The numbers:
2020 figures from Institute for National Security Studies (Israel) says:
"The Muslim residents of Israel are the largest group in the Arab population, which constitutes part of the Palestinian people. As of the end of 2020, this group numbered 1.673 million people—85.6 percent of all Arab citizens of Israeli' and 18 percent of Israel's total population. This figure includes the Muslim Arabs living in East Jerusalem, who are not Israeli citizens. It can therefore be concluded that there are 1.3 million Muslim citizens of Israel (author’s calculation based on the Central Bureau of Statistics, 2020c)." (my bolding)
while Amnesty states:
"As mentioned above, the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs states that "Arab citizens of Israel" is an inclusive term that describes a number of different and primarily Arabic-speaking groups, including Muslim Arabs (this classification includes Bedouins), Christian Arabs, Druze and Circassians. According to the ICBS, at the end of 2019, the Druze population stood at approximately 145,000, while according to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the Circassian population totalled 4,000 people. Considering the number of those defined as Muslim Arabs and Christian Arabs together, the population of Palestinian citizens of Israel amounted to around 1.8 million, that is some 20% of the total population in Israel and occupied East Jerusalem".
Taking the 1.67mm from first source section and adding the 0.14mm Christians gives 1.81mm reconciles the two sources. Selfstudier (talk) 05:56, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
⇒That is all fine, it says that ACI are Muslim Arab, Christian Arab, Druze and Circassians – it doesn't say that any of those groups are not PCI. Keizers (talk) 13:21, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Notability Here are two scholarly books specifically about the Palestinian citizens of Israel:
a) Palestinian citizens of Israel : Power, Resistance and the Struggle for Space Sharri Plonski IB Tauris 2018
"Other choices were made regarding terms and language that should also be mentioned from the outset. Key among them is the terminology surrounding the main interlocutors of this research: the term ‘Palestinian Citizens of Israel’ is immediately contentious. It sits within a spectrum of labels for the community at the centre of this inquiry. On one hand, it potentially challenges the mainstream Israeli-Zionist conceptualisation of this group as ‘Israeli Arabs’; on the other, it misses the political complexity of the term ‘48 Palestinians’ (a term often used by Palestinian activists inside and outside Israel), which more clearly acknowledges the relevance of the 1948 Nakba (Catastrophe) to the identity and material experiences of this group of Palestinians. The use of the term ‘Palestinian citizens’ or ‘Palestinian citizens of Israel’ in this work is due in part to a desire for clarity."
b) Palestinian Citizens in Israel : A History Through Fiction, 1948–2010 Manar H. Makhoul Edinburgh University Press 2020
"There are many names for the ‘Palestinian citizens in Israel’, usually referred to as ‘Israeli Arabs’ or ‘Israel’s Arab minority’. However, most of these identifications are politically and ideologically charged (Makhoul 2018a). My use of ‘Palestinian citizens in Israel’ in this book aims to avoid, as much as possible, ideological or political references by being descriptive, that is, to refer to that portion of the Palestinian nation which remained in Israel after the 1948 war, and later obtained citizenship. Nevertheless, the term ‘Palestinian citizens in Israel’ itself can be misleading, because it suggests equality through citizenship. This confusion is a result of Israel’s distinction between citizenship and nationality, creating a hierarchy between the two. There is no Israeli nationality, but a Jewish nationality. This hierarchy has been legally established initially through the Law of Return (1950) and later corroborated through additional legislation and court rulings, aiming to ground Israel as a state for the Jews, according to which ‘[e]very Jew has the right to come to this country as an oleh [immigrant]’. This categorisation provides Jewish nationals civil and political rights that are higher than those holding Israeli citizenship"
Also, by the same author, Palestinian Citizens of Israel - Evolution of a Name (2018)
"In this essay, I will show how the terms used to refer to Palestinian citizens of Israel have evolved in the past six or so decades, and how this evolution mirrors the evolution of their identity."
It is not disputed that there exist Palestinians who self identify as Palestinian but this aspect is something of a red herring in regards to a deletion discussion, where the issue is whether the subject is itself notable, There is ample and sustained sourcing for the subject 394,000 results in Google scholar. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Selfstudier (talk • contribs) 07:07, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
⇒ Palestinian citizens of Israel is the term preferred by the Arab citizens of Israel to identify themselves. You are simply giving examples where sources refer to ACI/PCI as Palestinian citizens of Israel. Again, those sources do not distinguish PCI as a separate people from ACI. Keizers (talk) 13:21, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and it’s not even close, sustained significant coverage of this topic is found in reliable sources. And no, this is not the same group as Arab citizens of Israel. There are Arab citizens of Israel that are not Palestinian and we have articles on many of those sub groups. There are Druze in Israel, there are Lebanese in Israel there are Negev Bedouin, each of those, like this, is a sub topic of Arab citizens of Israel. The Palestinian population has its own challenges separate from the non Palestinian Arabs in Israel. And they are covered as their own topic in reliable sources. nableezy - 10:14, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
⇒ 1) Of course there is a lot of coverage of PCI, that is increasingly the more common term for ACI, but nothing indicates that PCI are a separate people. PCI = ACI.
⇒ 2) The example of Druze and Negev Bedouin don't support your argument, as I have never seen any RS say Druze or Bedouin are not Palestinian/PCI. Can you provide one? Lebanese in Israel are a couple of thousand and yes they would not have their origins in the people of Mandatory Palestine, so they would not count, but we are talking 0.1% of the ACI there, and even then we are making assumptions, no RS. Keizers (talk) 13:21, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Maybe it is worth elaborating on your 'The current title makes it a WP:POVFORK' statement a bit. I'm not sure it's self-explanatory. Sean.hoyland (talk) 12:16, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as a clearly distinct subject, per Selfstudier, Nableezy and in fact the hatnote at the top of the page, which notes "Not to be confused with Arab citizens of Israel". This page has previously been affirmed by multiple rounds of consensus, and for good reason: the subjects are separate. Not all individuals identified by Israel as Arab citizens self-identify as "Palestinian" – a subject that is both prima facie a separate topic and clearly worthy of a standalone page based on the sources already presented above. Iskandar323 (talk) 18:43, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Iskandar323:, can you find a single RS that says that not all Arab citizens of Israel are not Palestinian citizens of Israel? With the obvious exception of Lebanese, and the very weak argument for Druze & Circassians based on 1 RS, Amnesty, which isn't even explicit about the issue. Meanwhile, at the top of this discussion I provided 8 RS that define ACI=PCI (just different terms for same people) and 4 RS that use the terms interchangeably. I would like to also start a RfC that the ACI article be renamedPCI, but that is another fight. None of the editors named can come up with a single source. I just don't understand where this idea comes from. I get that people prefer the term PCI, as do I, but that is not a reason to Fork the article and have two articles about the same population groups according to every RS. Keizers (talk) 21:11, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Arab citizens of Israel - as a WP:POVFORK of that article, and per compelling arguments by BilledMammal. Marokwitz (talk) 21:10, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • A source to support that ACI and PCI are two different peoples - somebody? anybody? I just don't understand where this idea comes from that PCIs are a separate group from ACIs, as opposed to 8 RS cited at the top that say ACI=PCI (one people, 15 choices of demonym/ethnonym). I get that Palestinians and their allies (like me) prefer the term PCI, but that is not a reason to Fork the article and have two articles about the same population groups according to every RS. Can anyone provide even one source other than the weak Amnesty one, and the minor special case of the Lebanese? Keizers (talk) 21:11, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per nableezy. It has been shown both that the subject is notable and that it is not identical to an existing article's subject (hence cannot be a povfork). popodameron ⁠talk 00:02, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into Arab citizens of Israel as a WP:POVFORK of the target. The name Arab citizens of Israel was decided by community decision. I can understand that someone would prefer Arab Israelis or Palestinian Citizens of Israel over the current name. I disagree that such a preference should lead to article multiplication. gidonb (talk) 06:15, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the conditions that require this page are clear from talk:Arab citizens of Israel/Archive 8#Requested move 27 October 2021, which was about renaming ACI to PCI. As the closer of that RM said: The main argument in favour of moving was WP:COMMONNAME. The main argument against was accuracy/precision, particularly as not all Arab citizens of Israel are of Palestinian origin. Note that some of the merge voters here made the opposite argument at that RM – if what they argued there is true, that "not all Arab citizens of Israel are of Palestinian origin", then clearly it is consistent to have a separate article focused on that subgroup. Onceinawhile (talk) 07:18, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment - This seems like quite a strong argument. Perhaps someone could try to refute it to help clarify things. Sean.hoyland (talk) 05:14, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Nableezy. Arab citizens of Israel and Palestinian citizens of Israel are certainly not "the exact same population group". Skitash (talk) 18:41, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Arab citizens of Israel. While, as Nableezy said, the two groups are different, the Palestinian Israelis make up the majority of Arab Israelis and the two articles have a lot of overlap. 三葉草 San Ye Cao 03:48, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I think opinion is divided enough to be worth at least one relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:26, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge with Arab citizens of Israel – As mentioned above, the topics cover exactly the same ethnic groups, with the majority of the Arab population in Israel being of Palestinian origin. A single article can record all content. Svartner (talk) 01:59, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Arab citizens of Israel per the nomination. Bookworm857158367 (talk) 02:59, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I do understand the merge impulse, and it is not unreasonable. However, I am persuaded that there is sufficient distinctiveness between the subjects as to warrant a separate article, generally per Nableezy. And pragmatically, the size of the parent article is such that the reliably sourced, non-trivial information required to provide proper context and treatment of the subject would warrant spinoff in the relatively near term regardless. While that subject, I disagree that this is a POVFORK, this title used by a number of reliable sources and other than a perfunctory mention above, I have not seen the neutrality of this article challenged. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 11:49, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Not a fork, a notable subset of Arab citizens of Israel, no reason to delete given other than asserting that identifiable subsets are all Arabs, which is false. Merging has made to look more like an option by editing so as to include material from the article into the parent and by creating an unnecessary additional article and transferring information from the article to it. These measures will be undone in due course.Selfstudier (talk) 12:06, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ a b c d e Berger, Miriam. "Palestinian citizens of Israel struggle to tell their stories". Columbia Journalism Review. Retrieved 4 March 2024. Palestinian citizens of Israel—also called Israeli-Arabs, Palestinians in Israel, '48 Arabs, or Palestinian Arabs—
  2. ^ a b c {{cite journal{{subst:!}}title=Identity Crisis: Israel and its Arab Citizens | journal=Middle East Report | issue= 25 | date=4 March 2004 | url=http://www.crisisgroup.org/en/regions/middle-east-north-africa/israel-palestine/025-identity-crisis-israel-and-its-arab-citizens.aspx | archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110313112806/http://www.crisisgroup.org/en/regions/middle-east-north-africa/israel-palestine/025-identity-crisis-israel-and-its-arab-citizens.aspx | archive-date=13 March 2011 | access-date=14 April 2011 }}
  3. ^ a b c Muhammad Amara (1999). Politics and sociolinguistic reflexes: Palestinian border villages (Illustrated ed.). John Benjamins Publishing Company. p. 1. ISBN 978-90-272-4128-3. Many identity constructs are used to refer to Palestinians in Israel; the Israeli establishment prefer Israeli Arabs or Arabs in Israel. Others refer to them as Israeli Palestinians, Palestinian Arabs in Israel, the Arabs inside the Green Line. Nowadays the widespread terms among Palestinians are Palestinians in Israel or the Palestinians of 1948.
  4. ^ a b Rebecca B. Kook (2002). The Logic of Democratic Exclusion: African Americans in the United States and Palestinian citizens in Israel. Lexington Books. pp. 67–68. ISBN 978-0-7391-0442-2. The category of "Israeli Arab" was constructed by the Israeli authorities. As it indicates, this category assumes and constructs two levels of identity. The first is that of Arab. Local Palestinians who remained in what became Israel were designated as Arabs rather than Palestinians. This category refers to the realm of culture and ethnicity and not, clearly, politics. The official government intention was for the "Arab" to designate culture and ethnicity and the "Israeli" - to designate the political identity. ... In addition to the category of Israeli Arabs, other categories include "the minorities" and "the Arab sector," or, in certain sectors the more cryptic appellation of "our cousins." The use of these labels denies the existence of any type of political or national identification and the use of "minority" even denies them a distinct cultural identity. With the emergence of a more critical discourse ... the categorization expands to include Israeli Palestinians, Palestinians in Israel, Palestinian Arabs, Israeli Palestinian Arabs, the Palestinians of 1948, and so on.
  5. ^ a b c d e f "Exploring the Topics of Arab Citizens and Jewish-Arab Relations in Israel" (PDF). Israeli Arab Task Force. 2022. Arab citizens' identities are more nuanced than either "Israeli" or "Palestinian." Members of this population group describe themselves (and are described by others) with many terms. Some common terms include: Arab Israelis, Israeli Arabs, Palestinian citizens of Israel, Arab citizens of Israel, 48ers, Palestinian Israelis
  6. ^ a b c d "FAQ:Arab citizens of Israel" (PDF). The iCenter for Israel Education. Retrieved 4 March 2024. What are some names for Arab citizens of Israel? Palestinian citizens of Israel, Israeli Arabs, Israeli Palestinians, Arab Israelis, and Palestinian Israelis. Each of these names, while referring to the same group of people, connotes something different.
  7. ^ Berger, Miriam (8 March 2024). "Palestinian in Israel". Foreign Policy. Retrieved 6 March 2024. "I don't use the term Arab-Israeli," said the 30-year-old journalist, who was born in the Galilee and now lives in the northern city of Haifa. "We are Palestinians with Israeli citizenship. It's very important for us, the terms and the terminology we use." For Eid, the term Arab-Israeli is too removed from politics. Or, as he sees it, "It puts the Arab disconnected from the Palestinian identity." Arab-Israeli—the official media and Israeli government term for the 20 percent of Israel's almost 9 million citizens who are Arab-Palestinian—is increasingly unpopular among the people it's meant to describe. Only 16 percent of this population wants to be called "Israeli Arab," according to a 2017 survey by the University of Haifa professor Sammy Smooha provided to Foreign Policy. "The largest now and the most growing identity is a hybrid identity, which is 'Palestinian in Israel'" or a similar combination, Smooha said. "I think that's what's going to take over."
  8. ^ Philologos (pen name) (23 June 2021). ""Israeli Arabs," "Palestinian Citizens of Israel," or "Israeli Palestinians"?". Mosaic. Retrieved 6 March 2024.
  9. ^ Jodi Rudoren, Service to Israel Tugs at Identity of Arab Citizens, The New York Times 12 July 2012: 'After decades of calling themselves Israeli Arabs, which in Hebrew sounds like Arabs who belong to Israel, most now prefer Palestinian citizens of Israel.'
  10. ^ Koningsveld, Akiva Van (6 October 2021). "Newsflash, Media: Israel's Arab Minority Does Not 'Largely Identify as Palestinian'". HonestReporting. Retrieved 2 March 2024.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 23:34, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bombus (software)[edit]

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

Can't find any reliable sources or significant coverage for this piece of software. Doesn't seem to pass WP:NSOFT. Has been marked as not notable since 2010. StreetcarEnjoyer (talk) 20:43, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as it appears to fail WP:GNG. WhinyTheYounger ※ Talk 22:16, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Not eligible for soft-deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 22:47, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:22, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: sharing a name with the bumblebee genus makes it difficult to search for sources. But from what I can tell, this does not meet NSOFT. Owen× ☎ 22:01, 20 March 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. Can those sources be added to the article? Liz Read! Talk! 21:20, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sofia Steinberg[edit]

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

Article subject does not meet guidelines for notability per WP:BASIC, WP:ANYBIO, WP:ARTIST, and WP:NMODEL. An online search turned up no reliable secondary sources unconnected to the subject that could be used to improve the article. CurryTime7-24 (talk) 21:03, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, doesn't look like there's enough for notability. Tehonk (talk) 02:02, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There is plenty of coverage in Russian:
Forbes: [2]
Komsomolskaya Pravda: [3] Article reports that she apparently won some kind of "Model of the Year" award.
Novaia Sibir: [4] This also covers her winning that award.
Gazeta.Ru: [5]
NGS: [6]
FashionUnited: [7]
Vogue cover (Russian edition): [8]
There are others but I believe this should be enough to show notability. Ostalgia (talk) 08:35, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Article can be improved per Ostalgia to meet notability, therefore meets the standard for keep (but as of now, poor quality should be improved) FortunateSons (talk) 12:54, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 22:49, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep , per Ostalgia, sufficient significant coverage in Russian. Marokwitz (talk) 09:55, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:22, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: Found this as well. Not able to evaluate whether the articles found above are PR fluff, so weak keep. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 20:33, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – Sources presented by Ostalgia can be implemented and would make this article a good pass. A model (albeit illustrated) being on the cover of Vogue is helpful. TLAtlak 02:01, 20 March 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)‎ LibStar (talk) 22:45, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sebastian Elmaloglou[edit]

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

Last AfD was no consensus over 13 years ago. Fails WP:NACTOR, no multiple significant roles. LibStar (talk) 22:39, 13 March 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! 21:22, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nnamdi Chife[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG or WP:NPOL. Current sources do not count towards GNG and a BEFORE makes no difference. Wikipedia is not a soapbox, or a vehicle for advertising and showcasing. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 22:00, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Businesspeople, Politicians, and Nigeria. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 22:00, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 02:36, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete since subject fails WP:GNG. Yet another text that's well put together but gets posted up here for all the wrong reasons, vanity and promotion. The plethora of citations is meant to impress though it's full of irrelevancies. -The Gnome (talk) 11:50, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – Lack of SIGCOV. The article in The Nation is arguably okay, but much of it is based on an interview. Article in Naira Metrics is almost plainly an interview, failing independence. TLAtlak 04:32, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Nothing stated in the article is "inherently" notable enough to guarantee inclusion in Wikipedia — the notability test for politicians is holding a notable office, not just running for one and losing, and on and so forth — but the referencing is based almost entirely on Q&A interviews in which he's talking about himself in the first person and glancing namechecks of his existence in coverage about other things, not substantive WP:GNG-worthy coverage about him. Bearcat (talk) 14:16, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: There are WP: LOTSOFSOURCES. None can't relatively talk about the subject. Clearly fails WP: SNG, WP: NPOL.. All the Best! Otuọcha (talk) 07:47, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom --Devokewater 21:46, 19 March 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 would like to work on this in Draft space, contact me or go to WP:REFUND. But right now, the consensus is to Delete. Liz Read! Talk! 21:25, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Brant Gardner[edit]

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

I think that if this person is notable it is because of his apologetics and the books that he has authored. The fact that he has done graduate work in Mesoamerican studies likely gains him credence with his faith community, but he certainly does not pass WP:NACADEMIC, so I don't think we would argue that his notability derives from that. He may be fairly famous within Mormon circles, but I am having a hard time seeing anyone notice his apologetics outside of those circles. This is not the same thing as a William Lane Craig, e.g. This is a fairly obscure apologist whose work is lauded mostly on the basis of the ongoing vain hope of believers that there will be evidence discovered to confirm that the Book of Mormon is historical fact. jps (talk) 19:28, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Religion, Latter Day Saints, Latin America, and Utah. jps (talk) 19:28, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep: with better sourcing... I found this [9] talking about a presentation he made with some analysis of his theories presented, and [10] and [11] where more of his ideas are analyzed. Not the best sourcing, but it's a small field of study to begin with. Oaktree b (talk) 20:11, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    One more [12] (ProQuest), much of it is "Gardner says" though. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:06, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment In the second link above, it may difficult to see the relevance to this discussion right away. But Brent Gardner is discussed. The best way to see this is click on the "view all" link, then click on the relevant pages, and scroll, reading through the text. Regarding the third link above, scroll back a page or two to the beginning of the "Preface." I will i-vote later after looking at what is available. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 00:54, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The Deseret News article has very little secondary coverage of Gardner, with almost everything related to him being in the form of quotes, which are not independent. Moreover, it is routine for academics to be interviewed in local papers so there must be many such pieces to count towards C7. Deseret News, as property of the LDS church, is also not an independent source on topics concerning Mormonism, so that source wouldn't count even if it was secondary SIGCOV.
    The Interpreter is an LDS-adherent journal and so is not an independent source on Mormons, and the first piece in question is firmly situated in-universe (Notice that Runnells completely ignores what Mormon and Moroni provide as eyewitness descriptions. He makes an argument based on authority that totally ignores the two most significant eyewitness authorities.) so is not a reliable source in general. The second source is the preface to Gardner's own work and so is obviously not independent. JoelleJay (talk) 02:35, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Oaktree b. Leo1pard (talk) 05:08, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. So all we really have are LDS-dependent sources, with the Deseret News simply parroting a series of unanalyzed comments by an obscure person (Gardner) about a topic (genetics) for which he apparently has no professional/academic credentials. This is an encyclopedia - we have to do far better than that. Perhaps in the future this subject will receive a non-zero amount of secondary, independent attention (see WP:N), or perhaps they will gain some level of academic recognition (see WP:NACADEMIC); that is, maybe this is a case of WP:TOOSOON. But neither of those things exist now. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 07:41, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: per nom. There is not a single source on here that is both reliable AND independent, and the subject has very little if not no mainstream recognition. DrowssapSMM 13:43, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete since adequate sourcing that supports WP:NPERSON exists not. All we have really is the report in some small publication about a lecture our subject gave in support of "American Indians" being of "Hebrew descent," the one on which a contributor above hung their Weak Keep suggestion. This is a "Mormon apologist" who has "published widely on the Book of Mormon." Yet another valiant Johnpacklambert effort, but, alas, it cannot make the cut. -The Gnome (talk) 12:03, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:BIO and WP:ACADEMIC. It appears that no independent and reliable sources discuss this person in detail. Also, this person does not make the cut as a notable academic through their contributions or achievements. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 16:54, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The topic doesn't appear notable Big Money Threepwood (talk) 15:27, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nomination and subsequent comments. TechBear | Talk | Contributions 20:14, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify – as an alternative to deletion. There is some sourcing but they doesn't go quite in depth (Gardner says this Gardner says that). TLAtlak 13:58, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd also suggest it to be required to go through AfC. TLAtlak 13:58, 20 March 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! 21:26, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Northcliff, Indiana[edit]

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

Yet another NN subdivision around Columbus that in this case sprung up around 1960. Searching was inhibited by a neighborhood in Bloomington and by Google's Artificially Unintelligent decision to treat "north" as a synonym of "Northcliff", but even so I found nothing. Mangoe (talk) 19:18, 13 March 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. Interested editors are encouraged to improve this article. Liz Read! Talk! 21:40, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Visoki Dečani[edit]

Visoki Dečani (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Contains unverified information that loses the neutrality of the article Kokenspun (talk) 19:08, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. My vote is in line with WP:ATD-E. This article should be edited, as all relevant concerns can be solved by source-checking and changing the wording structure to be more neutral. Personhumanperson (talk) 21:59, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. The monastery is clearly notable. The presence of "unverified information" is not a reason for deleting the article – instead, find verification or remove the claims. Maproom (talk) 23:04, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Very obviously notable. No idea why the nominator thinks they've given a good reason for deletion. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:05, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:06, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep! Deletion is not cleanup. Malicious users should be blocked! Kaster (talk) 23:34, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep AfD is not cleanup. The subject of the article has clear notability, unverified information can either be tagged, removed, or have sources provided. Shaws username . talk . 04:07, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I don't see anything tagged in the article as unverified, citation needed, etc. at the moment. Thus, even if the nomination statement is true, it's premature, as there is no roadmap to fix whatever problems prompted the nomination. Jclemens (talk) 05:09, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep clearly notable, no good reason for deletion given. SportingFlyer T·C 09:22, 16 March 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! 07:35, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Saidullah Karimi[edit]

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

Proposed for notability; there are a set of personsal-interest stories from 2021 about Karimi building a robot from waste, covered in the New York Times and elsewhere. Elsewhere, there's worthy work on prostheses and a case study of a migrant's experience, but the biography doesn't seem to reach WP:BIO. Klbrain (talk) 20:29, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source assessment table:
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
https://taz.de/Neuanfang-von-Fluechtlingen-in-Athen/!5423033/ Yes Yes Seems so No About the family as a whole, and Saidulla is essentially just quoted ✘ No
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/08/27/world/europe/afghanistan-refugee-hope.html Yes Yes Paper of record Yes Complete profile of Saidullah Karimi ✔ Yes
https://www.aa.com.tr/en/europe/afghan-inspires-other-refugees-with-mini-robot-creation-in-greece/2410300 ~ A good chunk of it is quoted. Yes Seems so Yes ~ Partial
https://me.mashable.com/tech-1/14941/afghan-refugee-creates-robot-from-recycled-waste-using-war-time-experience Yes ~ WP:MASHABLE Yes ~ Partial
https://greece.iom.int/stories/story-karimi-saidullah-who-experienced-technician-hobby-robotics ? I think this is a refugee organization Yes Yes ? Unknown
https://www.zeit.de/gesellschaft/2021-10/flucht-afghanistan-saidullah-karimi-athen-griechenland-arbeit-roboterbau Yes Only partially using quotes Yes Paper of record Yes ✔ Yes
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

TLAtlak 01:44, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: Not a slam dunk, but we have two decent sources. And this from a Turkish news agency was the only other coverage I could find [13], unsure if it's a RS. Oaktree b (talk) 02:36, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Most of the sources are churnalism. The NYT article is dated August 29, 2021 which was then followed by Mashable (a weakish source) and Die Zeit (which mentions the NYT article). Has there been any coverage about him since 2021? Otherwise, I think this fails WP:SUSTAINED. S0091 (talk) 20:56, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I suppose the Mashable seems to be. But the Die Zeit actually has substantially more content than the NYT article and only mentions it in the context of media coverage of Karimi's work: Mr. Karimi's emancipatory act has now brought the press right into his living room. The New York Times came specially and the television was there, the Sky channel or the Greek state television ERT.
    It's probably also important to note that there was coverage in Afghan publications before NYT. TLAtlak 05:27, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The first three are about word for word the same article (two are the exact same) with two dated 11/02/2021 and one 11/03/2021, all after the NYT piece. They are also all interviews will little independent coverage (not based on what he says). Both the Anadolu Agency (3rd one) and the Taz article (4th one) are already in the source assessment (1st and 3rd). S0091 (talk) 15:50, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Oops, I read the date wrong. Anyways, I maintain the position that the NYT and Zeit De articles generally cover WP:BLP, though not strong. TLAtlak 23:47, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: after reviewing the available sources, it appears that the subject meets the criteria for notability more clearly than it falls short of them. --149.172.122.230 (talk) 10:25, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and S0091, no sustained coverage. Tehonk (talk) 02:41, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: all the SIRS sources are presented in the context of the robot; failing WP:BLP1E. Queen of Hearts talk
    she/they
    stalk     07:02, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: per WP:SUSTAINED and WP:BLP1E. S0091 (talk) 16:57, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. NYC Guru (talk) 09:22, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: WP:TOOSOON, while I would add that future review of this discussion at a later date when notability is established is that notability is like a ratchet, we just don't have it here. microbiologyMarcus [petri dish·growths] 15:09, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and reopen when Athena is formally unveiled. I have no doubt in my mind that an ingenious invention such as the robot will provide media coverage, awards, and resulting notability. Trainsskyscrapers (talk) 18:29, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 19:17, 13 March 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! 21:29, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Paranga (football)[edit]

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

This article is a terribly written synthesis of ideas relating to corruption in Greek football. Angryapathy (talk) 18:44, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime, Football, and Greece. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:48, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The concept is probably a part of Greek discourse. The article is a WP:TNT candidate, written in bad English, even translating team names (Iraklis to Hercules). Geschichte (talk) 09:43, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this abomination of a text as soon as decently possible. Nothing of note and even less coherence. -The Gnome (talk) 12:15, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 15:22, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no evidence of notability. It's not even clear what this article is about/trying to do. If sources are found please ping me. GiantSnowman 15:26, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Horrifyingly poor writing. Obviously a quick, unthinking translation. Candidate for WP:TNT if there ever was one. Anwegmann (talk) 04:24, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom --Devokewater 21:54, 19 March 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! 21:30, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Matrix and tensor objects for numerical simulations[edit]

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

Completely fails WP:NOTTEXTBOOK, appears to be a tutorial/course rather than an encyclopedic article. Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 18:42, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Engineering and Mathematics. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:50, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Chill please! I do not think we need harsh words (by anyone) so I will strongly suggest toning down this discussion. It should be clear that a good scientist (Fritzudo) is also new to Wikipedia, and has written an article which while interesting, is not what Wikipedia is about. He is probably also not aware that many (perhaps most) of the comments on this page have come from senior scientists and/or emeriti, some of whom have sought privacy. However, if one were to look carefully into their contributions it should rapidly become clear that they are almost all very experienced. N.B., I am deliberately placing this at the top in the hope of toning down this discussion. Ldm1954 (talk) 01:52, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    N.B., as I was writing this @Fritzudo has been blocked by an admin. Ldm1954 (talk) 01:54, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOTTEXTBOOK and not-so-subtle WP:COI given the username of the article creator and the references cited. This does not have the tone and scope of an encyclopedia article. --Kinu t/c 18:58, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. When I first looked at the article, it seemed like it could remain with thorough cleanup, but after looking at it and the prose more closely, it seems like it's purely a manual on how to use a calculator and it doesn't have any encyclopedic information; it definitely fails WP:NOTTEXTBOOK. As a result, it contradicts the purpose of Wikipedia. That Tired TarantulaBurrow 19:20, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Dear members of the discussion,
    many thanks for your comments. I finished my article by now, and I regarded your advice in the revised version to avoid the impression of writing a manual.
    This article is definitely not a manual or tutorial because it is the result of thorough research in the field of Informatics (Computer Science) and Numerical Methods.
    Probably you know that the fields of object-oriented Analysis, Modeling and Software Design in computer science and software technology is of great success since a couple of decades, especially dominating the internet technology and cell phone applications worldwide.
    The impression of "That Tired Tarantula" about the use of calculators is quite typical for that technology: you call a function, put data in, and get data results out -> easy and quickly finished! The great advantage of object-oriented software for users is this type of user-friendly interface - it makes processes easy to handle !
    This means in case of the article, that rather complex operations of traditional matrix operations in symbolic notation are "simplified" by this very new user interface of object-oriented formulation presented in my scientific contribution. This supports also a better understanding and handling of linear algebra by the index based notation of tensor and matrix objects as presented.
    But for a better understanding of the presented new approach, the reader needs some basic knowledge about object-oriented modelling and programming, which you may reach by studies of the relevant literature recommended. The simple "calculator image" is achieved by use of the definition of my new classes MATRIX, VEKTOR, tensor BASIS etc. (traditionally recalled as data types), and the generation of class instances (variables), as well as the associated member functions (procedures) which are bound to the class objects (instances). The object-oriented paradigm comes along with the principles of encapsulation and inheritance, as well as public and private member functions, in order to ensure the safety of software code. This reads easy as a "calculator", but it is not common knowledge and needs the scientific intelligence of the WK encyclopedia !
    My article presents a solid theory about linear algebra and data management of index-based mathematical objects distributed in relevant chapters, a prototyping of the object-oriented solutions in clearly represented typical program examples ("snippet"), and numerical results as proof of effectiveness and accuracy.
    It includes an innovative formulation and implementation of object-oriented algorithms concerning
    - matrix and tensor objects for object-oriented numerical methods and programming,
    - a new matrix arithmetic by overloading of the standard arithmetic and functional operators by use of C++,
    - an index-based algebra for multidimensional matrices with a generalized matrix multiplication allowing the commutativity of matrix operands.
    Its use allows the whole variety of matrix operations in a new and easy manner, and to establish consistent transformations of skew-angled tensors of higher order in three-dimensional Euclidian space.
    I hope for a better understanding of the matter and would prefer your timely withdrawal of the deletion proposals.
    With best regard Fritzudo (talk) 14:41, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi,
    Original research is not allowed to be published on Wikipedia.
    Thank you. Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 15:17, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Respectfully, your comments indicate precisely why this is not an appropriate article. This is original research written like a journal article. Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought, e.g., it is not arXiv. --Kinu t/c 17:22, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Nonsense! Fritzudo (talk) 17:27, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Please familiarize yourself with Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not before writing articles here. Also, replying Nonsense! isn't the best way to get your point across. Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 17:31, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I am sorry - but you are to look at the references before opposing!
    This is published knowledge by Springer 2022 and research ended a decade ago! Fritzudo (talk) 18:08, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I am sorry - but you are to look at the references before opposing! Fritzudo (talk) 18:16, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    At the moment, the references consist of your own book, a link to download files on your website, a citation to a book on C++, and a link to Wikipedia's article about the Levi-Civita symbol that is misrepresented as a citation to your own work. I have tried to be dispassionate in my comments, but given your flippant response of Nonsense! and your apparent failure to understand Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, I see zero point in continuing this conversation. Kinu t/c 18:25, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    +10 points: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Levi-Civita_symbol#Tensor_Calculus[7] Fritzudo (talk) 13:46, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    As Chaotic Enby and Kinu have said, Wikipedia is not a place to publish original theories. As a matter of fact, content is only allowed to remain if it has independent and reliable sources (and if those sources can be cited). Wikipedia articles in the mainspace are not intended to be anything other than encyclopedia entries. Wikipedia has well-defined guidelines on what is and what is not allowed and what format content will be permitted in, so please look at them. Articles should also not be used as a means of promotion of any kind. Furthermore, please do not edit about anything that may cause you to have a conflict of interest; please do not use yourself as a source. And please make sure to respect the viewpoints of other editors even if you don't agree with them, since learning more about other editors' viewpoints can help you learn more about editing. That Tired TarantulaBurrow 18:32, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You are quite wrong! Object-oriented modelling is not an original theory! It is state of the arts in science and technology since about 40 years. It is abstruse to qualify internationally validated knowledge from science and technology as not reliable and independent sources. I miss your interest in key findings of computer science and mathematical methods in the field of numerical simulations of real world problems like Finite Element Models in Engineering and Fluid Mechanics. Fritzudo (talk) 16:51, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    First of all, there's already an article about that. Second of all, your article is written like a manual and doesn't present new encyclopedic information, so it is not an encyclopedic entry, so it cannot remain on Wikipedia. That Tired TarantulaBurrow 16:59, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You have no cogent arguments: That article is about oo programming and NOT about numerical models! My article is NOT a manual, but follows a stringent explanation of the scientific context! Fritzudo (talk) 18:24, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    We better finish that fault-finding debate now! Fritzudo (talk) 18:30, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    At this point, I don't see any further benefit in replying to the author's comments. Given that they are repeating the same arguments over and over again and bordering on an incivil tone in some of their statements (and also inappropriately blanking the discussion about the other article they created), it is likely best just to let the process take its course. Kinu t/c 18:36, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    There happened no blanking the discussion about any article! I just wonder about the ignorance of scientific contexts. Fritzudo (talk) 18:50, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, there was blanking of a discussion. The link given above points directly to it. XOR'easter (talk) 16:45, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Note that there is an article Matrix/Tensor Algorithms which I nominated for deletion without being aware of this one. Both are clearly not appropriate for Wikipedia. (They are not wrong, just definitely not appropriate.) Ldm1954 (talk) 19:33, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: the conceptual material here is already covered in other WP articles on linear algebra and the both the title & specific content here violates WP:NOTTEXTBOOK. — MarkH21talk 20:25, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi MarkH_21, this is a non-proven statement ! Please, deliver the reference to your mentioned articles about linear algebra for multidimensional tensors and matrices referring, object-oriented classes for arithmetic operations. We are excited about your knowledge. Fritzudo (talk) 12:18, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Reads like a tutorial, please read WP:NOTTEXTBOOK before creating such articles. Killarnee (talk) 16:55, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi Killarnee, MarkH_21, Chaotic and Ldm1954,
    I studied WP:NOTTEXTBOOK already and realized that my article is not to classify as a textbook nor a manual or tutorial ! It presents a stringent structure about relevant mathematics and informatics knowledge, prototyping of classes with typical member functions and proofs for the effectiveness and accuracy of matrix algorithms.
    It's a summary of accepted knowledge in the field of Numerical Mathematics and Computer Science with topics of Object-Oriented Modeling, linear Matrix and Tensor Algebra in index notation and related Matrix Calculus for multidimensional matrices and tensors. The extensive literature about these fields in science and engineering is summarized in the cited references.
    I anticipate your proposals for further improvements in terms of content, and do expect your withdrawal of the deletion statement, next ! Fritzudo (talk) 13:11, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Your article is telling readers how to do something; therefore, it is a how-to guide and not an encyclopedia article. It doesn't matter whether or not something is accepted if it is presented in a way that is contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia. And as XOR'easter said, articles remain based off their content and how it is conveyed, not on credentials. And yes, there is already an article about Object-oriented modeling (sorry, I mentioned the wrong article earlier). You can expand with content that is not presented as step-by-step instructions, that does not use yourself as a source, and that is neutral. And please do not demand for editors to "withdraw" opposing votes; take the time to understand why they've voted in the ways they have instead, since doing so is more civil and helps with creating better articles. Anyways, I will not be discussing this more. That Tired TarantulaBurrow 17:54, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This page is trying to be some combination of math textbook, software manual, and code repository, none of which is what Wikipedia is. Moreover, it's full of WP:COI/WP:PROMO issues. XOR'easter (talk) 14:26, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not "some combination", but a systematic integration of scientific theories and methods of accepted knowledge ! For a better understanding of your rating, I would like to be informed about your professional competence in these fields. Because you seem to be misunderstanding: the article is NOT just some conglomeration of everything! Sorry, but there is nothing about to find on your personal user page. Fritzudo (talk) 15:28, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Wikipedia does not operate based on credentials. Demanding that another editor provide their professional bona fides is likely to be seen as a personal attack. XOR'easter (talk) 16:47, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I am sorry, that you feel attacked and refuse to tell about your professional competence in science, please tell me, whether you ever had some experience with matrix and tensor calculus, and practiced matrix operations, like a multiplication of A * B or similar. In case you never did, it is probably not possible to understand the signification of the article at all. Your valuation "This page is trying to be some combination of ..." may disclose such deficits, and I won't accept it. Fritzudo (talk) 18:04, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not a question of competence, you don't need to be an expert in linear algebra to see that this is a how-to manual and not an encyclopedia article. Please stop accusing others of incompetence if they disagree with you. Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 18:42, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Dear Chaotic, I am very sorry about the prejudice of all your statements. Of course, a certain amount of competence is needed for judging about complicated scientific matters and interrelationships! Now you are blaming yourself, that you have written all your delete statements from the very beginning without any knowledge about the content of the article. The arrogation of yours is unacceptable and is counterproductive for any open discussion in WP! Therefore, I will inform the supervision of WP about your inappropriate mode of behavior in this deletion discussion. Fritzudo (talk) 21:51, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    What kind of supervision are we talking about? X-ray vision, telescopic vision, or maybe even laser eyes? Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 23:24, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    We don't need this here. Blocked per WP:BATTLEGROUND and WP:NPA. Kinu t/c 01:48, 18 March 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 close‎. We already have an open AfD on the same article. (non-admin closure) Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:44, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Epos Now[edit]

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

Just a small SME that has no significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the publication Kaptain Kebab Heart (talk) 18:01, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep‎. (non-admin closure) The Herald (Benison) (talk) 19:09, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1802 in Ukraine[edit]

1802 in Ukraine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Only example listed is for someone without their own article without a source to back it up. Not significant enough for its own article. BangJan1999 17:38, 13 March 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! 21:30, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Power of a method[edit]

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

No evidence that this concept is notable. The hits for "power of a method" I found are invariably about power of a test, or something else unrelated to this. Only source is an WP:SPS published by retired businessman Norman W. Edmund, and does not support the article at all. Paradoctor (talk) 17:31, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Paradoctor (talk) 17:31, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Unsourced and completely OR. I can find several hits for the phrase in scholarly literature but all are talking about radically different things. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 00:42, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete If this was notable then it should also be in the base page methodology. I found nothing there, so it fails that test. In a search the phrase is so common that it is used extensively in other contexts, which also does not support this article. Ldm1954 (talk) 09:31, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Would a redirect to power of a test be useful instead if there are some uses like that in RSes or are uses too varied? Shapeyness (talk) 21:18, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    We need sources that define the meaning of the term. Us declaring this or that use to mean x or y would be WP:OR. If you think you can find such, great! Paradoctor (talk) 21:24, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect‎ to List of high commissioners of the United Kingdom to the Bahamas. (non-admin closure) The Herald (Benison) (talk) 19:09, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Roderick Gemmell[edit]

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

Sourcing consists of name drops and Who's Who regarded as unacceptable. Fails WP:BASIC as lacking "significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject". AusLondonder (talk) 17:30, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep‎. (non-admin closure) The Herald (Benison) (talk) 19:08, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Henry F. Fradella[edit]

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

Fails NACADEMIC. No independent reliable sources to demonstrate notability. 2 of the 4 current sources are quasi-self-published (academic bios from his employers). Several non-independent sources used in the article, e.g. an award granted to the subject by the society of which he was president. Overall seems unduly self-serving. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 17:07, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Law. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:45, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Arizona, California, Massachusetts, New Jersey, and Washington, D.C.. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:55, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep per WP:AUTHOR. Four reviews of three books: JSTOR 26425117, JSTOR 27099000, JSTOR 43186625, JSTOR 26546031. Probably there's more but I only had time to search JSTOR. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:07, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep: The book reviews in JStor seem listed above fine, about books he co-authored; that's honestly more than most people that show up here in AfD have. Oaktree b (talk) 20:14, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I am the person referenced on this page. I had no idea it even existed. I would like it deleted, please. DrHenryFFradella (talk) 02:03, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Requests by an article's subject to have the article deleted are sometimes considered (WP:BIODEL), but an issue is that anybody can create a user account with any name, so there is currently nothing proving that the Wikipedia account User:DrHenryFFradella is actually owned by the subject of the article. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 12:41, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Requests by "relatively unknown, non-public figures" may be considered in some circumstances, but a full professor at a major research university who publishes books on major publishers, actively takes part in public and scholarly discourse, who gets reviewed and is relatively highly cited, who is elected president of a major scholarly society is not a "relatively unknown, non-public figure". Indeed, it's a very public activity. --Amanda A. Brant (talk) 15:22, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Clearly a very well-established academic, full professor at a major research university, extensive list of publications/books published by major publishers, 2,401 scholarly citations[14] is quite high in law (likely in the in the top 0.1 percent among legal academics, citation counts in law are generally much lower than in the sciences). Past president of the main criminology association in the western US (an area much larger than many countries). A number of reviews of his books. He literally has an award named after him, awarded by the main scholarly association of criminologists in the western US.[15]--Amanda A. Brant (talk) 02:48, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per David Eppstein. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 14:57, 20 March 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! 21:31, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Loveland River House incident[edit]

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

Fails WP:EVENTCRIT. No lasting coverage, no real major effects. Lettlre (talk) 15:43, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime, Events, and Colorado. Lettlre (talk) 15:43, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Reads more like a play-by-play than a wikipedia article. Sad event, but I don't see any coverage of the event even 10 yrs after, let alone nothing today. Oaktree b (talk) 15:46, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is actually covered for a few pages in this random late 90s book on religious conversion, of all things, however it isn't a reliable source. Mentioned for a few sentences (not sigcov) in a 2014 article by the Fort Collins Coloradoan. Other than that, nothing, so delete PARAKANYAA (talk) 20:18, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect‎ to List of Tamil films of 1999#January — March. Liz Read! Talk! 21:32, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Adutha Kattam[edit]

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

Can't find any third-party sources. Possibly fails WP:NFILM. Kailash29792 (talk) 14:42, 13 March 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. Now that all editors advocating Keep have been identified as socks, I'm closing this as SNOW. Liz Read! Talk! 21:48, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kayode Adegbulugbe[edit]

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

Just as non-notable per WP:BIO as he was two weeks ago, but as an obvious sock/meatpuppet has removed the db-repost speedy tag, here it is again at AFD. Article creator never responded to questions about use of multiple accounts at their user talk page. Perhaps this AFD will end quickly with a db-repost, once the two accounts have been blocked for sockpuppetry. In the meantime, a WP:BEFORE search turns up only the same gushing paid puff pieces, primary sources (such as interviews), and passing mentions. Wikishovel (talk) 14:41, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

First off, what evidence do you have that I have multiple accounts? Secondly, I did contest the speedy deletion before the notice was removed, and this is exactly what I said.
"This page should not be speedily deleted because Kayode Adegbulugbe is a reputable individual who has made great impact and contributions to Nigeria both economically and socially. He has displayed his knowledge and expertise in the development and production of Nigeria's oil and gas. He has also been a key figure in humanitarianism with his philanthropic activities, which have helped the lives of a lot of people. Kayode is credible enough to be on Wikipedia, considering the several media platforms that has covered some of his activities and background. If it is with regards to the references or content in general, they can always be adjusted, which is why every article on Wikipedia is always up for update and improvement. I am particular about ensuring that this article stays because it is deserving."
Your statement here is highly accusatory, and you have drawn conclusions with very poor judgment. What is your reason for wanting this article deleted? Have you carefully gone through the article and the references? I am starting to sense some kind of discrimination on your part. You have accused me wrongly and haven't given any tangible reason for wanting the article removed.
From what I know, every article is up for improvement and correction. You could point out what is wrong so it gets fixed, or you could even make those corrections. That's why we are all here. To make contributions. TJO28 (talk) 14:54, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sock strike, Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Titus Odiase. Wikishovel (talk) 00:00, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Same reason it was deleted less than 3 weeks ago, to be honest. Oaktree b (talk) 15:23, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Again, we just deleted this less than a month ago. No new sources have been published since then. Articles with no by-lines, the usual PR fluff articles, nothing we can use for sourcing. Getting an honorary diploma at a university isn't notable. SALT and be done with this. Oaktree b (talk) 15:26, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Have you reviewed the article and compared it with what was initially deleted? I added more sources and more credible information that was lacking in the previous article. Please confirm your observations before submitting them. TJO28 (talk) 15:34, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Sock strike, Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Titus Odiase. -- Wikishovel (talk) 05:06, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    None of the sources present in the article are acceptable, as explained above. My observations are presently confirmed. Oaktree b (talk) 16:55, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Just because an article was previously deleted does not entirely close the chapter of it being on Wikipedia. From what I know, as long as required changes are made and the article aligns with Wikipedia's standards, there is no need to attack it. The subject of this article is a highly recognized individual who is known for his national and communal activities. There are references from reputable sources to that effect. And I believe more will be published. TJO28 (talk)— Note to closing admin: TJO28 (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this AfD.
    Sock strike, Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Titus Odiase. -- Wikishovel (talk) 23:56, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep Delete for now – a good number of these sources are included at WP:NGRS, but Vanguard and The Guardian Nigeria have promotional concerns. TLAtlak 15:53, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@I'm tla: any further thoughts on the sources, following User:Vanderwaalforces' source analysis below? Wikishovel (talk) 10:23, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Wikishovel I think I added the article from The Nation which counts toward GNG, and thus is why I said "Weak keep". I thought The Guardian article, among others, would sort of support a weak keep, but there seems to be consensus that there is possible paid puff wording so I'll adjust my vote to delete. Thanks. TLAtlak 12:11, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Fails WP:GNG or WP:ANYBIO. Every single piece found currently whether listed in the article or from BEFORE, is nothing to write home about, not enough to establish notability.
Source assessment table:
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
https://thenationonlineng.net/uniben-honours-fashola-adegbulugbe-komolafe-others-at-48th-convocation/ Yes Yes per WP:NGRS Yes Although this is more or less WP:BLP1E ✔ Yes
https://guardian.ng/saturday-magazine/high-society/dr-kayode-adegbulugbe-a-trail-blazer-with-a-passion-for-humanity/ ~ Obvious paid puff. Yes per WP:NGRS Yes Still, obvious paid puff. ~ Partial
https://greenenergy.ng/uniben-honours-fashola-kayode-adegbulugbe-gbenga-komolafe-others-at-48th-convocation/ No The subject works for this organisation No No byline/editorial oversight Yes Also, WP:BLP1E ✘ No
https://africaoilgasreport.com/2024/02/in-the-news/we-are-delivering-the-oil-export-terminal-way-ahead-of-schedule/ No Interview piece No [16] "We purchase medium-length news pieces and profiles" Yes ✘ No
https://www.vanguardngr.com/2023/12/kayode-adegbulugbe-a-trailblazer-with-passion-for-humanity-kunmi-balogun/ ~ No No byline, source is marginally reliable per WP:NGRS Yes ✘ No
https://dailynewsreporters.com/kayode-adegbulugbe-a-visionary-petroleum-engineer-and-philanthropist/ ~ No one would write such a piece on their publication if it's not paid for or at the very least asked for. No No editorial oversight Yes ✘ No
https://www.thisdaylive.com/index.php/2023/12/09/dr-kayode-adegbulugbe-portrays-humanitarian-excellence-in-great-heights ~ No No byline, and yet another promo puff. Yes ✘ No
https://guardian.ng/news/fashola-adegbulugbe-others-bag-doctoral-degrees-at-uniben-convocation/ Yes Yes Ditto No This is how a news article of such headline usually should read, but again, WP:BLP1E ✘ No
https://www.thisdaylive.com/index.php/2023/11/28/uniben-honours-adegbulugbe-komolafe-fashola-others Yes Yes This time, with a byline and generally per WP:NGRS No This is just another WP:BLP1E ✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.
Vanderwaalforces (talk) 18:15, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: I wouldn't go as far as saying the article is nothing to write home about. Does it need improvement? obviously. Does it need more notable sources? Definitely. But the individual in question seems to have some sort of notability considering his philanthropy and contribution to oil and gas projects in Nigeria. A good portion of the article does align with WP:ANYBIO. Particularly his awards and honors. GiantjohnO (talk) 20:39, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Sock strike, Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/TJO28. -- zzuuzz (talk) 23:27, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I figured, they get snippy when you call them out. Oaktree b (talk) 01:12, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per the source assessment table compiled by Vanderwaalforces. I will check back on this in a few days in case someone turns up two more GNG sources, but unless that happens this article cannot comply with the notability guideline. 2601:5CC:8300:A7F0:5423:227C:96C8:FF0C (talk) 03:53, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Subject does not meet the general notability criteria. UPE concerns are also present. Reading Beans 09:14, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Either non-notable or pretending to be notable through promotion and paid editing. HarukaAmaranth 春香 12:11, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kayode Adegbulugbe (previous deletion). Sources if not all centers on the awards he won which is more or less notable. All the Best! Otuọcha (talk) 00:11, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: More of WP: UPE. All the Best! Otuọcha (talk) 00:12, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per previous AfD; fails notability guidelines. Toadette (Let's discuss together!) 20:47, 18 March 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 14:23, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lowell, Bartholomew County, Indiana[edit]

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

Folks, please read the sources carefully and look at the maps. This Lowell obviously wasn't laid out in 1853, as it consists entirely of tract homes. It also rather abruptly appears on the topos. And this is no surprise, because Baker's passage refers to the town in Lake County, not this place. This is yet another subdivision around Columbus, and lacks any notability. Mangoe (talk) 13:30, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:46, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:47, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The sourcing is indeed false. The Lowell in Bartholomew County was, according to Cowen's 1866 Indiana State Gazetteer and the 1869 Lippincott's, a post office, and more properly named Lowell Mills. Now knowing that name, the Lowell Mills to the north of Columbus turn up in some contemporary biographies, and also in an Arcadia book: ISBN 9780738534497 has the two Lowell Bridges (old and modern), the 1830–1880 existence of Lowell Mills, the various town buildings, and "Today all traces of the town are gone".

    Every single thing in this 3-sentence plus infobox article is false when it comes to the only documented Lowell that we have, Lowell Mills. The foundation date is wrong, per the Arcadia book, as is the location (the Arcadia book placing it on the Driftwood River to the west of the housing estate) and the first sentence should say "was a town in the 19th century" rather than (present tense generic cop-out) "is an unincorporated community".

    Uncle G (talk) 09:03, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    The newspapers in the late 1800s talk about lowell mills, I didn't know what it was until now. There is train station named lowell that is mentioned. Also a Dam named lowell, I think the dam was for a mill, hence lowell mills, and the bridges are also talked about. I've not seen anything that would tell me where these things are though. James.folsom (talk) 23:45, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    So a continued reading makes it seem that the Lowell Mills place was often called Lowell. There was definitely a dam, definitely a mill called Lowells mill. Also A whole lotta fishing going there. I'd image that Lowell Station was near there as well. It all disappears by 1890. It is probably named after Lowell Mass, because there is alot of Lowell Mass, related stuff in the local paper, indicating some connection. Arbitrary examples:
    https://www.newspapers.com/article/the-republic-lowell-a-place/143378518/
    https://www.newspapers.com/article/the-republic-lowel-a-place-1/143378731/
    https://www.newspapers.com/article/the-republic-lowell-a-place-2/143378786/
    I believe it was just the 1800s version of a recreational area, and not notable. I also apologize in advance for the inevitable flood of "It exists, KEEP" votes that are coming. But, it'd just be used against me if I didn't mention it. James.folsom (talk) 00:07, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete An article in this mess is not worth keeping. Does not meet WP:GEOLAND as not a separate recognised place. AusLondonder (talk) 10:51, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It's really confusing because there still is yet a different Lowell, Indiana that still exists. Combine that with all the Lowell, Mass stuff and it's hard to pin down. I think the news articles I found are for a Lowell nearer to Columbus than the other Lowell, but I can't be sure. UncleG has at least established that the location of the housing development is different from whatever other Lowells did exist, so I think this should be deleted because we don't need to burden the Columbus, or it's counties article with every housing development that they have. Plus the info is all wrong, and somebody can always start an article about the actual really old place from scratch if they want.James.folsom (talk) 00:31, 15 March 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. Per SNOW Liz Read! Talk! 21:49, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

United Airlines Flight 35[edit]

United Airlines Flight 35 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable and minor incident, fails WP:NOTNEWS, WP:GNG , WP:LASTING and while an essay, does fail WP:AIRCRASH. The incident doesn't have major consequences and coverage stopped 5 days ago with barely any major news websites talking about the incident. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 13:28, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The Wikipedia page is not really notable, since whenever has a part not fallen off an United aircraft?
-
UAL328.. But no seriously, a tire burst of a big aircraft like a Boeing 777 didn't really impact the plane too much. The only form of damage were the cars with no injuries. There isn't any problem with the article, it's just that there's nothing to add onto. After all of the "landing gear fell off the airplane" talk, what more information is there to add? The article is all filler based off an article released one day after the incident, a very brand new incident.
-
And the only reason the news isn't talking about this incident anymore, is because the aircraft wasn't in massive danger. It was just a simple maintenance issue (the news article sourced in the Wikipedia article doesn't specify if the maintenance was at fault by United technicians or Boeing technicians) as stated.
-
Some positives although, the incident has been reported by Fox Business, CBS News, NBC Bay News, ABC7 San Franscisco, New York Post and so many other news articles. Although they may be not credited since they were made March 7/8th so we may further wait or delete if the article quickly fades into obscurity and it is immortalized as a small part of United Airlines#Accidents and incidents. 70.167.194.163 (talk) 22:27, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not worthy of a whole page. Plane'n Boom1 (talk) 23:28, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, minor incident

with no encyclopedic value. Rosbif73 (talk) 15:47, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect‎ to List of New X-Men story arcs. Liz Read! Talk! 21:33, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Murder at the Mansion[edit]

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

Comic world arc/plot summary and nothing but (no references, either, one broken EL). No reception, or analysis, my BEFORE failed to find anything substantial. Fails WP:GNG. Suggest redirecting to List of New X-Men story arcs per WP:ATD-R. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 12:30, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 12:44, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep‎. (non-admin closure) The Herald (Benison) (talk) 10:16, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Marnia Lazreg[edit]

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

Fails WP:NACADEMIC. Yes there are a couple of obituaries here but it appears that only one of her books was notable and appears in any libraries. They may be notable one day but right now it's WP:TOOSOON 𝔓420°𝔓Holla 11:37, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep I made this stub rather quickly after reading her obituary. She meets notability minimum as an author. There are more than enough reviews out there to satisfy that. Thriley (talk) 12:06, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Women, and Algeria. Shellwood (talk) 12:48, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, sadly. She seems like a very cool woman but I'm simply not seeing the evidence for WP:NACADEMIC.— Moriwen (talk) 14:21, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Very vague nom - her first book was published in 1976, so WP:TOOSOON is unlikely to apply; it's now or never. Obits in the NYT & Washington Post, and one book has had a WP article since 2015. To say "only one of her books was notable" is silly - few academic books get articles, far fewer than those that would pass AFD. Johnbod (talk) 15:04, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not just silly, it's incorrect. I found four or more published reviews for three of her books, Eloquence of silence, Torture and the Twilight of Empire, and Questioning the Veil. I think they all meet our standard for notability, regardless of whether anyone takes the effort to create articles on them. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:03, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: She has obituaries in the NY Times [17] and the Washington Post [18], calling her a "wide-ranging scholar of women in Muslim world". And another book review here [19]. I think we're well past notability, either for ACADEMIC or AUTHOR. Oaktree b (talk) 15:31, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

* Comment: She has obituaries in the NY Times [20] and the Washington Post [21], calling her a "wide-ranging scholar of women in Muslim world". And another book review here [22]. I think we're well past notability, either for ACADEMIC or AUTHOR. Oaktree b (talk) 15:34, 13 March 2024 (UTC) [reply]

Don't know what happened there. Oaktree b (talk) 15:37, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep Seriously? I rarely if ever come to AfD because it is so contentious. In this case, the alert stream on WIR brought me here. What kind of before could have been possibly done to give the impression that it was too soon to evaluate her and her work in independent RS? Just pressing on the JSTOR tab produces over 300 links about her and her work. Just a tiny fraction of the reviews of her work from internet scholar archive indicate that she is clearly seen as an expert and her work has been discussed over time by other scholars in multiple languages. Ditto with google scholar. If Princeton University calls her "a preeminent authority in Middle East women's studies", I don't think it is remotely likely that they would be damaging their reputation to make a false claim or that WP editors opinions on her notability are sufficient to counter the statement. She clearly meets Anybio, Academic and Author. SusunW (talk) 16:04, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Just linking to WP:BEFORE as the nominator is a reasonably new editor and may not be aware of it. Innisfree987 (talk) 23:14, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. People who get published obituaries (not paid death notices) in the New York Times are almost always notable. This article illustrates why. Beyond the obituary we have plenty of published reviews for WP:AUTHOR notability. Bad nomination. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:53, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - In fairness, the article has expanded x 10 since it was nominated, no doubt mainly because it was nominated, which is a good result. Johnbod (talk) 17:56, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    No, AFD is not cleanup. Innisfree987 (talk) 20:56, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Please use Google Scholar before nominating academics next time. Many reviews of her books, meeting AUTHOR. Innisfree987 (talk) 20:59, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, as a clearly notable academic - and the two national newspaper obits are a good starting point for notability for anyone - and wonder where "only one of her books was notable and appears in any libraries" comes from when several of her authored books are in Worldcat and in the JISC Library Hub. PamD 08:59, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I didn't see the earlier version of the article but after updates there are clearly more than enough sources and coverage to show notability. Editing84 (talk) 10:20, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Notability is clear, as mentioned above, most of the time we forget to search for information about personalities in Arabic, where there are many sources. Regards. Riad Salih (talk) 15:57, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Riad Salih could you add some Arabic sources? Finding and evaluating Arabic sources is difficult if you don't speak the language. TSventon (talk) 20:47, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep: There's a clear establishment of WP:NACADEMIC here, even BEFORE says it all. NACADEMIC can be a little bit tricky at time and that is understandable. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 21:19, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – Per above, and numerous reviews of her work throughout her life, obituaries everywhere is certainly a sign of notability. TLAtlak 02:04, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect‎ to 2024 F1 Academy season#Round 1: Jeddah. As an WP:ATD. It could still be a relevant search term after all. Hey man im josh (talk) 11:39, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2024 Jeddah F1 Academy round[edit]

2024 Jeddah F1 Academy round (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Formula 4 events do not meet WP:NMOTORSPORT, WP:GNG or WP:SIGNIFICANCE for standalone event articles, and what happens at events can be sufficiently covered in the season article. MSportWiki (talk) 10:24, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep‎. (non-admin closure) The Herald (Benison) (talk) 14:41, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Douglas Kim[edit]

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

Fails WP:BIO and WP:GNG. His only fame is as poker player during the World Series of Poker in 2006. Does not have further poker career and the article only focuses mostly his involvement in the incel ideology within the Asian American community, with no references. Toadboy123 (talk) 13:29, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, New York, and North Carolina. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:46, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, but of course delete the unsourced incel content, which especially doesn't belong in a BLP. I'm seeing further post-2006 coverage on his comedy plans, see e.g. here.— Moriwen (talk) 14:32, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Based on what I can find about his comedy career, it pretty much hasn't took off. As of present, he currently engages in tankie and incel subculture in social media which exactly does not make him notable per se. Toadboy123 (talk) 21:39, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: he's covered quite extensively in Jay Caspian Kang's book The Loneliest Americans and also found this Verge article about his show. S0091 (talk) 16:20, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Meets WP:BIO DIVINE 06:55, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 11:17, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Matrix/Tensor Algorithms[edit]

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

Rather elementary page that appears to be a snippet from a text on C++ programming. Too trivial to merit an article, definitely not notable by itself. (Matrices & tensors are covered elsewhere.) Ldm1954 (talk) 09:59, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Ldm1954,
I am sorry, but the "snippet" contains an absolutely new implementation of object-oriented matrix/tensor algorithms concerning
- matrix and tensor objects for object-oriented numerical methods and programming in C++,
- a new matrix arithmetic by overloading the well-known standard arithmetic and functional operators,
- an arithmetic for multidimensional matrices with a generalized matrix multiplication,
- new objects and object-oriented member functions for MATRIX, VEKTOR, BASIS and a variety of more tensor-objects etc.
You may study the cited literature to understand better the innovation of this matrix/tensor calculus. The article is only a compact Tutorial as an introduction for the application, and it was not yet finished.
With best regards

Fritzudo (talk) 12:34, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Ldm1954, Today I changed the title of my contribution to "Matrix and Tensor Objects for Numerical Simulations", because of personal reasons not related to your critical comment!

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

Monopoly Massacre[edit]

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

Hello. I see not even a single reliable source here. Most are tabloids and one is even a forum post. I tried to find information about this so-called event from reliable and non-Albanian sources, but to no avail. I also suspect copyright violation here. For example, some segments of the article are 90 percent similar with the Memorie.al source. I believe that most of the article's content was copied and pasted from sources, and machine translated, as it was suspected by another editor. StephenMacky1 (talk) 09:30, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well if you don't really believe the sources and find them unreliable how about you go check out a documentary made by am Albanian historian named Marin Mema he's gonna help you,and my great grandfather witnessed this massacre he even was mobilized by the Partisans and sent in the first front of Syrmian front he even survived and when he returned in 1945 he realized what was happening and how they used to gather Albanian civilians to the tobacco factory in Tetovo called the monopoly of Tetovo so it's a real and important event go watch that documentary they even interview an old man who's uncle got taken and sent to the tobacco factory,and the reason why this massacre isn't know its because the partisans did their best to hide this massacre and make the Albanian people forget about this which they did. AcEagle12 (talk) 09:56, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Could you provide a link to the documentary please? In initial searches I found [23] which I cannot read. Does this refer to the massacre? English language searches are scant and confused by the fact that "Monopoly" is an unrelated English word. Might this be known by another name in English? Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 10:21, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
here is the documentary https://youtube.com/-Li6ZrSLfzQ?si=_aX2f3uJoQf7oHGo,it's in Albanian and that's where I heard about this massacre and I asked one elderly woman and she explained most of it then I decided to do some research and I found 8 sources and decided to create this article so more people can read about this in English,since 7 of the sources are in Albanian and one of them is in English. AcEagle12 (talk) 10:28, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That link shows unavailable when I click it. Who made the documentary? Also does this massacre have a page on Albanian Wikipedia? I couldn't find one, but I don't speak the language so not sure if I am searching properly. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 13:00, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia doesn't allow me to send a link from YouTube but search in youtube "projekti qe Kerkoi zhdukjen e shqiptarve nga trojet shqiptare" and it should appear the channel is called top channel Albania AcEagle12 (talk) 16:15, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete. Straightforward copyvio of this article, as nominator points out.— Moriwen (talk) 14:42, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah yes. That's unfortunate. 90.6% similarity according to Earwig Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 15:32, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete - I have tagged the article for speedy deletion. Whether or not there is a notable subject here is unclear but it is a clear copyvio and needs to be removed and revdelled. Additionally my searches to date have not shown this is notable. I had not finished looking, but I think that anyone wanting to write about this should probably find a related page and add something about it there to begin with. I probably would have been looking at the possibility of merge or redirect if there were no copyvio. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 15:38, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm deleting the speedy deletion cause it isn't needed the discussion isn't closed,and this article is very necessary to be,cause 300 people died,right here your acting like Vidoe Smilevski Bato who wanted this massacre to be forgotten. AcEagle12 (talk) 16:19, 13 March 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! 07:28, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kim Seung-hun[edit]

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

Failed WP:GNG, WP:NBLP, WP:SINGER, and WP:BANDMEMBER criteria showing lack of significant coverage for individual notability from secondary reliable sources that is independent of the subject apart from passing mentions from YG Entertainment, CIX, and Stray Kids's related reportings. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 07:47, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. 98𝚃𝙸𝙶𝙴𝚁𝙸𝚄𝚂 08:28, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Bands and musicians, Television, and South Korea. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:49, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination, rather than restore the redirect. This is a textbook case of WP:Redirects are expensive. New account User:Leklu was created 8 March. Yesterday they made a dozen precocious edits for autoconfirm, then inexplicably moved this article to draft and blanked it, and blanked the redirect to draft. Then they immediately tried to recreate the article as Kim Seunghun: this was speedy deleted db-A10, and this article was moved back to main space. Deletion at AFD is the right remedy for this sort of game-playing, though no prejudice against recreation in a few years if his film career really takes off per WP:NACTOR. Wikishovel (talk) 15:24, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I wouldn't say the Leklu user is doing this out of any ill will, seeing from their actions. I'd assume it was more from lack of knowledge of how Wikipedia works. You and Leklu seemed to have talked it out yesterday, and plus I don't think the previous edits were "precocious" (they were adding an upcoming TV show to the pages of various actors - granted, it was the same show across all of them, but it was needed info anyhow). Plus, they didn't even create the page - they only added a filmography and tried to move it. Granted, based on the things they did regarding Seunghun's page I'd bet they're not very familiar with Wikipedia's processes (e.g. the moving guidelines and such).
    Not commenting on whether the subject of the article is notable or not - I haven't checked out the sources, but I'd bet he's not notable anyhow. Wuju Daisuki (talk) 21:11, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. No sign of individual notability. One acting spot does not have significant coverage. Evaders99 (talk) 05:30, 16 March 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! 07:40, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jean-Marc Alliot[edit]

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

A n aviation engineer with no obvious claims to notability. The sources confirm that he exists and works for the organisations claimed but nothing discusses him . There examples of scientific/ engineering apers but little else. Fails WP:GNG  Velella  Velella Talk   09:50, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, " Lot of sources" isn't important, it's the quality of the sources that is. A source review would be helpful along with some argument based in policy.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:22, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not every single aeronautical engineer needs their own article. Samoht27 (talk) 15:25, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Found evidence he authored and co-authored books but no third party coverage to meet WP:BIO. LibStar (talk) 00:18, 15 March 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 12 oz. Mouse. (non-admin closure) The Herald (Benison) (talk) 06:31, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mouse Fitzgerald[edit]

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

This article cites zero sources, and has not since the page started existing in 2016. The subject is about a single character in a niche show that aired on Adult Swim, hardly the notability required of a Wikipedia article. Samoht27 (talk) 06:10, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy deleted‎ by Courcelles (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) as "Mass deletion of pages added by SoilMineo39, G5". (non-admin closure) WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:34, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nashruddin Zakaria[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG, content of the article mostly about his family, not suited for Wikipedia WP:NOTGENEALOGY. Attempted to PROD but blocked by IP editor (possibly sock/blocked editor) Ckfasdf (talk) 06:12, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Islam and Indonesia. Owen× ☎ 07:35, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: He worked as a civil servant and gave a speech in public, once. I don't see notability. This reads more like a family history project, with more details about his lineage than his actual accomplishments. Oaktree b (talk) 15:39, 13 March 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 American Idol (season 22). Content is retained in case her career takes off and she receives more coverage from reliable sources. Liz Read! Talk! 21:54, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Abi Carter[edit]

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

Coverage does not go "beyond the context of a single event" per WP:NOTWHOSWHO, in this case, one audition on one episode of a reality show (an extremely minor "event"). Even if coverage continues in the future it is highly unlikely to warrant more than some sentences at American Idol (season 22). Heartfox (talk) 05:57, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Heartfox (talk) 05:57, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and California. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:50, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: PROMO. Appearing on the show isn't quite notable enough without much more sourcing. "They liked her singing" is about the extent of coverage. Rest is simply filling in the biographical details. Oaktree b (talk) 13:23, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I don't know why when establshing notability these factors tend to be overlooked. If an individual is young (less than 30 for example) their youth is not necessarily a negative. People develop skills at different rates. For example having recently graduated from high school or being in college has nothing to do with innate ability. Talent shows-there's a built-in bias probably on Wikipedia and similar sites. It's like oh, they can't be as good as someone else doing the same thing but they're the real thing and not competing on tv. Keep in mind here the three judges already have Abi Carter as a "favorite" or even ready to win the entire American Idol contest. Also factor in that it's not a rare sentiment or occasional viewpoint... people are saying don't even bother having the show. Just give her the win. I think I made my point here.Headtothestripe (talk) 10:50, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually there was no point made here. Tip for later, wanna win an argument on Wikipedia? Provide (reliable) sources. ihateneo (talk) 23:13, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or potentially redirect to American Idol (season 22). Clearly fails notability right now. Doesn't even seem notable enough for a redirect at this point, but that can change very quickly if she continues on the show. JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 22:05, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Per above. WP:TOOSOON. ihateneo (talk) 23:16, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. If the subject is still competing, would a Redirect or Draftification make sense?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 04:35, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I did redirect but that was reverted by the article creator Headtothestripe so I initiated a deletion discussion per WP:ATD-R. Heartfox (talk) 04:40, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect is fine; on the off-chance that she's the next Kelly Clarkson, we can re-create it. Oaktree b (talk) 15:41, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect- agree that it could then be recreated if it is indeed too soon.Editing84 (talk) 10:18, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I feel at this point she has enough presence to maintain article, She has enough followers from the show that will only grow into the future. ProctorP (talk) 03:06, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wikisteveb4 (talk) 14:39, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to American Idol (season 22): I can't find much WP:SIGCOV for a standalone article. Completely a WP: TOOSOON case. Per WP: NMUSIC, I can necessary say she passed no way especially with no credibility for "discography" or notable "collab". Most of he sources were on her winning/qualifying for the American show. It is best it's redirected to the subject that treats much or credibly about her which is American Idol (season 22). May be notable for a standalone in the future.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. Liz Read! Talk! 07:43, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ayersville, Georgia[edit]

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

This was de-prodded under the dubious claim that the supposed town is legally recognized, for which I found no evidence (GNIS doesn't count, nor the post office). It appears to be a rail point which it was hoped would develop into a town, but apparently that failed to happen. I am becoming suspicious of claims of populations which aren't backed up by the census, and this one isn't: there's no mention of the place in the 1900 summary for Georgia in Habersham County, which is where this spot was located at the time. The histoy book would be something except that it's the source of the population claim, which casts doubt on its reliability. Mangoe (talk) 04:23, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Georgia (U.S. state). WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:01, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep: As much as I hate geographic stubs like this, I suspect reference 4 is just enough to pass notability. Its population claim is dubious, but it does seem somewhat authoritative and researched (I wouldn't take the number seriously, but I think we can conclude there were a few dozen people living there in 1900). Satellite view shows there are still several homes and a cemetery in the area, so this wasn't simply a siding or signal point that someone at GNIS decided was a "populated place". But that's about it, not a whole lot of information. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 16:34, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Discussed in the Guide and Biographical Sketch of North-eastern Georgia and the Carolinas: Pen Pictures of Beautiful Scenery, Watering Places, and Points of Interest on the Atlanta and Charlotte Air-Line Railway, 1878, as a distinct town with 50 people. Also lots of hits from people who lived there, including WWI draft cards listing a resident, and people buried in the cemetery there. Clearly much more than just a railroad point. SportingFlyer T·C 02:01, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Stephens County article. This place is very old and nothing of any import is written about it. There is only 2 sources and 1 or two websites, that I can find, (including the ones already on the article) that directly address the subject of Ayersville. WP:GEOLAND doesn't confer automatic page status to all populated places, it confers presumptive notability. WP:N says that presumptive notability is not a guarantee, and provides WP:GNG as the criteria that must be met to be a stand alone page. Ayersville Georgia simply doesn't have any sources that could be used to write an encyclopedic article.James.folsom (talk) 00:24, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That last sentence is clearly incorrect, there's quite a bit of historic sourcing that can be found in a web search. SportingFlyer T·C 01:56, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, and they are not written about ayresville, they only mention ayresvilles in relation to the main topic, train wrecks and the like. This makes them non significant coverage of ayresville. This type of coverage doesn't establish notability. They also typically only provide largly unencyclopedic information about ayersville. James.folsom (talk) 23:14, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That doesn't matter - Ayersville is or was a populated place, all we need per WP:GEOLAND is that it is verified. SportingFlyer T·C 09:43, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 04:24, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep – I agree with some of the statements presented in the keep votes above, and there are also established hiking trails, citing in G books. I think WP:GEOLAND is met. TLAtlak 16:07, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Meets GEOLAND per above. BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:34, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Meets GEOLAND per above. ~EDDY (talk/contribs)~ 14:36, 14 March 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! 03:50, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A Motley Vision[edit]

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

This isn't a notable blog. The only sources are the blog itself. Big Money Threepwood (talk) 04:20, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Arts, Literature, Film, Christianity, and Websites. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:57, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. jps (talk) 13:07, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. The article has existed for 16 years and has no reliable sources to establish its significance. Jessintime (talk) 14:30, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The nominator has misstated the facts. Two of the sources are the blog itself, one is the Association of Mormon Letters, and one is something else (but I'm not sure what it is supposed to be referencing). Counterfeit Purses (talk) 15:13, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Association of Mormon Letters is not a source that we should be using to bestow notability on a blog. jps (talk) 15:40, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Why not? Thmazing (talk) 23:04, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No evidence of significant coverage, no evidence of notability. Not appropriate for an encyclopedia. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 16:19, 14 March 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! 03:49, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Paloma Aguirre[edit]

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

Paloma Aguirre

This article is a paid work by an editor who is being compensated by the subject. A draft has been created, Draft:Paloma Aguirre, which was declined twice, once for sourcing issues, once for tone issues. The author then created this article, which is the same as the draft, in article space. This bypassed AFC review, and bypassing AFC review is permitted except for paid editors. Review of the sources shows that this article does not establish biographical notability. Only the first reference is independent. The first reference, a newspaper account of her election, is a good source. The other four sources are associated with the subject or with organizations with which she is associated:

Reference Number Reference Comments Independent Significant Reliable Secondary
1 sandiegotribune.com Description of her election as Mayor Yes Yes Yes Yes
2 www.coastal.ca.gov States that she is a member of this commission No No Yes No
3 www.paloma-aguirre.com/ Her personal web site No Yes No No
4 www.imperialbeachca.gov The city's web site No Yes ? No
5 caseagrant.ucsd.edu A long account, that appears to have been written by her No Yes Yes No

So this article can be deleted, at least for now, rather than being reviewed and sanitized due to the conflict of interest, and the draft can be left for improvement. This does not mean that she is not notable, or that she is notable, but that the article does not establish notability, and so the questions of tone and neutrality do not need to be addressed. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:58, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Notable. Reference #1 and this make the threshold. And that’s just from the first page of a google search. If an editor has violated WP:PAID and/or WP:COI, that’s a behavioural problem, warn them, block them, but, as well debated at WT:DEL, PAID violations are not enforced by content deletion. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:18, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Environment, Mexico, and Washington, D.C.. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:08, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete paid article, mayor of a small town who hasn't received any coverage outside her local area (or her university.) Strong delete here per our custom. SportingFlyer T·C 11:44, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Some coverage in the San Diego papers, but it's strictly local [24]. Might be notable in the future as the first Latino mayor, but we just don't have enough for notability. Oaktree b (talk) 15:43, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for now. Paid editing shouldn't be taken into account when judging notability, but this could be WP:TOOSOON, there is a number of hits in G news but they really only cite quotes as mayor, etc. TLAtlak 16:09, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Even ignoring the paid editing, her claim to notability is as mayor of a fairly small city (not even in the 100 largest cities in California). Routine coverage of her election as mayor by local media does not contribute to establishing notability. AusLondonder (talk) 10:18, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 02:36, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Coverage is ultra-local. I don't the significant coverage typically needed to satisfy WP:BIO for a WP:BLP. Not WP:NPOL. scope_creepTalk 07:51, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Small-town mayors are not "inherently" notable just because they exist as mayors — the notability test for a mayor doesn't hinge on minimally verifying that she exists, it hinges on writing a substantial article referenced to a significant volume and depth of media coverage that deeply analyzes her political impact: specific things she did as mayor, specific projects she spearheaded as mayor, specific effects her mayoralty had on the development of the city, and on and so forth. But there's nothing like that here, and the article is based almost entirely on primary sources that are not support for notability but for one hit of "Paloma Aguirre wins mayoral election" in the local media, which is not enough by itself. Bearcat (talk) 14:21, 17 March 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. I see no other closure possible. Future action--Merger, rename, etc.-- can be discussed on the article talk page. Liz Read! Talk! 03:48, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Orders of battle for the Ava–Hanthawaddy War (1412–1414)[edit]

Orders of battle for the Ava–Hanthawaddy War (1412–1414) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Largely a WP:OR/WP:SYNTH reconstruction based on very old primary sources, about battles and sieges we don't have articles on, which were part of a 3 year campaign we don't have an article on, which was part of an 11 year war we don't have an article on. Fram (talk) 10:38, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, Lists, and Myanmar. Fram (talk) 10:38, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Keep Hybernator's points are convincing, though it might help to mention the Forty Years' War in the lead. Not sure how 19th and 20th century sources are a primary source for the 15th century wars. Using published books that are referred to seminally in the field of Burmese history is probably better than relying on random 21st century websites anyways. I'm not an expert on WP:OR but I'm not sure putting things into a list is necessarily WP:SYNTH even if they were not in the original sources. EmeraldRange (talk/contribs) 13:53, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Fram:, a few points:
  • The chronicles are definitely not primary sources. They are in fact secondary (tertiary and beyond) sources. They were written long after the war took place.
  • This article is part of the Forty Years' War, which is covered in a number of English-language academic books/papers. It's not some obscure war. (The war's specific campaigns are also covered in the Minkhaung I, Minye Kyawswa and Razadarit articles.)
  • Re: OR/SYNTH: The chronicles literally provide these lists throughout. (In fact, some historians have called the Burmese chronicles essentially the military history of Burma.) Academic works essentially follow the chronicle narratives; See (Harvey 1925) and (Fernquest 2006), both listed in the Bibliography. The main thing they (Harvey and Leiberman) question is the size of the forces--which I have mentioned in every order of battle article I've contributed to. (Per Harvey's analysis, I've reduced the force sizes by an order of magnitude.) In any case, I have provided what the chronicles actually state so that readers could compare.
  • This was fine with my previous orders of battle articles; in fact, the Orders of battle for the Ava–Hanthawaddy War (1385–1391) was a DYK article.
  • As for the main article not being there, first, where does it say that an order of battle article can be written only after an article on the war has been written? Secondly, the Forty Years' War can be the main article until someone decides to write a more specific article on the 1408–1418 campaigns (as I did with the 1385–1391 and 1401–1403). But even if I don't end up writing, this article can stand on its own.
  • Anyway, I welcome suggestions, edits and contributions to this article. I don't see why it needs to be deleted. Thanks. Hybernator (talk) 19:54, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 04:21, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per article creator. How dare you accuse Myanmar's main royal chronicles of being primary sources without evidence! The Burmese royal chronicles are definitely not primary sources. You can't judge another country's national chronicles, especially since you're not Burmese and clearly lack knowledge about Myanmar. You're attempting to challenge the Burmese project, but there are few active Burmese editors. The list of royal orders for battles is clearly important and worthy of having a standalone article as part of Myanmar's historical events. I'm shocked to see you nominate the article for deletion, especially since the subject exceeds the notability guideline. So what's your problem? Before making judgments on national historical books, you need evidence to support your claims. Thank you. 1.46.91.225 (talk) 19:46, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't understand why some are making baseless AfD (Articles for Deletion) for unknown reasons. That's why I retired from editing Wikipedia. It's very depressing. 1.46.91.225 (talk) 19:52, 2 March 2024 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE – Extraordinary Writ (talk) 03:17, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    While I agree that this AfD should've been closed as Keep already, no need to be hostile. Please assume good faith- Royal chronicles can be primary sources, it's just in this case that the earliest source used for these 15th century wars is an epigraphical 18th century book. The AfD may be baseless but it's easy to see how an average reader (who would also clearly lack knowledge about Myanmar) may mistakenly think the chronicles cited are from the 15th century. EmeraldRange (talk/contribs) 18:33, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
အပိုတွေပြောနေလဲ အပိုပဲ အောက်မှာ အောက်တန်းစား လူရမ်းကား groupလိုက်ရောက်လာပြီ ဒီလိုသတောင်းစားတွေက မြန်မာpj အပေါ် ဘာမှအကူညီမရတဲ့အပြင် ဖျက်ဖို့ပဲ ကြိုးစားနေကြတယ် အဲ့တာတွေ စိတ်ကုန်တာ... Hybernatorလို ထိပ်တန်း editor တယောက် အနေနဲ့ မသေချာ မရေရာပဲ ဖန်တီးပါ့မလား အခု ခွေးအုပ်စု လုပ်ရပ်က Hybernator လက်ရှိရေးသားနေတဲ့ ဆောင်းပါး ပေါ်အပြင် တခြားဟာတွေပါ ထိခိုက်လာမယ် တခုပြီး တခု ဖျက်ဖို့လုပ်မယ် ခွေးမျိုးတွေ လုပ်နိုင်တာ ဒါပဲလေ, ကိုယ်တွေကအနေသာကြီးပါ Eng Wikipedia က မြန်မာဆောင်းပါး ၃ပူံပုံ တပုံလောက်က ကိုယ်ဖန်တီးခဲ့ပြီးပြီမို့ အေးဆေးအနားယူနေပါတယ် မနေနိုင်လို့သာ ဝင်လာပြောတာ, တကယ် စိတ်ကုန်ရပါတယ် ဒီလိုတွေ မရောင်ရာ ဆီလာလူးနေမယ်ဆို Hybernatorပါ အိုင့်လို ဒါမှ မဟုတ် ကိုဟင်သာ လို ပျောက်ကွယ်သွားလိမ့်မယ်, ကို Hybernatorအနေနဲ့လည်း သေချာလေး ဖိပီး ရှင်းလင်းသင့်တယ် ဖန် ဆိုတဲ့ အမျိုးယုတ်က တပည့် များစွာ လပ်သပ်မွေးထားတာ တချိန်ထဲ ဖျက်ဖို့မဲတွေများလာတာ သံသယဖြစ်စရာပဲ 1.46.207.139 (talk) 11:59, 6 March 2024 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE – Extraordinary Writ (talk) 03:17, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Granting that machine translation is not a perfect tool, there seem to be personal attacks in this post. P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 12:38, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 16:55, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. I would be more convinced of notability if there was more coverage from more independent sources. True enough that the 19th-century royal chronicles aren't primary sources for the 15th-century wars, but the royalty are plausibly invested in particular interpretations of conflicts between antecedent states. I would be as uneasy about citing, say, a hypothetical official chronicle of the House of Windsor for the history of William the Conqueror. Additionally, a footnote in the article reveals that the military mobilization figures in this article are reduced by an order of magnitude from those reported in the royal chronicles, per G.E. Harvey's analysis in his History of Burma (1925) in the section Numerical Note. While this might be fair scholarship, I struggle to see how it isn't WP:OR, taking one source (Harvey) and synthesizing it with others (the royal chronicles) and deriving an interpretation of historical evidence (the reduced figures being more likely than the reported figures). Finally, I struggle to identify any notable coverage of the "Ava–Hanthawaddy War" as the "Ava–Hanthawaddy War" (Google Scholar, Google keyword search), even in Burmese (Google Scholar, Google keyword search). P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 00:24, 6 March 2024 (UTC) [Self-struck P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 17:20, 14 March 2024 (UTC)][reply]
  • Delete lack of coverage in independent reliable sources; if it is necessary to reduce all figures taken from them by an order of magnitude, the royal chronicles are clearly not reliable. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 00:44, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Article without much prose and too many charts. Regardless, I don't see notability and can barely find mention of this battle from many centuries ago. I don't see notability. Oaktree b (talk) 02:59, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment puppet students of a someome arrived here by an order from Whatsapp group. Shame!1.46.207.139 (talk) 11:51, 6 March 2024 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE – Extraordinary Writ (talk) 03:17, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Royal chronicles are undeniably the primary sources of Burmese history of royal kingdoms. Htanaungg (talk) 01:57, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: I'll try to answer the concerns raised here. I'll assume good faith as I can't assume the general audience to be familiar with Burmese history or the country's extensive chronicle tradition.
  • Notability: The Forty Years' War is considered one of the most significant and influential wars in Burmese history. It is covered prominently in every major English language work on general Burmese history. Starting from (Phayre 1883), (Harvey 1925), (Hall 1960), (Htin Aung 1967), (Aung-Thwin and Aung-Thwin 2013). Many of these are available online. For more specific works on the war itself, check out (Fernquest 2006). (Aung-Thwin 2017) covers and Ava and Hanthawaddy Pegu between the 14th and 16 centuries, and the war of course is covered extensively as it preserved Pegu's independence. The war is listed in this (Dictionary of Wars by George Kohn 2006).
  • Sourcing: The extant chronicles are not primary sources by a long shot. The Burmese chronicles article covers that extensively. (For the record, I contributed to that article.) You can check out the sources. The earliest chronicle that covers the war was translated into Burmese (from Mon) in the 1560s. The first national chronicle, the Maha Yazawin was written in 1724, and the Yazawin Thit chronicle (1798) actually corrected some of the dates based on epigraphical evidence. The Hmannan (1832) was based on the Maha Yazawin and took many of the dates from the Yazawin Thit.
  • Some of the sources of the chronicles have survived. The Royal Orders of Burma, 1598–1885 is viewable online. There's a five volume work on ancient stone inscriptions from the Pagan to Ava periods. This earlier, smaller 1899 work has English translations.
  • Reliability: AFAIK, no historian has questioned that the war took place, or that the various regiments from different regions participated. What some have questioned about the number of troops, I have mentioned it prominently in every order of article. In general, historians consider the Burmese chronicles to be very reliable. I can supply the quotes from the likes of Victor Lieberman, G.E. Harvey, D.G.E. Hall. Are they completely neutral? Or 100% accurate? Of course not. But all of the Burma/Myanmar historians have referenced the chronicles.
  • Little Prose: This article is meant to be on orders of battle. From what I can see, most orders of battle articles have little prose. As far as the charts, I took the time to put the regiments in a table.
  • Anyway, I don't expect every editor to be fully up to speed on Burmese history. I welcome suggestions to improve the article. Cheers, Hybernator (talk) 04:31, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Notability: the sources raised would be useful if we were discussing the notability of Forty Years' War. We are not—we are discussing Orders of battle for the Ava–Hanthawaddy War (1412–1414). Just because a topic is notable does not mean every conceivable subtopic is.
    • Source reliability: if historians have questioned the number of troops, declined to provide more than a ratio, but you have calculated seemingly-precise numbers based on a throwaway line in a 99-year old source, then that is original research.
    • Previous contributions: Thousands of articles which have gone through DYK and GA have been deleted. I myself have even successfully nominated a couple of featured articles for deletion. Vague gestures to the past are meaningless. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 06:47, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I fully agree that not every subtopic is automatically notable. At the same time, there are many precedences for "sub-topic" articles on wars. Look at the Napoleonic Wars and several "sub" articles: War of the Third Coalition, Fourth Coalition, etc. Likewise for order of battle articles: many order of battle articles are at the battle level, much more specific than at the campaign level. In this case, yes, all of the individual campaigns of the Forty Year's War are covered in the English language works I mentioned above. Don't take my word: some of them like (Fernquest 2006) are freely viewable online. (Now, I don't think being covered in an English language work or being Googleable should be the main criterion for notability but I recognize it's one of the inherent factors here.)
  • Re: "throw-away line about the troop strength" by Harvey. Well, I also quoted Lieberman's take from his 1984 book which concurs with Harvey's take. Other than dividing the chronicle figures by ten, I haven't created any what you call "seemingly precise" figures. In fact, I've gone to great lengths to list the figures reported in the various chronicles; see the article's notes section because I want people to be able to double-check the figures. You'll see that some of the battles don't have any figures because none of the chronicles provides any. In some of the battles, chronicles provide regimental commanders, but in many cases, only the lead commanders are mentioned. Hybernator (talk) 22:52, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I am accustomed to assuming good faith about sources I can't access; that is not the problem. What's becoming problematic is that even the accessible sources you tell us are about the topic don't seem to really be. The Fernquest (2006) article never mentions an Ava–Hanthawaddy War, or Hanthawaddy for that matter (except in the title of a bibliographic item cited only once). But this is only the tip of the iceberg of problems.
    The nominated Wikipedia article states (permanent link) that The orders of battle for Hanthawaddy Pegu are mainly sourced from Nai Pan Hla's version of the Razadarit Ayedawbon. Meanwhile, Fernquest tells us on page 4 that there are problems with the primary sources used to write "Rajadhirat Ayeidawpon" (I gather this is a different transliteration of Razadarit Ayedawbon) and adds that When we read of Rajadhirat and his exploits we can never be quite sure whether we are reading historical fact or fiction (bolding added) and that the resulting "ethno-history" that we now have has to best be characterized as indigenous intellectual history, not the history of events at all (bolding added). And yet the Wikipedia article treats the Razadarit Ayedawbon as a reliable source, when it makes claims about deeds of Razadarit/Rajadhirat may not have even happened?
    And every time I reread, I seem to notice more WP:OR in the article, like this: The Razadarit Ayedawbon gives the 5th waxing of Nadaw 770 ME [sic] as the start of the Prome campaign.[10] However, the 770 ME is a typographical error since the main chronicles say the campaign took place in 774 ME. This means the invasion date was probably the 5th waxing of Nadaw 774 ME (8 November 1412). What is the second sentence cited to? Nothing. It is the Wikipedian's original research, extrapolating beyond what some troublingly unreliable sources state.
    The appropriate step at this point would be to delete this article and to self-nominate for deletion articles like Orders of battle for the Ava–Hanthawaddy War (1385–1391), which have the same problems. P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 23:37, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The topic of (Fernquest 2006) is about King Razadarit, and most of the campaigns of the Forty Years' War that took place during the king's reign. Hanthawaddy is the classical name of Pegu. Ava–Hanthawaddy War is also called Ava–Pegu War.
  • Regarding the date (5th waxing of Nadaw 770 ME), yes, the reported date in the Razadarit Ayedawbon is different from the 774 ME date reported in the main chronicles. What's wrong with reporting that chronicles don't always agree? In fact, there are many other chronicle reporting differences, and I've taken the time to report both sides. The Razadarit was written from the Hanthawaddy perspective while the main chronicles are from Ava's. In fact, the last two pages of Fernquest's article provide a comparison between the Razadarit and the Maha Yazawin (U Kala).
  • AFAIK, all the major books on Burmese history (see above) cover the war, and they all cite the chronicles (primarily the Maha Yazawin (U Kala) and Hmannan chronicles). We have contemporary inscriptional evidence of the war. (It's surreal I even have to be arguing about this.) In fact, I'm not aware of any works that say the war and the campaigns didn't take place. It's fine to challenge/update/remove certain sections of the article. But it's another to say an article on a notable subject must be deleted. Hybernator (talk) 00:47, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    As AirshipJungleman29 already explained, gesturing to the main topic isn't sufficient to establish the notability and verifiability of this subtopic. P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 00:57, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It's likely that this article could be classified as a type of WP:LISTV, given its focus on a significant part of the historical war campaign in Myanmar. However, if possible, this article should be merged into the main Ava–Hanthawaddy War (1408–1418). If merged, the article size would become too large and unsuitable for Wikipedia, so splitting it into a sub-article seems like a better approach, in my opinion. 180.183.224.201 (talk) 19:08, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 02:40, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, weakly: EmeraldRange's question about whether the sourcing issue is fundamentally unrecoverable made me rethink and reread the arguments. I have struck my above delete !vote. I also got around to checking on what Hybernator said about Hanthawaddy also being known as Pegu, and it turns out that while I couldn't find the "Ava–Hanthawaddy War", Ava–Pegu War does have hits on GoogleScholar. I think the article still has problems (possibly it has the wrong name, and I think parts of it are WP:OR that should be removed), but I'm not as sure anymore that deletion is the right answer. P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 17:20, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus‎. Liz Read! Talk! 03:41, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

International SOS[edit]

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

Fails WP:NORG, Also seeing previous deletion, the discussion closer is a confirmed sockpuppet. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/International_SOS Pridemanty (talk) 07:30, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Pridemanty (talk) 07:30, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Medicine, Singapore, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:46, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep. The nominator has not provided any justification beyond a bare statement that it fails NORG. There are many independent media citations on the page; even though much of this may be earned media it reflects how prominent they are in the industry. I've added one more, a journal article.
    Note that the first deletion, described by the nominator as having been closed by a sock, was in 2007, at at time when there were just FOUR references, all primary. The article is substantially expanded. Should be irrelevant for this AfD. Oblivy (talk) 03:07, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Question to nominator: There have been 2 AFDs for this article prior to this one. The first one (the sockpuppet one) was closed in 2007, however as far as I can tell the sockpuppet-ing only started a year later and the user was only blocked in 2009. The other AFD, despite there's only 3 participants, still ended in a keep. I apologize for my ignorance, but can I ask how does the sockpuppet-ing impact this discussion in any way? S5A-0043Talk 01:57, 3 March 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) 12:43, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The article is bad enough that I wouldn't dismiss the nominator. The newspaper archive shows enough mentions that I wouldn't want to delete outright as well. It appears to be a large emergency assistance service: [25], [26] IgelRM (talk) 11:56, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 02:39, 13 March 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! 07:44, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tales of Tatonka[edit]

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

Fails WP:NTV and WP:GNG. Tagged for notability since 2013 DonaldD23 talk to me 12:07, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 12:16, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 02:01, 13 March 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 Web Standards Project. as an ATD as suggested by the nominator. Liz Read! Talk! 03:29, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Browse Happy[edit]

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

Fails WP:SUSTAINED. The only two reliable, independent citations are from right when the website was created, and they reek of churnalism. Might be worth a mention on Web Standards Project but doesn't seem to deserve its own page. Apocheir (talk) 04:44, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Apocheir (talk) 04:44, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, Was an important part of getting people to move off of Internet Explorer 6 and similarly old browsers. Its Javascript code is still embedded in thousands of websites even today. I concede that when browsers moved to auto-updating every four weeks sites like this weren't as prominently covered anymore, but it was historically improtant per WP:NOTTEMPORARY and even YouTube had a similar system which was covered in major sources too. 77.103.193.166 (talk) 18:21, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Do you have any sources supporting these claims? Apocheir (talk) 22:20, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 04:51, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:32, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: There are two sources that are independent of the subject and provide extensive coverage. 2004-era CNET is reputable, and the German source is written by what I understand to be a career journalist (according to Google Translate, I can't read German). HyperAccelerated (talk) 01:03, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. Can we get a source analysis?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 01:53, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: I can only find WordPress sites and blogs, nothing about this website. It still comes up in Gsearch, but that isn't notable. Even what's used now for sourcing isn't very good. Oaktree b (talk) 02:00, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: This is the only book coverage I find [27], but it just uses the website as an example of how to program so that things look a certain way online. Oaktree b (talk) 02:03, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – there isn't great sourcing in the article itself at the moment, and online there are various blogs and forums discussing it for example. CNET is also not a really reliable source. TLAtlak 16:12, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge or redirect to Web Standards Project (which could use the fleshing out). This is a tiny bit of web history and I'm not sure it should be deleted; I'd prefer this NOT be deleted. BusterD (talk) 13:05, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – fails notability guidelines; merge/redirect if a reliable source confirms that it is owned by the Web Standards Project. No reliable sources found. Toadette (Let's discuss together!) 22:11, 18 March 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 H2g2. Liz Read! Talk! 03:27, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

GuideML[edit]

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

I can't find any sources about GuideML that would establish its notability. The repo itself hasn't been updated in years, and I can't find any evidence that it's being heavily used. HyperAccelerated (talk) 02:50, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 01:40, 13 March 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 Tamaskan Dog without prejudice against splitting this back, if reliable sources can ascertain this as a separate, notable breed. Owen× ☎ 21:54, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Northern Inuit Dog[edit]

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

Fails general notability and breed notability, article is of poor quality all of the sources that could be used to establish notability such as the news articles don't even mention the breed. Traumnovelle (talk) 23:50, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Animal and Biology. Shaws username . talk . 23:56, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: United Kingdom and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:22, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I'm not overly thrilled with the lack of scholarly publications but this dog rocketed to notability in popular culture, notably in Game of Thrones, as the mascot for North Carolina State University and in the TV series Outlander. It has quite a few page views on a regular basis. People are curious about the dogs, and while I admit a certain amount of reluctance, I certainly like the idea of experienced editors observing this page so that it can be a source of verifiability. I did some cleanup, and I'm happy at least with the history section which confirms that this is not an ancient landrace nor does it have any real relationship with Native Americans. (In real life, I do a lot of competitive dog sports and I hear both those myths a lot.) Here's the page views: [29] Annwfwn (talk) 02:09, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Is there any source that shows notability beyond the show itself? The North Carolina Uni mascot is 'a mix of German shepherd, Alaskan malamute and Siberian husky' and not a northern Inuit dog. Traumnovelle (talk) 02:22, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Both the articles cited are clear the NCSU mascot is a Tamaskan dog, this is the quote from the New York Times article: “Fortunately, officials had heard about a new breed of dog that looked just like a wolf: The Tamaskan is a mix of German shepherd, Alaskan malamute and Siberian husky, first bred in Finland in the 2000s. And there was a Tamaskan club in North Carolina.” Annwfwn (talk) 02:34, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The tamaskan is a different dog breed according to the article. Traumnovelle (talk) 04:13, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 00:55, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 01:33, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This page confuses me. We already have a page on Tamaskan Dog. However, the redirect Tamaskan dog (lowercase) links here. Are these the same breed? Is Tamaskan an offshoot of this? If so it seems more notable than the parent breed, so Merge/redirect to Tamaskan Dog as an ATD. But really I'm just confused... PARAKANYAA (talk) 02:40, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes that's what confuses me, the tamaskan clearly has some notability based on it's use as a mascot but this would only extend to the northern Inuit dog if they were the same breed/very closely related (Norwich versus Norfolk Terrier). @Annwfwn is the tamaskan a separate breed? Traumnovelle (talk) 03:20, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This obviously is not a reliable source, but looking at this ancient forum thread they seem to likely be two separate breeds that are often compared. Now, if there were reliable sources saying otherwise that would be fine, but looking up Tamaskan + this breed just gets a bunch of garbage sources that seem to be copying from Wikipedia. I can't find any reliable source that discusses this breed as either an offshoot of or related to the Tamaskan. So delete I guess? The Tamaskan is (probably) notable but I can't find anything about this breed besides it existing and the singular study on its health problems. PARAKANYAA (talk) 04:08, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(also i'm going to retarget Tamaskan dog) PARAKANYAA (talk) 04:10, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not according to several of the sources, the Tamaskan is an offshoot of the Northern Inuit Dog. Annwfwn (talk) 04:09, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Which sources? No reliable ones seem to say that from my searches. PARAKANYAA (talk) 04:10, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is from “Clinical, histopathological and genetic characterisation of oculoskeletal dysplasia in the Northern Inuit Dog.”

The Northern Inuit Dog (NID) breed is a relatively new breed developed in the 1980s in the United Kingdom, from dogs of unknown breeds imported from North America that were bred with the German Shepherd, Siberian Husky, Alaskan Malamute and possibly the Samoyed dog [27]. The intention was to breed a dog of wolf-like appearance that could be a family pet with an aptitude for work. The breed has since split into a number of similar breeds including NID, Tamaskan, Utonagan and British Timber dog and all are growing in popularity.


And this is a primary source, so less weight, but from the Tamaskan Dog Registry’s website:

By combining the original English (Northern Inuit/Utonagan) bloodlines with the new Finnish outcross bloodlines, the first generation of registered Tamaskan Dogs was born in May 2006 at Alba in Scotland. At the same time, the Tamaskan Dog Registry (TDR) was founded for the purpose of overseeing the development of the breed.


Both of these sources are cited in the article text.
Annwfwn (talk) Annwfwn (talk) 04:21, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, then merge and redirect to Tamaskan Dog. There are not enough sources for this breed. PARAKANYAA (talk) 04:25, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, okay, so the reason it was targeted there is because Tamaskan Dog was merged into this article and then split back out. From what I can see Tamaskan seems to be marginally more notable - used as mascot and in shows + recognized by at least one register. And again, I can't actually find any proof in reliable sources that this breed has anything to do with the Tamaskan. nvm see above PARAKANYAA (talk) 04:24, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Redirect to Tamaskan Dog, we seem to have a content fork here, so one article is enough. If there's anything worth merging then merge into the bargain. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:06, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. I was going to close this as a Merge to Tamaskan Dog but reading this discussion, it's not at all certain that these two dogs are related. Maybe this will become clearer in the next few days. So, whenever this is closed after further comment, I expect it will either be a Merge or a No Consensus closure.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 01:33, 13 March 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! 07:48, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Plantec[edit]

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

The only coverage I can find is the one now-deleted article linked as a reference. A look in the wayback machine finds this satisfies at least 1 out of 2 of the required references. A newspaper search and thorough Google trawling doesn't turn up anything. BrigadierG (talk) 01:28, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 01:25, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - I am not finding any reliable sourcing on this person. Google search shows LinkedIn, Professional profile on World Building Institute site. --WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 01:09, 16 March 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 01:36, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kim Chung[edit]

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

Article fails WP:GNG. Simione001 (talk) 01:01, 13 March 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 01:37, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ping, Washington[edit]

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

Contested PROD. No information at all found about this place; satellite view of coordinates shows a rural intersection with a couple of scattered farms in the area. GNIS is insufficient for notability, as is the onetime existence of a post office. The place-names guide (reference 4) does call it a "town" but I have strong doubts about its reliability; it uses the word "town" to describe countless other places that were nothing more than railroad sidings or individual farms. Fails WP:GNG and WP:GEOLAND. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 00:53, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Washington. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 00:53, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete OK, here's why you can't always trust placenames books. Mr. Meany cites An illustrated history of southeastern Washington, and you can in fact download a copy from the LoC. And you will find on the page 49 that he cites a narrative concerning some conflict between the settlers and the natives, but no mention of Mr. Ping. However, on page 498 you will find the sort of hagiographic capsule biography of Elisha Ping typical of the period and of works such as this, and it doesn't mention this place at all or that he had any association with it. Also, there's the distinct problem that he was in a different county. However, on pages 548-549, there is a short mention of "Ping postoffice" under "Other Towns" in Garfield County, and it does line up with Meany's statements. But in reading the section as a whole it's clear that these were places that, by and large, didn't become towns, and therefore the post office evaporated. So, even the place that is supposed to be saying this was a town, doesn't really say that. And that's pretty much it. Mangoe (talk) 03:13, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Firstly, I believe what Mangoe says, secondly there are no mentions in any news paper in the area. There are not any sources in any of the usual places. It's already known that post offices in the 1880s were frequently place central to populated rural areas to better serve them and provide a place for the postal carrier to stay at overnight. So It's not proof of anything.James.folsom (talk) 23:47, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2024_March_13&oldid=1214853850"