Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2022 December 29

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< December 28 December 30 >

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 22:45, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Aman Gandhi (actor)[edit]

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

WP:NACTOR is not met, none of the parts appear to be of any signifigance. I couldn't find a review where they are listed and in the show pages, the roles nearly always aren't mentioned in the plot summary. The sources in the article are a lot of interviews (not helpful for notability), from unreliable sources (tellychakkar especially) or are brief mentions. Article was moved to draft space and the creator has moved it back, so the next step is AFD. Ravensfire (talk) 23:51, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 Talk Work 16:46, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Aravind Dalawai[edit]

Aravind Dalawai (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)

Unsuccessful political candidate, not otherwise notable. Mccapra (talk) 22:41, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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! 22:41, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

D Ravishankar[edit]

D Ravishankar (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)

Unsuccessful political candidate, not otherwise notable. Mccapra (talk) 22:40, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Draftify. Liz Read! Talk! 22:34, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Pakistan Embassy International School and College Tehran[edit]

Pakistan Embassy International School and College Tehran (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)

Declined prod. I could not find significant coverage in English or Urdu from gnews searches. Fails WP:NSCHOOL. Only primary sources supplied. LibStar (talk) 22:44, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and Pakistan. Shellwood (talk) 23:08, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The school began in 1964, and so a lot of relevant sources in Iran and/or Pakistan are likely not on the internet at this time. I asked Iranian and Pakistani editors to check libraries in their countries to see if articles are backed up. I think that, especially as we deal with school articles in the Global South, we need to give editors time to find relevant sources. Additionally, as Iran was affected by the Iranian Revolution, it's possible that access to pre-1979 articles may be affected. WhisperToMe (talk) 03:53, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    They have 7 days to find sources, let the AfD run its course. LibStar (talk) 03:55, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Considering bureaucracies in some countries (I am not sure how much time it takes to get permission to access some archives?), peoples' own working lives (especially consider people with full time jobs), and especially people far from major cities/major libraries (it may take time for them to book transportation to cities with relevant archives), I think one month is more appropriate of a time limit than seven days. WhisperToMe (talk) 03:57, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
We don't extend AfD durations because of those reasons. Everyone on WP has their own lives to lead, and I would doubt someone is going to go to a physical library to get something out of the archives and wait weeks just to rescue this article. LibStar (talk) 04:02, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I did, in fact, go to a physical library (Houston Public Library Jesse H. Jones building) to get Houston Post articles as sources for Wikipedia articles (Houston Post articles are not available on electronic databases due to legal decisions). Since such not-online sources are in fact admissible as sourcing, it's important IMO to give allowances to give people time to access them. While it's not mandatory to give people time to go to physical archives, I strongly recommend that such allowances are done so especially as the WMF wants to encourage more contribution of articles related to the Global South. The ease of access and convenience we expect in the Global North isn't everywhere. IMO there's no reason not to wait/to give grace when there are no BLP or copyvio concerns. WhisperToMe (talk) 04:06, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If you want an AfD duration extension, please request it at Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion. You remind me of an editor a few years back requesting no AfDs to occur because he was going on vacation. LibStar (talk) 04:08, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Requested here: Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_deletion#AFD_duration_extensions? WhisperToMe (talk) 19:05, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Embassy schools being govt-owned and run are notable and given this is significantly old it seems notable. It may take time to find sources but can stay this time. Muneebll (talk) 21:09, 25 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    where is the notability criterion that says "Embassy schools being govt-owned and run are notable"? LibStar (talk) 07:34, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:ITSOLD is not a reason for keeping. LibStar (talk) 07:55, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify, then editors will have 6 months to look for sources. Insight 3 (talk) 13:31, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment it's almost a week since this AfD started. Has anyone commenced the process to look for sources in archives/libraries and requires more time as WhisperToMe suggests? LibStar (talk) 09:55, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'll check around and see who is looking for sources WhisperToMe (talk) 05:46, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify. Fad Ariff (talk) 13:20, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:02, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Consensus below exists that the nominator's argument, that the current sourcing does not meet SIGCOV, is a correct interpretation of this article's notability. Those opposing this viewpoint have not, in my view, done enough to counter this argument which is based on Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Daniel (talk) 02:04, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Masters (TV series)[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Ref 1 is a non-RS magazine that was started in 2013 by a bunch of Pakistani girls...with the objective of raising awareness of Pakistan as per here with no editorial policies, ref 2 is another non-RS with no editorial policies but aim to publish juicy and tasteful content for young Pakistans, ref 3 is a four sentence non-SIGCOV announcement, ref 4 is non-RS (no policies), ref 5 is another minor announcement mainly covering the stars and teaser, falling under minor news stories, ref 6 is a gossipy non-RS celebrity site, ref 7 is a short non-SIGCOV three sentences announcement, ref 8 is a database, whereas ref 9 is a listicle listing the cast (non-SIGCOV). Was submitted (not even shortlisted for an award), but otherwise given the current refs and little found per my WP:BEFORE, it fails WP:GNG. Draftification by User:Onel5969 contested by User:Lillyput4455. VickKiang (talk) 21:02, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. VickKiang (talk) 21:02, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 21:41, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep- Despite how many references I add, as per User:VickKiang it'll never be enough, as he always find loopholes in it. However,he himself admitted that the sources does cover the subject. Sources included are websites, popular in the country. The show emerged as a popular drama of it's kind. Further, what if it wasn't shortlisted for nomination. It was submitted tho and the fact should be mentioned. All in all, it should stay on Wikipedia since article itself cover the show indepth plus there are multiple sources, not just one or two sources having a passing mention.Lillyput4455 (talk) 20:00 UTC, 23rd December 2022.
However,he himself admitted that the sources does cover the subject. Sources included are websites, popular in the country. You keep iterating that websites are popular, but popularity is not the same with reliability and WP:SIGCOV. Your articles have a high number of references, but that is not synomous with notability. It is better to articulate which two or three references you believe count towards WP:GNG, instead of this vague comment. Thank you. VickKiang (talk) 21:11, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - current sourcing does not meet WP:SIGCOV, and searches did not turn up enough to pass GNG. Redirecting would be okay if a proper target can be found.Onel5969 TT me 23:45, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep referencing is fine, these magazines and tabloids are the only sources focused more on covering tv industry in Pakistan. Dawn, Express Tribune etc are the main English dailies in Pakistan and don't cover tv industry in the country significantly. Secondly they also don't cover it enough because of their parent organisation having rivalry with other tv networks. So we can't single iut these websites like that. Can you expect random American tv series to have referencing only from New York Times or Washington Post and if not then delete. Muneebll (talk) 21:15, 25 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Can you expect random American tv series to have referencing only from New York Times or Washington Post- I was not expecting coverage from sources listed WP:RS on WP:RSP, just references that could count towards WP:GNG. Thanks. VickKiang (talk) 21:18, 25 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Lacks SIGCOV and now there are less chances the series will get any media reviews in future once it is completed in Sep 2022. Insight 3 (talk) 13:44, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Express Entertainment: Not enough significant coverage in the sources, scraper sites or casual mentions Ravensfire (talk) 17:22, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 21:57, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, article does have sources and content and should have an article about it. It have all the elements related to a TV show in it. Plus thereare adequate sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 111.88.36.240 (talk) 13:12, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Listing it in the "Former programming" section of Express Entertainment is enough. Mooonswimmer 04:27, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 06:23, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Al-Shohada'a Stadium[edit]

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

Stub insufficiently sourced — Moops ⋠T⋡ 17:04, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment @GiantSnowman: I don't think that should a great location to redirect too, the article could be deleted, it doesn't pass GNG, and besides it's a multipurpose stadium. It belongs to the city not the club. Govvy (talk) 15:48, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    it's fairly standard to redirect the stadium to the club. GiantSnowman 16:06, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as there is not agreement on an appropriate redirect target yet.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 19:39, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 21:53, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete since we don't seem to have a source to support the subject's existence. The article says the stadium is in Zinjibar and earlier versions said it is in the Abyan Governorate (of which Zinjibar is the capital). The one source cited says it's in Taiz, a large city which is nowhere near Zinjibar. There is definitely a stadium with this name in Taiz [1] [2] [3], although transliterations from the Arabic vary (the name translates as "martyr's stadium", which is the name of quite a few stadiums). Unless we have a source to support the statement that the stadium is in Zinjibar we shouldn't be merging to that article. Hut 8.5 16:56, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Hut 8.5 makes some very good points above, so I believe that deletion is the best way forward. It's possible that there are two non-notable stadia in the same country with the same name. If this is the case, I don't see either one being the primary one so deletion is the only valid option, imho. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 10:39, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't be surprised if the Taiz stadium is notable, it is in a big city and it wasn't hard to find articles which mention it in passing. Hut 8.5 14:12, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be interested to know who plays at that stadium. Al-Saqr SC appears to be the only major club based in Taiz but they seem to play at a different stadium. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 17:55, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Hut 8.5: Seems you did a lot better research compared to when I first looked at this. Clearly I missed a few things there, so I will also go with delete on what you found. Regards. Govvy (talk) 21:07, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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! 22:30, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Old Roman Catholic Church in North America[edit]

Old Roman Catholic Church in North America (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 Old Roman Catholic Church in North America is a small group with no recognition from any major Christian denominations. Their leaders are widely seen as "episcopi vagantes" and nothing of notice can be said about them. The only source the article appears to reference to is the website of the group itself. Thus, I move for deletion. Karma1998 (talk) 14:47, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 19:27, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 21:49, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your nomination statement counts as your delete vote, Atlantic306 (talk) 21:12, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- According to this internal website the whole movement of which this is a splinter had 50,000 adherents in 1958 when Archbishop Carmel Henry Carfora died and it says that the dioceses went in different directions in the years after his death. The link in the article to a predecessor denomination is actually a redirect to him. My impression is that this is about a handful of local churches whose leaders have titles sounding much grander that their actual role. I normally vote to keep denominations, but this appears to be so small that I doubt this is appropriate in this case. The alternative would be to merge or redirect, but I cannot identify a target. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:28, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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! 07:46, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ecumenical Catholic Church[edit]

Ecumenical Catholic Church (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 Ecumenical Catholic Church is a small unrecognized group, with no recognition whatsoever from any major Christian denominations. Their leaders are widely considered to be "episcopi vagantes" and nothing of notice can be said about them. It has been pointed out that the page includes references on Google and Google Books; however, this is nothing more than window-dressing: the Google references are websites affiliated with the Ecumenical Catholic Church and one of the books was written by its founders (Mark Steven Shirilau), while the other is about the Brazilian Catholic Apostolic Church and has nothing to do with the subject at hand. As if this wasn't enough, the creator of the page was Shirilau himself, may he rest in peace, which makes me think that this page is more than a publicity stunt than anything else. I move for deletion. Karma1998 (talk) 14:33, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 19:20, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 20:22, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Phil Bridger: sorry, I made a typo-Karma1998 (talk) 19:10, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep. This is a smallish group, but there is some coverage.
    • Bay Area Reporter, 1994[4]
    • Catholic newspaper in Sicily, 2016 [5]
    • Daily Breeze newspaper, Torrance, CA, 2010[6]
    • The Oklahoman, 1992[7]
    • Press-Enterprise, 2014 (reported obit for founding bishop)[8] --Jahaza (talk) 20:00, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per the reliable sources identified above by Jahaza which show a pass of WP:GNG so that deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 21:09, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep [This source (in Italian) in the Catholic Newspaper in Sicily meets the criteria for establishing notability. There are also a number of of other article (in Italian) discussing the denouncing of the topic church including letters from various catholic bishops. In my opinion, there's just enought to meet GNG. HighKing++ 13:13, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- Nothing seems to indicate how many congregations there are. I seriously suspect that there is one in California and one in Mexico, which hardly makes it more than a local church. I normally vote to keep denominations, but this seems so small as to be NN. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:36, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Does the number of congregations form part of the notability criteria? Which guideline is that in? HighKing++ 12:06, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    For what it's worth, this church claims to have bishops in Kenya and Costa Rica. Phil Bridger (talk) 12:23, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 06:24, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Stain The Canvas[edit]

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

Does not appear to meet WP:BAND or WP:GNG. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:12, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion as previously PRODded
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 Talk Work 16:19, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 17:05, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 20:20, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Also fails Wikipedia:Notability (music).`~HelpingWorld~` (👽🛸) 03:32, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. I'm not going to Draftify this article as there already is a version of this article in Draft space. Liz Read! Talk! 22:27, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Cyril Michael Hetsko[edit]

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

I have major concerns about the notability of this, but the creator (with likely COI) insists on publishing it so here were are. The sources cited are either primary or provide passing mentions only and therefore fall far short of WP:GNG; meanwhile I cannot find anything in the career details which would make this notable per WP:NPROF. (Note: this is a copypaste move of a declined AfC draft.) -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 20:04, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Academics and educators, and United States of America. DoubleGrazing (talk) 20:04, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify, again. This reads like a resume. We need more details than just dates and names and numbers. I think being on the AMA taskforce would make him eligible, likely also on the Wisconsin covid taskforce. Please rewrite and do more than simply stating where he went to school and worked from xxx to yyy date. Oaktree b (talk) 20:08, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Please point to the guideline that establishes notability per the AMA or Wisconsin COVID taskforces? Also, this has already been draftified before, which the creator has disputed, as I mentioned in the nom. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 20:15, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:ACADEMIC criteria 3, [9], being on a selective board, or at least that's how I interpret it. Oaktree b (talk) 20:45, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks @Oaktree b; that's not my interpretation, but I could be wrong of course. As for draftification, given that this has already been back and forth between the draft and main spaces (under a slightly different name), and therefore per WP:DRAFTOBJECT should not be draftified again, would you like to reconsider your !vote? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:48, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep - Page seems to be real and is well sourced. Not a resume or self promotion cause the person is dead. Wikipedia Community (talk) 01:36, 30 December 2022 (UTC) Striking sock vote. Vanamonde (Talk) 20:35, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you, we are honoured to have your third-ever edit at this AfD. Just FYI, it can still be a resume, even if the person is dead. And self-promotion isn't the only type of promotion. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:00, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I don't see WP:NPROF: it doesn't look like he was a fellow of the AMA, and I don't think serving on a task force grants NPROF notability. That leaves WP:BASIC/WP:ANYBIO. A specialty biographical dictionary (Czech-rooted people in medicine) is surely far short of a national biographical dictionary, but seems to be the best claim that I see. I'm not seeing WP:SIGCOV in reliable sources, although there are scattered brief mentions in e.g. the Dubuque Telegraph-Herald and the Tuscaloosa News, as well as a few in the article. The most likely roots of notability are in the past 20 years, and I don't think we're missing pre-internet sources. Watching, and will change my !vote if better signs of notability are uncovered. If the article is somehow kept, it should be moved to Cyril Hetsko or possibly Cyril M. Hetsko, as the subject does not seem to have rarely used the full name. The article is the result of a copy-paste move, and the history would also need to be merged. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 08:52, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The American Medical Association doesn't (currently) have fellows. He was, according to the article, on the board of trustees of the AMA, which is probably the best claim of notability asserted in the article. Jahaza (talk) 23:11, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Jahaza, I would suggest that serving on the board of trustees of the AMA is comparable to serving on the board of a major US corporation. I don't think that such service is an automatic notability pass, although it might generate the kind of coverage that would help to meet GNG. Am I missing something? Russ Woodroofe (talk) 08:46, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No pass of WP:PROF, citation counts too low (in a high-citation field) for C1, and being on a board is not anywhere near the same thing as membership in a highly-selective academic society. So we're left with WP:GNG. And while the article is larded with plenty of sources, none of them appear to meet the requirements of independence, reliability, and depth of coverage needed by GNG. In particular, publications by the subject and paid family obituaries of the subject count for nothing in this regard. I don't see the point of draftification; the subject is dead, so unlikely to generate any more notability than we can already find at this point. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:58, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify The article has good potential of been improved but fails WP:PROF and has good potential to pass WP:GNG if on draft.Princek2019 (talk) 08:35, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Once the unexplained/single-purpose account !votes are discounted, there's fairly clear consensus that the sourcing here isn't sufficient to establish notability. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 19:16, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fred Lambert[edit]

Fred Lambert (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 subject is not notable enough for an article as demonstrated by the lack of coverage in independent reliable sources and the very limited scope of the subject's own writings. QRep2020 (talk) 18:54, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The user requesting the deletion is doing it maliciously. His own history ont his website shows that he focuses on TSLAQ a group known for attacking Fred Lambert, the subject of this page.
There's plenty of coverage about the subject, inlcuding 6 different publications sourced in the page right now. As for the "very limited scope of the subject's own writing", that's not a real argument. Tesla and electric vehicles is not a limited scope and doesn't affect the notability of the subject. Thewizardsmirror (talk) 18:52, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Blackhawkeyes (talk) 19:02, 27 December 2022 (UTC) Duplicate vote struck. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 15:49, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting because there is at least one editor objecting to deletion and only a few supporting it. That said, the new multiple accounts suddenly appearing to object to deletion are obviously very suspicious and should be completely discounted for the closing.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 19:07, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. QRep2020 (talk) 19:49, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. The La Presse piece is solid and talks about him. Most of the other sources aren't useful for GNG, but the forbes(? I can't remember) one where he discusses Elon's covid "advice" would also count. Oaktree b (talk) 20:11, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Business Insider it was. Oaktree b (talk) 20:11, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
What about integrating the content with Electrek as he is a founding member, etc.? QRep2020 (talk) 02:18, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The notability on that is almost less than for this person. It appears to be one of those branded sites that are part of a branding "farm" of sites, in this case bdg.com. There is one article that might be considered both reliable and significant for Lambert, Business Insider, but I really consider this all just a daisy chain of hype. I also note that some of our compatriots in this discussion seem to be deeply interested in only this topic. Users EVPeteJohnson and BlackHawkEyes have contributed only to this AFD and should probably be checked for socking. Delete Lamona (talk) 04:13, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:BASIC. The La Presse piece is an interview with nothing independent and is a puff profile. The Business Insider article is actually not about the person but about an article that person wrote which was critical of Elon Musk. And yeah, the SPA !votes who suddenly popped up are extremely suspicious. HighKing++ 22:02, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 19:07, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Marinika Smirnova[edit]

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

Not notable Russian model, near zero reliable sources; looks like CV or just spam LusikSnusik (talk) 18:57, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. RL0919 (talk) 19:02, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Marina Kapuro[edit]

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

Not notable musician with zero reliable sources LusikSnusik (talk) 18:55, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 19:02, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Varvara Vlasova[edit]

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

Not notable blogger and singer; spam with zero reliable sources LusikSnusik (talk) 18:54, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Nicole Dollanganger#2010–2014: Career beginnings. (non-admin closure) ASTIG️🎉 (HAPPY 2023) 15:45, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Curdled Milk (Nicole Dollanganger album)[edit]

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

Does not appear to meet WP:NALBUM. Originally PROD tagged, but was removed by the article's creator. Should be redirected to Nicole Dollanganger#Discography. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:50, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Nicole_Dollanganger#2010–2014:_Career_beginnings (has more info on the album than just its name appearing in the discog list): Pitchfork is indeed reliable, but that coverage is all passing mentions in articles about the artist's later output. Music pubs don't appear to have touched this album. QuietHere (talk) 19:53, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Nicole Dollanganger. There does not appear to be enough coverage on this album in reliable, third-party sources to prove notability, but a redirect is preferrable over outright deletion as it could help readers interested in this subject and a valid redirect target exists. Aoba47 (talk) 20:30, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Eddie891 Talk Work 16:04, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Micky Shiloah[edit]

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

WP:BLP of an actor, not properly sourced as passing WP:NACTOR. The primary notable claim here is a two-episode guest role in a television series, which is not an automatic inclusion freebie in and of itself, and the other "can also be seen in" roles listed here were all one-shots. And meanwhile, the only source here is a short blurb, which isn't enough to get him over the bar all by itself.
NACTOR #1 is looking for multiple significant roles, not just one -- but it's not the significance of the work that matters, but the prominence of his specific role within the work, and even that still has to be supported by passage of WP:GNG on more than just one short blurb.
There may, further, be some sort of WP:COI here, as this was created in 2016 by an editor who has no other edit history at all besides periodic updates to this article and one deleted draft of the "So-and-so is a person who exists, the end" variety about another actor. Bearcat (talk) 15:10, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all roles appear to be bit parts, not at ACTOR yet. Perhaps in the future. Oaktree b (talk) 15:45, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Eddie891 Talk Work 16:04, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

JFin[edit]

JFin (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)

Apparently defunct open-source project with no claim to notability. Substantial second-party references are not forthcoming, so this doesn't satisfy WP:GNG. Mikeblas (talk) 13:59, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

BrigadierG (talk) 17:57, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:22, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hamilton Tigers (CPHL)[edit]

Hamilton Tigers (CPHL) (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 enough in-depth sourcing to show that it passes WP:GNG, could be a redirect, either to Canadian Professional Hockey League or International Hockey League (1929–1936), both of where it is mentioned, although I feel the latter is the better target, since it was the last league they were in. However, a sysop from French WP insists on recreating this stub solely sourced to a database, stating that that is enough to meet WP:GNG. Onel5969 TT me 13:37, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 TT me 13:37, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete a boneheaded WP:MILL, move to unredirect. This fails WP:NHOCKEY and WP:NTEAM, respectively. 2600:1700:9BF3:220:A578:6010:913C:51E3 (talk) 13:51, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    You cite respectively an essay, a guideline for individual players that does not apply to teams, and a guideline that explicitly states that it is not providing a guideline for teams. This article can't fail WP:NHOCKEY, which is inapplicable, nor WP:NTEAM, which doesn't provide a guideline to fail. Jahaza (talk) 23:09, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree. Those two do not apply. And there is no Ice hockey project team guideline, although there have been no objections to other teams in the league. I think the nom is really due to the fact that the article has been a stub for a long time. Alaney2k (talk) 06:14, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:10, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The french sysop (me) don't insist to create this article : he insist to not have a redirect from here to Hamilton Tigers. The Hamilton Tigers (in NHL) were disbanded in 1925, the Hamilton Tigers (in CPHL) were created in 1926 with the same name. The redirect is simply an error but User:onel5969, with the excuse of GNG, and without reading Hamilton Tigers, where is explained "A namesake amateur team existed prior to and during the NHL team's existence, and a minor league professional team named the Hamilton Tigers existed from 1926 to 1930." (bold from me), didn't understand that and recreated the uncorrect redirect. Creating a redirect error because of GNG is ridiculous...
For me : delete this article is not really a problem but I think it's not a good option. But let the redirect is an error. I think that user:Alaney2k who created the redirect and didn't revert me can have an opinion (he wasn't alert of this discussion I think)
Last thing : I mentionnate my french sysop rights to explain I'm not a newcomer. Not to say I'm over the rules. Supertoff (talk) 14:17, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I don't know what is going on here, but this team was the second-tier to the NHL. The equivalent of the AHL today. The other teams in the CPHL and IHL have articles. I got here late, but I am willing to add content to the article. It had several players that played both in the NHL and here. I don't see how NHOCKEY (for players) or NTEAM applies (no guideline). We could merge with Syracuse Stars. Alaney2k (talk)
  • Keep (edited) As a precursor to the long-time Buffalo Bison AHL team, and linked with NHL players and NHL Hall of Famer Percy LeSueur, I think the team ends up having general notability. The unfortunate part about the time period is the lack of electronic resources to many newspapers of the 20s and 30s, so it will always be hard to dig up references. However I do think the team passes GNG. Alaney2k (talk) 19:19, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I found a few long game reports in Google newspapers and one article about the sale of the team, which I added to the article. It's difficult to find relevant articles partly because there was also a Hamilton Tigers at about the same time which was one of the top rugby teams in Canada. Jahaza (talk) 03:41, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - please note that neither of the two above keep !votes are based on policy.Onel5969 TT me 22:30, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Syracuse Stars (ice hockey): It is hard to determine notability on the team itself from research as there are not a whole lot of digitized papers from the era that I can search through well and of those a vast majority are false positive to the pre-1926 NHL franchise; however, there is enough here to merge parts of this article into the Syracuse Stars article at the least. Please ping if new sourcing is found so I can re-evaluate my !vote. TartarTorte 01:20, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, it doesn't really make sense to merge with Syracuse Stars as the same team was later the Buffalo Bisons (AHL). Jahaza (talk) 03:36, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: The teams very easily meets WP:GNG due to extensive newspapers coverage by the Brantford Expositor, The Hamilton Spectator, and the Toronto Star. Recent changes and WP:HEY confirm this coverage. Flibirigit (talk) 13:10, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, per above. BeanieFan11 (talk) 17:48, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is a real team. We should not be deleting real, notable things. Maine 🦞 19:37, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Prestbury, Cheshire. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:23, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bradley Mount[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Bradley Mount (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 house, not a village and not notable 1rre (talk) 12:58, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that it is not a village but a house - I'm unsure if it's still there but the article is wrong either way and the house doesn't seem to be notable, only appearing as an address outside of incorrect geodata calling it a village.
See google books search: https://www.google.com/search?q=%22Bradley+Mount%22+(Prestbury+%7C+Butley)&tbm=bks
See 1900s OS map from the National Library of Scotland: https://maps.nls.uk/geo/find/#zoom=16.2&lat=53.29370&lon=-2.14163&layers=298&b=11&z=0&point=0,0 1rre (talk) 13:05, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep it is a small area where people live, not a house. I think all populated places are presumed notable. See https://opengovuk.com/place/ChIJ8SHBcvlLekgRL8hvnrv6H2o CT55555(talk) 14:30, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Skynxnex (talk) 14:34, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete The house is still there, and the area shown by opengovuk is plainly BS: it takes parts of two different neighborhoods/whatever, with a blank area between them, and mashes them together nonsensically; te house is in fact just to the NW of of one corner of this fiction. Mangoe (talk) 15:08, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    It seems unlikely as the name of a building, mount is more commonly used in a place or hill name. For example Badgers Mount, St Michael's Mount, Rydal Mount
    Looking at the link to the map above, it says "Bradley Mount" near to three separate properties, so I don't think that is the name of one of them, you can see on google maps that the larger one is called Fern Gulley. Mount on a UK map probably indicates an area that is raised in height, rather than a building, based on what the word mount means. CT55555(talk) 15:26, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    This is objectively false.
    Check the books given at the link above, eg. the 1st result and it's clearly listed as the house, not the village.
    Check the OS Map, where it is also a house.
    Further, Rydal Mount is a house in Rydal, which further implies that this is just a house. 1rre (talk) 15:57, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, looking at Rightmove, there is a "Bradley House" in the exact position of Bradley Mount on the OS map - it's entirely possible it was renamed at some point, or that "Bradley House" is the house on the estate of Bradley Mount. Either way, the area suggested in OpenGovUk doesn't even include this area, and is likely sourced from faulty geodata (either from Google Maps, or from where Google Maps got their data initially).
    https://www.rightmove.co.uk/house-prices/details/england-106428989-73596708?s=c13581271a2995990ef4b9436b49fc3562de4b012e837590673382e2fc30e8b9#/ 1rre (talk) 16:04, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    For more info on it being listed as a house in the OS map, a higher scale map & a key can be found here:
    https://maps.nls.uk/view/128076798
    https://maps.nls.uk/view/114582739 1rre (talk) 16:11, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Good point on Rydal Mount. Can you say why you think the first one indicates it's a specific house? CT55555(talk) 16:09, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The key for the map is here:
    https://maps.nls.uk/view/114582739
    The font used for "Bradley Mount" is one of:
    • Gentelemens Seats
    • Manufactories, Mines, Farms, Locks
    • Isolated Houses
    • Small Rivers and Brooks
    The most likely case is a gentemens seat, farm or isolated house, but regardless none of the potential categories are a village. 1rre (talk) 16:17, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    And on the book, the format is overwhelmingly "Street Address, Town" - the only instances where the format differs seems to be when a street address is not given, or further clarification on the address is needed 1rre (talk) 16:24, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    And looking at the other books, the 3rd book (https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=FHtEAAAAMAAJ&q=%22Bradley+Mount%22+(Prestbury+%7C+Butley)&dq=%22Bradley+Mount%22+(Prestbury+%7C+Butley)&hl=en&newbks=1&newbks_redir=1&printsec=frontcover&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjMlOS6np_8AhVPXMAKHeJ8AswQ6AF6BAgEEAI) says "Frances Eliza Crompton was born at ' Bradley Mount ' , Butley , near Prestbury in Cheshire , on 18 February 1866" - saying "born at" implies it is a specific location, as "born in" would be used for a village 1rre (talk) 16:31, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Not sure if this is necessarily true. Older British usage often used "at" for a village or town where modern usage would be "in". RobinCarmody (talk) 18:00, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment irrespective of automatic notability, it's difficult to see much value in an article whose word-count matches 1rre's admirably economical AfD nomination. Are we ever going to have anything useful to write about this place, whatever it is? Elemimele (talk) 00:19, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, I changed my mind after reading the comments. I'm now less certain if it's a house or a village, but also the comment above is astute, with so little information coming up even during the AFD as we search, there is little merit to having the article. I suggest we delete but let someone recreate if sources are found, or notability increases. CT55555(talk) 23:32, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I also support the redirect. CT55555(talk) 18:41, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Prestbury, Cheshire - Royal Mail UK postcode finder lists Bradley Mount as a single address. To be retained the building would need to be notable. However, this map [13] suggests it represents a larger area (zoom in below PRESTBURY). Be that as it may, the map shows a group of houses along a road and some fields. WP:GEOLAND states that there is a presumption of notability for a legally recognised, populated place, but the evidence on balance doesn't show this amounts to one. Not all housing estates, minor suburbs, historical place names have or deserve a standalone page. They're treated on a case-by-case basis. A noticeboard at the entrance to the estate built on the area's fields shows Prestbury Parish Council and addresses have the road followed by Prestbury so perhaps a redirect would be preferable? Rupples (talk) 05:03, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    A very sensible suggestion; for precedent, see Fenton, Cambridgeshire which is an inhabited region of minutely-few inhabitants, sensibly lumped together with the already diminutive Pidley, both by the authorities and by Wikipedia. They share a single mountain rescue team. Elemimele (talk) 18:24, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    A mountain in Cambridgeshire? Phil Bridger (talk) 19:18, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Prestbury, Cheshire. Also shown on the Historic England online maps as a single house, but even if it is a an area I don't think it's a recognised settlement. I can see no evidence of signs marking it or pointing to it. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:22, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Britain's Got Talent (series 12). RL0919 (talk) 19:57, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bring It North[edit]

Bring It North (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:BAND WWGB (talk) 12:11, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 12:58, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Soheil Shirangi[edit]

Soheil Shirangi (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 independent establishment of notability, all sources are self-published. WWGB (talk) 12:05, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete the editor is an undisclosed paid editor and I've speedied the rest of his bios for artists signed to his recording company Jimfbleak - talk to me? 11:33, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Even without the paid editing accusations, the article content needs WP:GNG-compliant sources (independent, reliable, in-depth) and we lack any. There's a language barrier that prevents me from doing effective searching of the Iranian literature, though, so if such sources turn up in the AfD I might be persuaded to change my mind. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:20, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails WP:GNG and WP:COMPOSER.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 05:01, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:20, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kambi Rajpuria[edit]

Kambi Rajpuria (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:NMUSICIAN. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 11:27, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:13, 25 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting due to a premature keep call by the creator of the page.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LilianaUwU (talk / contribs) 10:46, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. No demonstration that subject is notable as a musician. —C.Fred (talk) 03:39, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I think some Indian news sites have covered their songs and some news sites.12have covered his career But we get some sources about him reference but they are from notable sites coverage lots on this Times Of India.343Tichku (talk) 9:00, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
  • Delete. Clearly fails to meet Wikipedia:SINGER, refs are ToI auto generated pages. M.Ashraf333 (talk) 13:08, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Daniel (talk) 21:13, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

JHDL[edit]

JHDL (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)

Project-like work, stopped in 2006, no industrial use or further citations available (2nd, 3rd sources). WP:NOR 17387349L8764 (talk) 10:43, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Arguments to delete are generally not founded in policy. Deletion would be appropriate if the topic as a whole; that is, suppression of the Ukrainian language; were not covered in reliable sources. Those arguing to keep have put forward such sources, which have not been rebutted. All other concerns, such as specific unverifiable content, or whether a list is the best format, are best resolved through talk page discussion or direct editing. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:20, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Chronology of Ukrainian language suppression[edit]

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

It's a misleading list, conflacting many various unconnected events, in order to create impression of a total suppression of Ukrianian language throughout the ages. Not to mention that some points on the list I was able to verify are simply false Marcelus (talk) 10:37, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 

  • Comment @Marcelus, care to give examples of those "points on the list I was able to verify are simply false"? Ping me if you reply. The ⬡ Bestagon[t][c] 15:46, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @The Bestagon the one I already deleted: decision of the Sejm of the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth on the introduction of the Polish language in the courts and institutions of the Right-Bank Ukraine is false, because in 1697 Sejm recognised Polish as a de facto language of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, Ukraine wasn't part of it for a long time. But there are others, almost all of them are problematic. For example: 1884 - the ban by Alexander III of Ukrainian theater in all the provinces of Little Russia is not true. Ukrainian theater was banned earlier but in 1881 the ban was abolished, 1880s was actually small "golden age" of Ukrainian theatre in Russian Empire. Another: 1869 – Introduction of the Polish language as the official language of education and of the administration of Polish Eastern Galicia, even if that is true it's not a ban of Ukrainian, because Polish replaced German, in the worst case situation of Ukrianian didn't change. Basically all of them are problematic, I was trying to confirm them in historical literature, but couldn't find any, basically only Valuev Circular and Ems decree are supported by actual historians. It's basically copypasted list that circulates in Ukrainian/Russian webzone for couple years. Marcelus (talk) 22:10, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @The Bestagon to continue: 1720 – Peter I's decree banning printing in the Ukrainian language and the seizure of Ukrainian church books., what actually happened (and what reference is saying): Peter III forbade the printing of non-religious books in Pechersk Lavra and Chernigov, regardless of language. Marcelus (talk) 22:26, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Could it not be reworded? Mellk (talk) 01:35, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @The Bestagon Another example: 1881 – Prohibition of teaching in the public schools and conducting church sermons in Ukrainian. is completely wrong, in 1881 the amendment was made to Ems decree allowing usage of Ukrainian in dictionaries (but with Russian alphabet) and the theatrical performances were allowed, but only after the special permision of governor-general, and exclusively Ukrainian theatrical companies were prohibited. The Church sermons in Ukrainian were disallowed much earlier, but it's impossible to pin point the exact date, because there was no such official decree. That's another problem with this article, it was rarely done officialy, by officially enacted decrees it was often done on a local level, over longer period of time etc. What's more some things were disallowed at some point, later allowed to be disallowed again. It was much more complex process Marcelus (talk) 09:16, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This article contains useful information and presents it in a clear manner. On a sidenote, deleting such an article while the Russo-Ukrainian War is raging and the Ukrainian identity itself is repeatedly questioned could very well be construed as an anti-Ukrainian action. Cukrakalnis (talk) 21:26, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Whether the article should be deleted or not should depend on if it meets the criteria for deletion (not saying this one necessarily does). We are not going to keep articles because something "could very well be construed as an anti-Ukrainian action". The nominator however needs to be more specific on why it should be deleted and what guidelines it does not meet. Mellk (talk) 21:55, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
speedy keep - Marcelus above identifies some elements in the list that are unverifiable or wrong. The proper thing to do in that case, of course, is to delete anything that is unsourced or incorrect, not to come to AfD. Quite possibly the article would also need a re-write into a proper article, instead of a list. But absence of an applicable AfD rationale for a deletion is a criterion for speedy keep. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 18:19, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Also it looks like you have had some content disputes with the nominator very recently. Mellk (talk) 21:58, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Mellk yeah, @Cukrakalnis is trying to frame me in all things worst for some time, I got used to it. I added to my statement more specific examples Marcelus (talk) 22:13, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Mellk, Marcelus has insulted me by saying that You have basic deficiencies in the critical apparatus. [14] and firmly stands by what he said (in his own words on 17 July 2022) in direct response when I brought up his verbal abuse towards me in this section (links to both can be found in that section). He also has repeatedly denigrated my work on Wikipedia, which he also did in that section, where I was asking for a stop to the unending disputes between us through a WP:IBAN, but for some reason it was not satisfied despite ample reason. In fact, Marcelus tried (unsuccesfully) to get me banned that same month on baseless accusations. Cukrakalnis (talk) 13:12, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
My opinion about your edits didn't change a bit. And once again these aren't insults. Can we now focus on the topic? Marcelus (talk) 14:35, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Saying that someone has basic deficiencies in the critical apparatus is clearly an insult and this was only brought up because of your false accusations towards me. You yourself went off-topic and I was obliged to address your false claims. Cukrakalnis (talk) 15:19, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Article clearly meets notability criteria, article form (timeline) is a common way to convey information on Wikipedia. The rational for deletion is an unsubstantiated POV ("It's a misleading list, conflacting many various unconnected events, in order to create impression of a total suppression of Ukrianian language throughout the ages.") and articles in need of improvement is not a valid reason to delete. ("Not to mention that some points on the list I was able to verify are simply false").  // Timothy :: talk  01:06, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The information in this article may be useful, but this is an unorthodox and unprecedented style of article in Wikipedia. I am not sure why is a timeline of this necessary, I am sure the information can be integrated into other articles without any problem. That deletion "could very well be construed as an anti-Ukrainian action" is a statement that shouldn't be taken seriously in this discussion. Super Ψ Dro 01:39, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    It is orthodox and well precedented. See WP:Timeline and WP:Timeline standards.  —Michael Z. 17:16, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    See also List of timelines and Category:Wikipedia timelines.  —Michael Z. 15:25, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - This "incorrect" info might be accurate (or not, haven't verified the nom's claims), but it's pretty weird to have an article on this bunch of unrelated events. As mentioned before, "could very well be construed as an anti-Ukrainian action" is not a valid argument. In fact, I can say that keeping the article could very well be construed of anti-Russian action. (That also won't be a valid argument, but it's pretty much the same logic.) The ⬡ Bestagon[t][c] 04:16, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Super Dromaeosaurus @The Bestagon @Mellk I said ...could very well be construed as an anti-Ukrainian action not because that would be a valid argument for keeping the article on Wikipedia (I thought I made it clear by saying On a sidenote) and not because the mere deletion of this article would be a case of Anti-Ukrainian sentiment, but merely to remind all those involved about how sensitive Wikipedians should be when it comes to Ukraine-related content on Wikipedia, considering the current Russian aggression against Ukraine, Ukrainians and the Ukrainian identity. Cukrakalnis (talk) 13:23, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Apologies for misunderstanding your statement, but it doesn't change my earlier !vote though. The point stands that the article is just a collection of decrees (official and not) that aren't really related, except by their goal of suppressing the Ukrainian language. This general idea can be portrayed with a few sentences on an article on the history of Russian- or Polish-ruled Ukraine. The ⬡ Bestagon[t][c] 13:42, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep this is chronology list based on academician sorces and objects of academician study. Importance and citetion criteria are obvious.--PsichoPuzo (talk) 10:09, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Your argument is false: 90% of the article is based on single source, non-academic article Marcelus (talk) 10:45, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Did you saw Chronology of Ukrainian language suppression#Sources section? --PsichoPuzo (talk) 20:59, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    That's irrelavant, since it's pretty obvious the whole chronology was copypasted from the article in reference Marcelus (talk) 21:13, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Try to read something frome those section, and other links.--PsichoPuzo (talk) 21:57, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Read my all my comments here, and you will see that I know what I am talking about Marcelus (talk) 22:08, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I see. A short guide to the linguicide of the Ukrainian language | Infographics, The “Doubling of Hallelujah” for the “Bastard Tongue”: The Ukrainian Language Question in Russian Ukraine, 1905–1916 // Harvard Ukrainian Research Institute How Russia weaponizes the language issue in Ukraine, It's good that you can read cyrillic.--PsichoPuzo (talk) 22:32, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Why you link all of these? Marcelus (talk) 23:03, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - GizzyCatBella🍁 14:46, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep  It’s mind-boggling that someone can say 1) the oppression of Ukrainian language, by colonial powers, in Ukraine is all “unconnected.” Padded with two straw-man arguments 2) “in order to create impression of a total suppression of Ukrianian [sic] language” – falsely infers a malign motivation on the part of the nasty editors that created the article, falsely infers that “total” has some backing or significance, but fails to give a valid WP:DEL-REASON, and 3) “some points on the list . . . are simply false” – also an invalid reason to delete. —Michael Z. 16:51, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    But I’ll indulge and address 1) in detail. I guess, in lieu of any other applicable WP:DEL-REASON, the proposal is implying that the list doesn’t meet WP:N, or WP:LISTN. This timeline has been around for nine years without any deletion requests, so it’s not in some way obviously non-notable or clearly ripe for deletion. It does belong under the umbrella of established subject areas, including language policy, linguistic imperialism, linguistic discrimination, linguistic racism, cultural assimilation, cultural genocide. And it is specifically covered by sources as a subject field in Ukrainian history and linguistics, and indeed this is a topic integral to that subject. For example, George Y. Shevelov (1989), The Ukrainian language in the first half of the twentieth century, 1900-1941: its state and status, includes chapters that “place the language in its political and historic contexts: its suppression as the consequence of Ukrainian political oppression by Russians, Poles, and Rumanians, as well as Czechs and Slovaks,” and conceives the book as a “history of linguistic imperialism” (according to reviewer Dragan Milivojevic).[15] And yes, the topic and the attempt to delete this invaluable document is also strongly related to current events and the topic of Ukrainian nationality: Milivojevic also writes “of course, as the author points out, at the root of the various forms of suppression of the Ukrainian language was the denial of separate Ukrainian nationality. By denying the former, the latter was also denied. . . .” In case you don’t know, Russia is accused of incitement to genocide as part of its current war of aggression, with the evidence including “high-level Russian officials have repeatedly denied the existence of Ukrainian language, culture and national identity, implying instead that those who identify as distinctly Ukrainian threaten the ‘unity’ of Russians and Ukrainians.”[16] Not only does it need to be updated to account for recent events, it should not be ignored or deleted in their context. —Michael Z. 17:08, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It meets WP:LISTN, this topic has been covered by sources such as this, this, and this, as well as sources mentioned above. As observed by Michael Z the issues raised by the nominator are not valid WP:DEL-REASONs --Tristario (talk) 08:31, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Don't you people see the problem here? Two of the links you put there are literally the same list we have here, it's redundant. This list was copy pasted in Russian/Ukrainian web for years now, it's everywhere. Plus nobody here is trying to erase narrative about the suppression of Ukrainian language, there is already Ukrainian language article, there can be History of Ukrainian language article etc. Marcelus (talk) 19:37, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The existence of an article on a particular topic does not preclude a timeline article on that same topic, or an outline of that topic, or an index for the topic. They provide different ways to view and understand a topic and its constituent articles (chronologically, topically, alphabetically) and provide valuable navigation help. That articles need work (these certainly do) is not a valid reason to delete. What is needed is editing to improve and harmonize the articles.  // Timothy :: talk  20:16, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Here is another article written by uk:Борисенко Валентина Кирилівна that covers the topic Tristario (talk) 22:05, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - there's nothing that can't be fixed with ordinary editing decisions. Clearly notable topic. Bearian (talk) 21:18, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Bearian Nobody is saying that topic isn't notable. The question is if the list of dates is the best way to present it Marcelus (talk) 22:22, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    That's an issue for moving and re-naming. Bearian (talk) 17:53, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Bearian No, that's an issue with removing content, if there are already articles such as Ukrainian language Marcelus (talk) 18:26, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. RL0919 (talk) 08:01, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Paola Bonato[edit]

Paola Bonato (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)

Failure of WP:GNG. Little to no sources about her other than primary sources and stat profiles. Similar case to Nausica Pedersoli. Paul Vaurie (talk) 08:02, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and Italy. Paul Vaurie (talk) 08:02, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 21:10, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. GiantSnowman 11:07, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per comments below, and article improvement. Good work by BBDS. GiantSnowman 16:11, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - this is a very different situation to Nausica Pedersoli - the entry at the Dizionario del Calcio Italiano indicates we are talking about one of the all-time greats of Italian football. NFOOTBALL went in the bin because it was being misused to keep unnotable article subjects with one or two appearances (and WP:FPL was nonsense contrived to perpetuate that). But I don't think the intention was ever to facilitate the deletion of players with 71 international appearances for a leading nation, including at the knockout stages of five major tournaments! For a pre-internet era female footballer to be generating coverage more than 30 years after their last international appearance is in my opinion a signifier that we are talking about a notable player. Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 16:20, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - clearly an extremely influential footballer and an important figure in the history of Italian women's football. Looks like BBDS has performed a WP:HEY. @GiantSnowman: Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 14:36, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails GNG. Interviews do not help someone pass GNG. The Dizionario del Calcio Italiano(containing 2000 people including masseurs) isn't enough. Dougal18 (talk) 16:33, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per BBDS.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 00:08, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per BBDS, I can see the article being improved further. And the assumption that interviews don't help GNG is absurd! Those are key contributions to help establish GNG. Govvy (talk) 15:06, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Per above. Clearly was significant figure in women's Italian football. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 20:38, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. This is a procedural close as I don't see a consensus after 3 relistings. No penalty for a future AFD. Liz Read! Talk! 07:46, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Changfeng (missile)[edit]

Changfeng (missile) (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)

Unreliable sources. Cursory Google search finds no reliable sources. The unreliable GlobalSecurity article contains just a namedrop. The unreliable Sinodefence.com article suggests that a missile called "Changfeng" may have been in development sometime in the past (hard to tell when from the article); perhaps the program simply died, or was just the result of the rumour mill. - RovingPersonalityConstruct (talk, contribs) 05:25, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • weak keepIt appears to be the ancestor to the CJ-10 and I suspect this might have to be further researched
Ask me about air Cryogenic air (talk) 17:44, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:28, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:14, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

::Keep due to flawed nomination justification. AFD process guides nominators to do a range of searches detailed at WP:BEFORE but the argument above is based on a "Cursory Google search" therefore I see this as not a valid proposal to delete. CT55555(talk) 05:39, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Google Books turns up a mention/blurb in self-published book ([17]). Google News turns up an article on spacewatch.global ([18]) which mentions "SpaceTrek openly advertises their Changfeng series of cruise missiles". Additional searches for spacetrek and changfeng turned up a Twitter post mentioning spacetrek and "Changfeng series of missiles", and a repub of a SpaceTrek press release ([19]) mentioning "Changfeng Type target missiles".
From what I can tell, coverage is insignificant and unsustained. That's assuming that it even exists and that "Changfeng" is not just a name that was earlier associated with some other weapon (as seems to be implied by the non-reliable sinodefence and globalsecurity articles referenced by the article) but for which I have yet to find reliable corroboration for. - RovingPersonalityConstruct (talk, contribs) 00:01, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Bold third relist. Soft-delete is not available due to the (weak) keep. Needs further input to reach consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 07:54, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - added a source. I feel like any sources documenting this might be in chinese so might be difficult to find
HeliosSunGod (talk) 16:26, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
How is machtres.com a reliable source? - RovingPersonalityConstruct (talk, contribs) 17:00, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Appears to be military website that writes about military equipment specifications, appears to be independent and reliable, as it accurately describes other military equipment HeliosSunGod (talk) 03:56, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You have a strange idea about what constitutes a reliable source (Wikipedia:Reliable sources). Just for starters, the notice on the website states:

The material herein is a collection of articles and images displayed publicly on the site and belong to their respective creators :: Airdisasters - 1001 Crash - Airliners - Google Images - Wikipedia - YouTube - Ria Novosti - Interdefensa - Popular Mechanics - CONAE - INVAP - CITEDEF - NASA - EADS - LCDA - Boeing, and others. all thank you very much for your invaluable support and cooperation to carry on this site.

This is, at best, just another aggregator. Independent scholarship is not evident. The use of Wikipedia also raises concerns of WP:CIRCULAR. The site, and cited page, also do not indicate authors and their credentials. WP:SELFPUBLISH sources are a dime a dozen and typically not reliable. - RovingPersonalityConstruct (talk, contribs) 05:24, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
CU note HeliosSunGod is blocked as a sock, please disregard their !vote. Girth Summit (blether) 13:23, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Draftify. I just hope that editors here are willing to spend time working on this draft. Liz Read! Talk! 07:43, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Pallavi Banerjee[edit]

Pallavi Banerjee (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)

Recently prodded by Onel5969, deprodded by an IP editor; I am finding it difficult to assume good faith on the deprod. I think it is WP:TOOSOON for WP:NPROF notability for this 2012 PhD and current associate professor. I see only a double handful of citations of the subject's work. There appear to be several books, so WP:NAUTHOR notability is plausible, but I did not find book reviews to meet this criterion. No other signs of notability. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 07:33, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Women, Social science, and Canada. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 07:33, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Beyond the lack of published book reviews (my searches only found one review of one book, doi:10.1093/sf/soac127/6858936) and the inadequate number of citations (making WP:AUTHOR and WP:PROF notability look dubious) the article is quite promotional, and makes some claims that appear quite overstated. For instance, "her collaborative book, Immigrant Women Workers in the Neoliberal Age"? She is not one of the principals of this book (its three listed editors), merely one of many contributors. So in the event that some reason is found to keep this, it would need heavy cleanup. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:46, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or drafify. In addition to what is said above, I'll stress the issue with promotional exaggeration, which at at first made me consider this a case of WP:COI (red flag is the link to a profile described as "her partner" - this kind of personal information is eyebrow-raising). Much of the reception is written as if "Banerjee and Connell" are major co-authors, but a search in Decentering Social Theory does not return any results for Banerjee (just Connell). This is just a variation of the puffery found in other parts of the article, such as "Banerjee is widely recognized for their work on Southern Theory" - cited to their own paper. So, the article states, in effect, that Banerjee is recognized as important by Banerjee - but not, apparently, by anyone else of note. This is not well written, at minimum. Maybe she will be notable eventually, but for now this is just reads like an embarassing attempt at promoting one person (failing WP:GNG, WP:NPOV, etc.). However, although it reads like a failed COI PROMO, I'll note that the article is a creation of an educational course [20]. So WP:AGF this is probably a well-meaning attempt at addressing Wikipedia's gender gap in coverage; unfortunately in this case the chosen article is not about a notable person. I'll ping course Wiki Edu supporting staff: User:Helaine (Wiki Ed), User:Ian (Wiki Ed), User:Brianda (Wiki Ed) and instructors, User:Ingotsofcopper, User:Outwestwarrior, with a note to have students review WP:PROF and WP:NBIO as well as WP:NPOV and WP:OR before the next set of assignments. PS. There is some helpful discussion at the student's page at User talk:Cb21519. I hope the student won't be discouraged, but will learn how to write more neutral content about, well, more notable individuals.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 10:00, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NSCHOLAR.Onel5969 TT me 10:41, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Drafity The article is too WP:PROMO. There might be a basis to write one, I was able to establish that she is often quoted in the media, maybe a bit of an exert in migration and gender issues, but the article cannot remain up in its current form. If the author was willing to rewrite it with only what made the news and complied with normal guidelines, draftifying could be good, but not if it is just going to be put back into main space without serious editing. Some sources:
  1. https://calgary.ctvnews.ca/calgary-professor-receives-1m-in-funding-to-research-with-immigrant-refugee-youth-1.5900046
  2. https://www.studyinternational.com/news/participation-rate-uk/ CT55555(talk) 14:03, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Draftify Agree with the above explanations, I think we can cobble together an article, but what's here now isn't quite at wiki standards yet. I'd encourage the editor who started it to give it another shot! Oaktree b (talk) 20:39, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Draftify - Unfortunately these students are being given poor advice and encouraged to move their articles to mainspace before they are ready. Deb (talk) 16:44, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 07:11, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The National Coalition of Blacks for Reparations in America[edit]

The National Coalition of Blacks for Reparations in America (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)

There are NO independent reliable non-SPS sources in this article that indicate any notability. – S. Rich (talk) 06:38, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Again, the nominator is encouraged to look beyond English-language sources of information. Liz Read! Talk! 03:53, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

5 Para A Meia-Noite[edit]

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

Fails GNG and Wikipedia:Notability (television). I couldn't find anything that makes it notable or mentions it in the least. I barely even found there name. `~HelpingWorld~` (👽🛸) 06:30, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:28, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:19, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. This just needs more translation work from the article in the parent Wikipedia. VF (talk) 10:14, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - there are sufficient sources in the Portuguese language version of the article to meet NEXIST and the GNG. matt91486 (talk) 16:02, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep there are reliable sources in Portuguese that demonstrate notability. TipsyElephant (talk) 02:58, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. I was tempted to do a procedural close and restart this AFD because of all of the sock activity but I assume that would also occur on a 3rd AFD. While I hate giving sockpuppets what they are seeking, I'm persuaded by the arguments for those advocating Delete that this BLP is basically an attack page. This is not saying that the subject could not have an article in the future just that this one isn't suitable for the project. Liz Read! Talk! 06:18, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

John Babikian[edit]

AfDs for this article:
John Babikian (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)

John Babikian is not a historical significant person. He had a trial for penny stock fraud for which he was recently found not guilty. The divorce amount mentioned isn't relative cause that case was dropped. Finally, the creator of this page joined Wiki in January 2017 and was banned the same day immediately after creating this page which is very suspicious. See the creator of the page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Inimfon Babile266 (talk) 05:51, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: This page should be removed. It doesn't qualify as a Biography of Living Person (BLP's), nor does John Babikian have any historical significance. Per the rules cited here ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons ), "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid".
Let me summarize the content: It begins with an ugly expensive divorce where according to court testimony, the wife hired a PR agency to damage her ex's name to extort a $100m settlement. After the $100 million dollar demands got thrown out of court, John is later found not-guilty for penny stock crimes. The only thing with merit seems to be some fees paid to the SEC without Babikian ever admitting guilt. Ultimately, this is pretty much the life story of 99% of all bankers working on Wall Street. In short, this is all tabloid material, but the person and content are definitely not Wikipedia page worthy. Danielcohens (talk) 10:20, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Leaning delete. The crimes and amounts seem rather small-scale overall, and therefore run-of-the-mill. BD2412 T 14:57, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep many mentions in Canadian media, under the name "Loup de Montreal" (Wolf of Montreal). Mentioned in a Globe and Mail article [21], Vice news [22], these in the Journal de Montreal in 2014 and 2015, [23], [24] and here [25], mentioned in the Wall Street Journal [26]. Oaktree b (talk) 15:10, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    He's also been thought to have been involved with a Cayman Islands bank fraud [27], so he's gathered a fair bit of media attention. As recently as 2019, they were still discussing him and how he seemed to have disappeared [28]. Oaktree b (talk) 15:14, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
He's also been mentioned in Oregon, as he has some dealings with a vineyard [29]. Oaktree b (talk) 01:03, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

● Strongly Vote to Delete based on testimony in a federal court by the former VP of Weber Shandwick (the worlds largest PR firm) who claimed John Babikian's ex-wife hired them to brand him as "The Wolf of Montreal". https://www.europeanbusinessreview.com/john-babikian-acquitted-all-penny-stock-fraud-charges/ . The fact a top PR firm was hired to shame him draws a symmetrical line between the original author of this page who was subsequently banned by Wikipedia the very day of its origination for using multiple accounts. Let's face it, it's clear as day all reference to any article containing the words "Wolf of Montreal" is part of a strategic defamation campaign.

Suffice to say, all the old articles I found on Babikian claim over 10 years ago he was some mysterious wealthy figure under suspicion for pump and dump scams. But after reading the more recent articles, especially the testimony of the VP of Weber Shandwick, it all makes sense. I also read the Caymen Island article posted above about bank fraud in translation from French to English and found nothing of substance other than "suspicions" using the same "Wolf of Montreal" branding cited by Journal De Montreal. Hover your mouse over the Journal De Montreal and you will see Wikipedia cites it as a "Daily News Tabloid". So I agree with the person who submitted this page for deletion cause Wikipedia rules on living person biographies stipulate Wikipedia is not a tabloid, rather an encyclopedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons

Also, the more recent articles about John Babikian all state he was fully exonerated from all penny stock fraud related allegations by a US Federal court. So what exactly is John so famous for that he deserves to be in a encyclopedia?

The only negative thing I could find worth noting was a SEC settlement. I mean if you pay a traffic ticket without going to court, your admitting guilt. According to the Wall Street Journal listed in the citation above [30], John was required to pay $3.7m without being required to admit or deny the allegations. Even the WSJ says the charges by the SEC pertain to one single newsletter email he sent to promote some stock. That hardly makes him a pump and dump scam artist. So lets face it, journalists and PR agents don't decide the guilt or innocence of a person, rather courts do. Thus I vote delete cause Wikipedia isn't supposed to be a suspenseful news tabloid describing expensive dirty divorces, nice houses or cars, nor succumb to manipulative PR company negative defamation campaigns, nor was it designed to make a big deal out of administration fees levied by the government (otherwise, anybody who ever got fined by the SEC or a parking ticket would be on Wikipedia), etc. I'm not pro rich Wall Street hustlers (very opposite), but after reading what the judge said in his verdict about John's ex-wife hiring a top PR agency to ruin his name in effort to extort a $100m, and reviewing the fact this page was created by an account that was deleted (for abusing multiple accounts) the same exact day this page on John Babikian was created (see: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Inimfon&action=edit&redlink=1 ) - I conclude this should be deleted.YTKevduck (talk) 20:58, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Journal de Montreal is sensational perhaps, but they are a reliable source, as they don't publish fabricated or false stories. About the same quality as the Toronto Sun. Oaktree b (talk) 00:53, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
He's also gathered interest as a rich person in Quebec, they talk about the large house he's built and the cars he drives, regardless of what he did or didn't do. Oaktree b (talk) 00:56, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
And he's widely discussed for owing back taxes in Quebec, 15 million dollars or so, regardless of what happened with the stock trial. Oaktree b (talk) 01:07, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The article you referenced is nearly a decade old. WP:BLPPRIMARY are not designed for wealthy individuals owning nice cars, houses, etc., or those who owe taxes. If that were the case, the majority of the financial sectors millionaires and billionaires would have their own dedicated page. Let's be honest, most of the wealthiest people in society have expensive homes and vehicles, get divorced and they evade paying taxes, etc. His story may create sensational tabloid material, but its just not encyclopedia worthy. Pepinko08 (talk) 03:25, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

● Delete John Babikian was branded as "The Wolf of Montreal" by a known PR agency hired by his ex-spouse who at the time was suing him for millions in divorce court. The citations reveal the divorce court didn't give her a penny and the federal courts acquitted him of all penny stock related criminal charges. Hardly a reason to have a biography on Wikipedia. Also, most of the referenced articles are nearly 10 years old labeling him as "The Wolf of Montreal" which by court verdict is essentially defamatory. Wikipedia Community (talk) 02:16, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

He's also covered for being involved in a vineyard and for owing millions in back taxes, neither of which are "defamatory". Oaktree b (talk) 03:10, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Reuters coverage of his need to pay a fine regardless of a conviction [31] and he's covered in a Radio Canada story [32]. The idea is that we tell his story, not if he was guilty or not. He's also covered in a story from St. Kitts and Nevis, giving details such as the fact that he holds 4 passports and fled to Monaco [33].He's also discussed in a page or two in a criminology textbook [34]. He's also been linked to the Pandora Papers [35]. Is also mentioned in the Norwegian press [36]. He ended up paying a substantial fine and still owes back taxes, should be enough for GNG. Oaktree b (talk) 06:01, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete While I'm neither inclusionist or deletionist I find that equivocal notability can result in stubby articles with little scope for progression. This article covers a criminal conviction which never happened and a house that didn't get built. While there are reliable sources, eg this vice article, the sources report on a single event from the time of the even which to my mind still makes the source primary in nature and to me the lack of biographical overview confirms this. Most of the sources are primary in nature so we've ended up with an attack page here with WP:BLPPRIMARY written all over it. If those voting keep can produce a WP:BLP compliant article based on verifiable secondary and tertiary sources then I'll happily defect to the other side and change my vote to keep.𝔓420°𝔓Holla 13:17, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There are a lot of reliable sources on the life and adventures of Babikian, I see no doubt that they are enough for WP:N. The article is a mess, but that is another story. Moonraker (talk) 20:18, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - This article doesn't fit the standard for WP:BLPPRIMARY. Who really cares about his divorce or judicial acquittal, a house never built, or about an "alleged partner" of Babikian, etc? I mean even mentioning that unanswered letters with questions were sent to his lawyer isn't worthy of Wikipedia. So I vote to delete. Pepinko08 (talk) 03:09, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per Nom. I've read through the page and at least 7 of the cited news article references, yet still feel the person lacks any reason for having his own dedicated page on Wiki. LloydPlayz (talk) 07:39, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete To assist others in voting, the real question is what are Wikipedia's rules and criteria for Biographies of Living People? So I'll start by quoting the WP:BLP rules: "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives". So let's examine the page and facts cause I'll put in bold the keypoints pertaining to each section of the John Babikian page. The content begins by describing how John's notoriety was based off a $100m divorce by his ex-wife that made headlines. Later in the content, it states the wife's demands were thrown out of court, and even references a court site showing she rescinded her allegations of stock fraud against him. At the far bottom of the wiki page, the judge said "While Mrs. Babikian was not a witness in these proceedings, nor has she ever been accused of a crime, the court has come to the conclusion she was in fact indirectly involved in manipulating the government to act on her behalf in effort to uncover her ex-husband’s bank accounts". So before I get to questioning the veracity and integrity of other portions of this Wiki page, let me start by clarifying I don't think any WP:BLP should ever begin with a persons notoriety being based off demands for money in a divorce settlement case, especially when a Federal Judge clearly refers to her as a manipulator. Remember, anybody can sue for millions, but that doesn't constitute a foundation for notoriety. The wiki article additionally references an expensive home, yet says it was never built or lived in - so why is it even mentioned? The wiki article further describes letters sent to his lawyers by the media that were never answered. Since when does not answering the media worthy of being cited on a Wiki page, or require 2 separate references? Again, this is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid, hence there is no historical value for this type of content on Wikipedia! The page on John Babikian additionally states, "The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority brought separate charges against an alleged partner of Babikian, stockbroker Thomas Belesis, for selling ahead of his clients on the same company. Belesis was eventually disbarred." Notice the keywords "alleged partner", "stockbroker" and "disbarred"? I checked the Wikipage of Thomas Belesis which details his crimes and there is no mention at all of John Babikian's involvement to substantiate "alleged partner". But pay attention, even the reference to Thomas being "disbarred" is a sham cause Thomas was never a lawyer nor credited by the Bar Association, rather just a stock broker. According to this Investmentnews.com article, Thomas was only BARRED from stock trading and the securities industry. Big difference between BARRED and DISBARRED. But let's go back to John cause this page goes on and on to contradict itself. For example, the wiki page dedicates a portion of John Babikian's biography claiming "In 2020, he disappeared, amid allegations of tax evasion.", citing page 80 of a Google ebook. I clicked on the referenced Google Ebook to read, and it revealed a blank page. But then I used common sense to conclude the statements relating to "disappearing" and "taxes" are bogus by simply scrolling further down in the actual John Babikian Wiki page where it states: "After an eight year investigation and subsequent Covid-19 delayed trial, Babikian was found not guilty". Notice, the words "Covid delayed trial?" This proves the statement inside of the wikipage of John "disappearing in 2020 for taxes" isn't true cause the entire world was forced on lockdown throughout 2020. It also proves after the lockdowns, John did show up for court to clear his name, so clearly he wasn't running from the tax authority or federal government. So now that I debunked the disappearing portion of the text, I'd like dive even deeper to debunk with common sense the statement of "owing taxes" as stated in the Wikipage. At the end of this referenced article it states "...the judge ordered over $100 million dollars in cash and property seized by authorities to be immediately return to Mr. Babikian". So again, using simple common sense, this statement disproves owing outstanding taxes, otherwise the courts wouldn't release back to him the money. I could go on and on, but I think my points show this page is full of so many misrepresentations that contradict common sense. Finally, regardless whether the sources are cited by "credible media" is not important cause the media makes money off stories, but the courts are the final arbitrator. Also, I should note even if certain portions about John are true (yes, I did find he was in fact fined nearly 10 years ago for $3.7m by the SEC), that is hardly a reason to have a dedicated biography page under the rules of WP:BLP OKamigo (talk) 05:52, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This material doesn't belong in the Britannica or Wiki encyclopedias as it lacks even minimal historical benefit. The sole purpose of Wikipedia in general as an encyclopedia, and WP:BLP in particular (especially pertaining to a living persons biography) is to highlight the legacy of notable people. This person is not notable for digital marketing or anything else. He's tabloid famous for an expensive car, a lavish house, divorce proceedings, and a bunch of investigations that resulted in a full judicial acquittal.Mithurjan (talk) 09:12, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have struck multiple sockpuppets. Greyjoy talk 03:33, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
User Compositngforlife has also sent me an email asking me to reconsider, I do think the socks are out in force now. Oaktree b (talk) 16:26, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Can that account be checked for sock or meat puppetry? It's a brand new account with knowledge of how to email wiki editors, and zero edits outside of a talk page and the email sent to me. Here is their page [37]. Oaktree b (talk) 17:01, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
.Oaktree b, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mithurjan. I don't see that editor listed on the SPI case. Liz Read! Talk! 03:12, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, I'm still navigating the various nuances of AfD, sock-puppet investigations, I've not yet mastered. Oaktree b (talk) 13:58, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Leaning delete BLP with the only notoriety stemming from extravagant displays of wealth and white collar crimes the individual was acquitted of (unreliable source regarding acquittal?). Most of the coverage is in the context of unconvicted fraud allegations. Babikian has no notability as a businessman or "digital marketing expert". Are unconvicted criminal allegations the basis for his notability? Would an article have been created were it not for the accusations? Source checking (many of which are a bit sensationalist in their reporting, some borderline tabloid-like) shows that Babikian has covered mostly as a suspect of a fraud, but he has been acquitted of all charges. If the only basis for notability is his alleged wrongdoings, should BLP not trump GNG? Mooonswimmer 22:05, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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! 05:59, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ashwin Porwal[edit]

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

Article is recommended for deletion several times in the past. Most of the references are written by single person (aka Umesh Isalkar) questioning reliability of sources used to support notability. References are more advertorial in nature questioning credibility of subjects work. Article needs more credible and reliable references to prevent deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Truewiki1 (talk • contribs) 05:12, December 22, 2022 (UTC)

  • Comment Discussion page was created without the {{afd2}} template and never transcluded to a daily log--these issues have been fixed. This article had been tagged multiple times previously by at least three different accounts, but it's only on this latest attempt that they finally created a new discussion page (as "3rd nomination" when in reality it was only the second--also fixed). That said, I have no opinion of my own at this time on the article itself. --Finngall talk 05:31, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Medicine and Maharashtra. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 06:45, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:33, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, numerous "sources" are actually just one sources 'Times of India' listed numerous times with different articles, but one sources. — Moops ⋠T⋡ 05:47, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, problematic patterns. VF (talk) 10:16, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, if creator and publisher of source are essentially same, there aren't too many reliable sources for this subject since neither independence of sources can be proven, nor conflict of interest or self-publication can be ruled out. Claims made also seem not to be verifiable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chiirag (talk • contribs) 07:31, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 05:47, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fukuzumiro[edit]

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

This page does not site sources. It lists "Noted Guests' but provides no citations. It appears to be a corporate branding or some type of promotion for a hotel. Babile266 (talk) 05:30, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per nom. — Moops ⋠T⋡ 05:48, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Skynxnex (talk) 14:35, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom — Jumbo T (talk) 11:21, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Would have recommended a merge if the article cited any sources, but it doesn't. Would also note that there is no Japanese Wikipedia article for this establishment, and that the English Wikipedia article is technically an orphan. Cielquiparle (talk) 14:55, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Bernice Summerfield. Liz Read! Talk! 05:12, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A Life in Pieces[edit]

A Life in Pieces (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 believe this book fails WP:NBOOK, as my WP:BEFORE search only turned up book-selling websites and fan sites that don't pass WP:RS. As an alternative to deletion, the article could be redirected to Bernice Summerfield. OliveYouBean (talk) 05:13, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Second claim to notability has not been challenged. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:54, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lenny Skutnik[edit]

Lenny Skutnik (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)

Despite subsequent coverage in the media, this fellow is notable for only one event: the downing of Air Florida flight 90, nothing more (though certainly nothing less). Delete per WP:BLP1E. A loose necktie (talk) 05:06, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, while I would be inclined to agree with the nom for the "one event" rationale, there is actually a secondary aspect of notability (supported also in the sources) here that refers the the fact that anyone that is now invited to the presidential gallery as a guest for a special event or specifically the state of the union address is called a Lenny Skutnik, that detail and follow up sourced note adds to this short bios notability sufficient to retain the stub in my view. — Moops ⋠T⋡ 06:08, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Washington, D.C.. Justiyaya 08:28, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I think he's got GNG due to the fact that his name is/was used to cover anyone else who is at the presidential event as he was at one time. Oaktree b (talk) 15:50, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Leaning to Keep I concur with the rationale listed above. Wikipedia Community (talk) 01:42, 30 December 2022 (UTC) Striking sock vote. Vanamonde (Talk) 20:36, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 05:00, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hipi[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Hipi (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 closed as no consensus by non-admin. It's clearly non-notable. All are launches, announcements, published on the same date. Every news is based on PR Material. Lordofhunter (talk) 04:57, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business and India. Lordofhunter (talk) 04:57, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per nom. Non-notable, fails sufficient sourcing to pass muster as WP:GNG. — Moops ⋠T⋡ 06:18, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, not notable. VF (talk) 10:18, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Same as last time, no reliable sources found, most are name drops or PR stuff. It appears to be a somewhat widely-used platform, but no coverage in the media means no GNG. Oaktree b (talk) 15:51, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. RPSkokie (talk) 18:16, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 05:04, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Casa del Oro, Arizona[edit]

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

This is a house, built for Margaret Howard, Countess of Suffolk in 1957 and presently called Suffolk House. It has passed into the ownership of U. Arizona, along with Biosphere 2, which is immediately to the northwest. I am not finding much about that house which makes it notable of itself; it took some work to find even a photo of the interior, and it seems noteworthy only through its connections to the countess. But a settlement it is not and never was. Mangoe (talk) 04:54, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, if true, then delete per nom. I can't find anything to the contrary of what nom stated.— Moops ⋠T⋡ 06:21, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Arizona. Shellwood (talk) 10:46, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:V and WP:GEOLAND, as there aren't any reliable sources to support the claim that this is a populated place. The article cites GNIS (not reliable for this purpose) and "AZ Hometown Locator" (which just isn't reliable and is probably repeating GNIS data). Hut 8.5 17:03, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 05:10, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Laguna, Pinal County, Arizona[edit]

Laguna, Pinal County, Arizona (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)

Searching turns up nothing about what appears on the aerials as a ranch which may be abandoned. I can find no evidence for a notable settlement. Mangoe (talk) 04:14, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. Liz Read! Talk! 23:39, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Las Muñecas que hacen pum[edit]

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

Appears to fail WP:NFILM as I found no in-depth reviews. PROD removed with "contesting PROD - there are apparently 3 'reviews' on the Spanish Wikipedia article", but are they in-depth enough to count toward notability or are they passing mentions. DonaldD23 talk to me 02:10, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Argentina. DonaldD23 talk to me 02:10, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. ...but are they in-depth.... Didn't you check before nominating for deletion? SpinningSpark 14:33, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The first two cites on Spanish Wikipedia are to [38] this book. The cite to p. 179 appears to be a passing mention and gbooks won't serve p. 795. However, p. 428 (not cited) appears to have something more than trivial. The third cite is this book which clearly has something towards GNG as there is a section heading with the film title. I also found a couple of things that, while not being in-depth themselves, suggest an Argentine newspaper search is going to turn up more. There is this book which says in a footnote there was a public controversy over the lack of sexual censorship of the film leading to its eventual banning in at least two South American countries. And this magazine article criticises the film for being an apologist for the military dictatorship. SpinningSpark 14:33, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 02:12, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:25, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep as per the Spark who Spins. Hyperbolick (talk) 05:06, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per nom. — Moops ⋠T⋡ 06:26, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Moops: care to elaborate why you think the sources I found do not support notability? SpinningSpark 10:36, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    As nominator of the deletion I concur with Spinning Spark that the new citations make this pass WP:GNG at the very least. My opinion is now Keep DonaldD23 talk to me 16:19, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I will also amend my vote to Keep based on the new sources. — Moops ⋠T⋡ 18:02, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Some Weak Keeps but they are still editors advocating Keeping this article, based in large part on improvements by Guinness323 since the article was nominated. Liz Read! Talk! 23:41, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Gamewright Games[edit]

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

Doesn't pass WP:GNG, with the only source being the company's website. Was previously soft deleted, but was undeleted with no changes since being made. JML1148 (Talk | Contribs) 01:08, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Games and Business. JML1148 (Talk | Contribs) 01:08, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Little has changed since my original nomination, WP:NCORP is still failed per my WP:BEFORE. VickKiang (talk) 01:15, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I will point out that User:Rul Joules did request at WP:REFUND to have this soft deleted page restored to become a redirect, although they did not specify where they wanted this page to be redirected to, so it was simply restored as an article instead. BOZ (talk) 13:13, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. A notable children's game company that has published over 200 titles in the past thirty years, several of them notable enough to have their own articles. I have added more details and sources to demonstrate notability. The company has won dozens of awards, I have listed only the five Mensa Select Awards. Guinness323 (talk) 23:06, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for your substantial improvements, though I'm unsure if the coverage is adequate for WP:CORPDEPTH, e.g., this is very brief with just quotes and a couple of mentions. I also can't open ref 3 and 5- perhaps just an issue with my browser? Thanks. VickKiang (talk) 23:17, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I cannot open sources 3 or 5 either, and I am unconfident that any of the sources qualify for notability. Source 1, although I cannot be sure, sounds like a possible SIGCOV fail. Sources 2 and 4 definitely fail SIGCOV and source 6 and 7 seem like promotional content. JML1148 (Talk | Contribs) 23:57, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Here is reference 5. [39] Timur9008 (talk) 20:34, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per improvements by Guinness323. BOZ (talk) 23:46, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. VickKiang (talk) 02:04, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • weak keep Probably doesn't meet NCORP's higher standards, but does meet WP:N. [40] (yes, that's a Youtube video, but it's one by the most notable board game reviewer and it's focused solely on Gamewright and it's games). [41] is another one of the top game (and other thing) reviewers with an article focused on the company. Yes, both are focused on the products of the company, but A) both discuss the company and B) they are focused solely on the company. Hobit (talk) 00:57, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Reference 2 is someone who wrote in Wired, so they might be a subject-matter-expert. But I disagree, even by WP:GNG standards, it's WP:SIGCOV. Like you said it primarily focuses on products, but each time they actually discuss the company it's extremely trivial, i.e., Look who turned 20 this year! Gamewright publishes a whole bunch of family-friendly games... Here’s a quick look at their latest titles (first command F hit), was Gamewright’s very first game, and for the anniversary they’ve made an extra-large version with all-new artwork (second mention), Happy Birthday, Gamewright! Thanks for twenty years of great games, and best wishes for the next twenty as well! The rest are purely product-related details as far as I can tell. So I disagree that it's SIGCOV. Secondly, IMO The Dice Tower is marginally reliable (as per Wikipedia:WikiProject Board and table games/Sources), besides, it's a 6 minutes long listicle that IMHO isn't WP:SIGCOV. Of course, this is just my opinion, many thanks! VickKiang (talk) 01:56, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:24, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep with the sourcing given, I think it's just enough for notability. Oaktree b (talk) 15:55, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. At this point in time, according to participants in this discussion, there aren't Reliable sources to support this article. There might be in the future and this decision can be revisited. Liz Read! Talk! 03:52, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thái Bình massacre[edit]

Thái Bình 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)

Page fails WP:GNG as it lacks significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. Over the years a number of accusations have been made about war crimes allegedly conducted by South Korean forces during the Vietnam War that are very thinly sourced, often based on unverified Vietnamese claims and/or the existence of a post-war memorial in Vietnam claiming that a massacre occurred. It may be that this is part of the purported Bình An/Tây Vinh massacre which supposedly took place over the relevant period in the same area. Whatever the case, a page about a claimed massacre needs to be much better sourced than this. Mztourist (talk) 03:11, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • I completely disagree with you. Vietnam does not have a free press (see Censorship in Vietnam) and so anything in Vietnamese media must be treated with skepticism. There have been numerous cases of claimed battles and events in the war which have proven to be complete WP:HOAXes/WP:PROPAGANDA. All Users who participate in an AfD discussion are expected to make their own assessment of the sources provided and any other available sources to determine notability. Mztourist (talk) 04:08, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Think whatever you like. I'm entitled to express my opinion - which is that we have to be extremely careful when asking to delete pages about warcrimes when clearly people may have been directly affected. Simply saying that Vietnamese media is biased isn't good enough in my book. JMWt (talk) 04:25, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Not denying your right to express your opinion, just disputing your rationale. We have to be extremely careful about allowing pages to be created about war crimes unless we know they actually occurred. Mztourist (talk) 06:07, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, sources seem to fail to meet WP:GNG. While that may hurt some feelings above, the reality is that sources are what wikipedia goes on, there are plenty of other places on the internet for people to go and search if an editor is uncomfortable about how the encyclopedia we are building here operates. TY— Moops ⋠T⋡ 06:37, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment it is true that the sourcing is light. And also that war crime has a very specific definition. However I too urge caution before deleting. If some people say x and other people say not-x, the thing to do is write both sides given due weight, right? The article doesn't currently do that either, I grant you. The question then becomes whether this is sourceable. Probably not by me, since I don't speak or know anything about either Korean or Vietnamese, but I think the article should be listed at some projects. I'd do it but don't know how. Elinruby (talk) 08:04, 29 December 2022 (UTC) Followup - Link under Location in infobox goes to My Lai massacre. Lede says South Koreans but link in body goes to an American unit. Calling these as red flags but I still urge some due diligence and review by someone who knows the history. Elinruby (talk) 10:41, 29 December 2022 (UTC) Further followup I ran the Vietnamese source through Google Translate and perhaps it's a browser problem, but the only thing that seems to remotely apply is a comment, which is apparently appended to an astrology discussion (?) The link in Chinese seems to be malformed and doesn't work for me at all. Elinruby (talk) 10:57, 30 December 2022 (UTC) Additional note: The military unit is probably Capital Mechanized Infantry Division, which is known as Tiger, and was in the right area at the right time, so scratch the the request for listing this as related to the US military. Elinruby (talk) 12:51, 30 December 2022 (UTC) Also note - Bình Tai massacre supposedly carried out by South Koreans in the same province, but in October. I don't think I know enough to be able to determine if this is the same village or the same massacre, but given the sloppy wikilink error mentioned above, I can't rule it out. Elinruby (talk) 13:39, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • In relation to your comment about "write both sides given due weight" that is not possible because there is no WP:RS that says that this massacre didn't happen, as with anything its extremely difficult to prove a negative. Users need to take a view whether or not available RS confirm that this event occurred or probably occurred. Mztourist (talk) 03:22, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I am not arguing otherwise. You may know that you have done an exhaustive search for sources. I do not. What I know is that I can't find any, but might well be missing them. All I am saying is that we should not be too quick to close delete, although, yeah, at the moment that looks like the way to go. Leaving the AfD open pending more comment will probably solve that. Since there's a mention of a US unit maybe you should list this somewhere appropriate for that Elinruby (talk) 08:22, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Far too many red flags and zero RS. A quick search turned up nothing of note. The village name, of course, is the same as a larger town in what used to be North Vietnam, so it dominates most search results. The unit name is also inaccurate, and if the purported massacre happened in the same general area as My Lai (which took place roughly two years after this purported event...which doesn't even have a date listed aside from month and year) I would expect to find mention of it in the Peers report at least. But we have nothing. Intothatdarkness 16:52, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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! 03:48, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Abasuba Community Peace Museum[edit]

Abasuba Community Peace Museum (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 significant coverage to meet WP:ORG. Nothing in gnews and passing mentions in gbooks. LibStar (talk) 01:00, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 01:32, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, per above comment. Article could use with improvement, but meets GNG. — Moops ⋠T⋡ 06:38, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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/2022_December_29&oldid=1131853969"