Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2022 February 2

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< February 01 February 03 >

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 13:50, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Communist Front (Italy)[edit]

Communist Front (Italy) (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)

newly founded, obscure political movement that has never run in any elections and whose major claim to fame seems to be (according to the article) a small, unremarkable rally organized in Livorno. The only source is primary, nothing substantial in my WP:BEFORE search. Fails WP:ORG. Prod removed by article's creator without addressing notability concerns. Cavarrone 17:41, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:57, 2 February 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. Consensus is sourcing present is sufficient. Star Mississippi 23:25, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dead Clever[edit]

Dead Clever (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)

Film appears to fail WP:NFILM, as no sources cited, and no others found in a BEFORE. DonaldD23 talk to me 21:54, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:39, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment (It was a TV drama rather than a cinema release) If significant coverage is enough then keep as there was plenty of newspaper coverage when it was shown on ITV, but I don't think it won any awards or anything. The Times: preview (1-1-2007) "Sally Wainwright has set out to write an unashamedly entertaining yarn, driven along by ingenuity and a sense of fun", review (2-1-2007) "a horribly watchable piece of hokum, a sub-Life and Loves of a She-Devil drama of revenge by wronged wife. Searches on ProQuest: Dead clever return to TV: Northern Echo 28 Dec 2006; DEAD CLEVER Best of the festive TV NEW YEAR'S DAY, Daily Record Glasgow 23 Dec 2006; Your LIFE: WE LOVE TELLY! - DRAMA DEAD CLEVER The Daily Mirror; London (UK) [London (UK)]. 01 Jan 2007; Dead clever proves a bit of a dead loss The Press and Journal Dundee 06 Jan 2007; Back to black HELEN BAXENDALE REVEALS WHY A DARK COMEDY HAS ATTRACTED HER BACK TO TV DEAD CLEVER New Year's Day, ITV1, 9pm: Daily Post Liverpool etc. etc. 30 Dec 2006 Piecesofuk (talk) 17:36, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - whether it's a movie or not, it has some RS, and has multiple reviews in the mainstream press, sooo..... Deathlibrarian (talk) 02:39, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - enough coverage exists to keep. Caphadouk (talk) 18:09, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, as there are enough reviews to show notability.Jackattack1597 (talk) 20:31, 9 February 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. ✗plicit 23:42, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Guyana–Turkey relations[edit]

Guyana–Turkey relations (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. Most bilateral relations occur in a multilateral context eg Turkey-CARICOM. Most of the sources merely confirm non resident ambassadors/honorary consul. LibStar (talk) 23:37, 2 February 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. Star Mississippi 19:18, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Daniil Peretyatko[edit]

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

Non-notable Journeyman fighter who fails WP:NBOX. JTtheOG (talk) 23:22, 2 February 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. Star Mississippi 23:29, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Zurab Noniashvili[edit]

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

Non-notable boxer who fails WP:NBOX both as an amateur and a pro. JTtheOG (talk) 23:18, 2 February 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) 22:58, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jimmy Okello[edit]

Jimmy Okello (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:NCRIC and WP:NFOOTY inclusion guidelines. Fails NCRIC by having not appeared in a first-class/List A/Twenty20 match (the article does incorrectly state he has played List A cricket, which isn't the case) and fails NFOOTY as he has not played in a fully professional league. StickyWicket (talk) 22:55, 2 February 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 merge to Leslie Carter. RL0919 (talk) 23:01, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Like Wow! (album)[edit]

Like Wow! (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)

Unreleased album by someone who's claim to fame is being the sister of a Backstreet Boy and for dying young. She has a page of her own, as she herself seems notable. However, this unreleased album does not appear to pass notability requirements. Anything from this can potentially be added to her page. DonaldD23 talk to me 22:55, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That song also has its own article at "Like Wow!", and as a soundtrack item with a brief chart history, it might just be notable as an individual track. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 18:45, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Leslie Carter. The unreleased album actually has a little media discussion because she did not want to record it (forced by parents to do so at age 14), and because unauthorized promos and outtakes were leaked. But since the whole thing was never officially released, it does not merit its own article and can be discussed briefly at the singer's article. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 18:48, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Leslie Carter. Fails WP:NALBUM per nom. SBKSPP (talk) 00:43, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Leslie Carter. Does not qualify on its own per WP:NALBUM. Caphadouk (talk) 18:36, 9 February 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 Australia at the 1996 Summer Olympics#Equestrian. RL0919 (talk) 22:49, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

David Cooper (equestrian)[edit]

David Cooper (equestrian) (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:NOLY. LibStar (talk) 22:31, 2 February 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. Star Mississippi 23:27, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Norman Cambridge[edit]

Norman Cambridge (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:GNG/WP:NBIO due to insufficient depth of secondary sources. Headphase (talk) 21:33, 2 February 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) 22:28, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Parsons (company)[edit]

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

Non-notable. This article was PRODed in January 2015 as "Fails WP:GNG, non-notable", and the prod contested with the comment "A quick google search indicates that a proper WP:BEFORE may show GNG". The commenter has not edited the article, and nobody else has added any fruits of "a quick google search" either. There has been a certain pressure of promotional editing, including an amazingly elaborate advertisement here, but no sources. I have googled, of course, but failed to come up with anything other than the company's own pages and other advertising, including advertising lightly masquerading as news, such as this. The two references that have been there all along certainly don't show notability. Bishonen | tålk 20:43, 2 February 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) 22:31, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

USS Charlemagne[edit]

USS Charlemagne (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)

Fictional navy ship sourced only to the books of the series themselves. I'm not finding any coverage in secondary reliable sources for this, and it fairly clearly fails WP:GNG. Most of what I turned up seems to be primary or non-RS stuff related to an equally obscure entity in the Star Trek universe, so I don't think a redirect would be appropriate as it's not clear if this should then redirect to the relevant Star Trek item or to the Revolution at Sea series. Hog Farm Talk 20:34, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm Talk 20:34, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm Talk 20:34, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm Talk 20:34, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete With the caveat that the ease of searching for this specific fictional vessel was tougher because of its generic name, I didn't find anything beyond log-line type stuff for the vessel versus the series/books as a whole. Agree that there's no evidence of reliable secondary sources discussing the ship in depth. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 20:46, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Revolution at Sea saga, trimming appropriately. I agree notability is lacking for a standalone article, but see no reason to not merge some of the content to the parent article on the book series. As far as the Star Trek tie-in goes, a Google search finds no less than five separate NCC numbers associated with the name, suggesting that it never served as a major plot element like it presumably did in the Revolution at Sea world. I also note that we don't typically redirect obscure Star Trek ships, and that no one has previously tried to disambiguate this title. Jclemens (talk) 21:05, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Fails GNG by a mile, nothing to merge since there are not footnotes, and it's just a plot summary. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 12:30, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Insufficient sourcing to meet WP:GNG, and I'm not eager to merge what appears to be trivia which fails WP:V - also known as WP:IINFO. Pilaz (talk) 21:51, 9 February 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 merge to Stuart Parker (politician). RL0919 (talk) 22:53, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

BC Ecosocialists[edit]

BC Ecosocialists (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)

Short-lived party that never fielded a candidate in an election. It never got much coverage and most of the references currently in the article are links to the party's website (and are all dead now). Its leader was Stuart Parker who is notable in his own right but in relation to the Ecosocialists, he only received coverage for his resignation following allegations of transphobia. Pichpich (talk) 20:50, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete and Merge with Stuart Parker (politician) - The party seems closely linked to Stuart Parker, and seems to have imploded when he resigned due to allegedly transphobic comments. I think it can be paired down and merged with his article. It is probably not notable enough on its own, given that it failed to run any candidates and is no longer even registered.[2]--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 23:18, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be ok with a merge and redirect. Pichpich (talk) 23:59, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Practically, that probably means preserving the article in draft until the merge is complete. Unless we are going to complete the merge before this AfD is closed and the article deleted.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 00:07, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 06:16, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 20:29, 2 February 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. Star Mississippi 23:32, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Padmanabha Rao[edit]

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

BLP with no working references. Unclear if he is notable. Rathfelder (talk) 20:15, 2 February 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 merge to Ron Saggers. Star Mississippi 23:33, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ron Saggers with the Australian cricket team in England in 1948[edit]

Ron Saggers with the Australian cricket team in England in 1948 (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)

Another one of the forks on individual players as part of the 1948 Australian cricket team in England. I noted that as far back as 2008 concerns were expressed about the suitability of this particular article for Wikipedia. In a nutshell, Saggers didn't do very much as part of the team, and there's no justification for the existence of this fork. Anything relevant in the role section should be merged to Ron Saggers, and everything else removed entirely. This article is almost entirely just statistics. Wikipedia is not a database, and this article has no place in an encyclopedia. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 19:56, 2 February 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. This article has lasted for nearly 13 years, and there is no sourcing. I have no issue if someone would like the content to incubate in draft space, but at the moment there isn't sourcing present or available to meet notability guidelines. Star Mississippi 23:36, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Shingyeong University[edit]

Shingyeong University (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 references/no indication of notability (WP:NSCHOOL) Headphase (talk) 19:31, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If it really exists - and I cant read its website - then it, like most universities, is probably notable. Rathfelder (talk) 14:43, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete It is time we started applying sigcov to universities.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:21, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete there's some references in the Korean language article, but from what I can tell they are either not about the school or just extremely trivial basic listings, and there needs to be more then that for this to be notable. --Adamant1 (talk) 02:12, 9 February 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. It's snowing. Metaphorically and probably literally. Pile on not neede Star Mississippi 19:55, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Horner Avenue[edit]

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

This article (and Evans Avenue, which I will be bundling shortly to this AfD) were created by a new editor (please be gentle). We have had discussions, but ultimately I have not been able to successfully explain the need for reliable sources that support notability. Ultimately, though, these streets clearly have not met notability requirements. Singularity42 (talk) 19:00, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages (for reasons indicated above):

Evans Avenue (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Lonsdale Road (Toronto) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (Bundling casualdejekyll 16:28, 3 February 2022 (UTC))[reply]
  • apparently, these are arterial roads in Toronto which should be notable. As such why is Islington Avenue noted and created? I don't find that there are any notable statues there or something Wiokipedia (talk) 19:04, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I believe this should be interpreted as a Keep !vote by the articles' creator. Singularity42 (talk) 19:05, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
what do you mean Wiokipedia (talk) 19:07, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Check out Help:My article got nominated for deletion! Singularity42 (talk) 19:17, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
apparently at the horner avenue page there is a reference that proves SOMETHING — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wiokipedia (talk • contribs) 19:11, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Islington Avenue does not have its own article. Putting that aside, the road's entry includes information from reliable sources about the history of the street, the controversy over the naming of the street, and other information that supports the road's notability. More importantly, the fact that other articles exist is is not a basis to ignore how policy applies to this article. The reference you mention is a Google Maps entry, which I have tried to explain prior to this AfD is not a reliable source. Anyway, let's see what other editors say. Singularity42 (talk) 19:17, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
kipling avenue is a road in Toronto that is similar to Islington ave, just regular buildings there. And kipling avenue has an independent article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wiokipedia (talk • contribs) 19:22, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have seen one with my own eyes, maybe the case of the letters are different, but there should be an article about Islington ave in Toronto that has a title that's pronounced Islington avenue Wiokipedia (talk) 19:19, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
apparently Islington avenue was a redirect article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wiokipedia (talk • contribs) 19:20, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have added the TTC information and a reference for the information. Wiokipedia (talk) 19:31, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • There is an article that links to horner avenue and I didn't create that article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wiokipedia (talk • contribs) 19:14, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete a minor arterial road isn't likely notable. Toronto has hundreds of streets, can't all have an article. Yonge Street I can see having one. Oaktree b (talk) 19:44, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Look at the Toronto classification map to see how less arterial roads there are in Toronto Wiokipedia (talk) 19:47, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to whoever who improved the references on that page — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wiokipedia (talk • contribs) 19:49, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It exists, we need proof as to why it's notable. The sources don't add much beyond proving it exists. Oaktree b (talk) 20:02, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
it's notable because it's an arterial road.Wiokipedia (talk) 20:17, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
also, the TTC has a route there, it IS notable.
didn't I tell you that it's notable because there is a ttc route there? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wiokipedia (talk • contribs) 20:24, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Wiokipedia, I don't see anything in WP:GEOROAD that suggests that having a transit route on a road makes it notable. "Notable" in Wikipedia terms doesn't mean "noteworthy" or "famous" or "important". It means something more like "a topic that ought to be covered on its own in an encyclopedia article". This can get complicated, and there are many essays about the concept of notability on Wikipedia, but the most important part is pretty simple: in general, only items with significant coverage in reliable sources can be subjects of Wikipedia articles. I would be surprised to find that either of these streets met those requirements. -- asilvering (talk) 03:02, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It also has gas stations and stuff. Most on-road level railroad crossings were changed into bridge crossings as well, but this one is still remaining.Wiokipedia (talk) 14:14, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There is probably around 1000 gas stations in Toronto, they do not impart any notability. What imparts notability is significance. Horner is not a significant road in the overall picture of Toronto, Etobicoke, or even Mimico. - Floydian τ ¢ 00:14, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Just discussing this contested deletion is getting my "edit amount" way too high. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wiokipedia (talk • contribs) 14:15, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete This road fails WP:GEOROAD because it is not "the subject of multiple published secondary sources which contain significant coverage and are reliable and independent of the subject." Cullen328 (talk) 17:23, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all of them per Cullen; the road itself is not well-written about in reliable sources, so we have nothing to use to write a good Wikipedia article about. Some roads are well written about. These here are not. --Jayron32 17:41, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No sourced evidence of notability. "It also has gas stations and stuff" is not a reason to keep. Fails WP:GEOROAD. --Kinu t/c 18:02, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete per WP:GEOROAD. Not every single collector road in Toronto needs its own article. Johnny Au (talk/contributions) 01:45, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The creator of this set of articles has been blocked from editing the Article namespace for disruptive editing. --Kinu t/c 02:14, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Kinu t/c 02:15, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not sure which of the plethora of boards to apply to (which says something considering I've been here over 18 years), but I suggest a two-week to 1 month block. This editor very clearly has the best of intentions, and may just need some guidance. An indefinite block seems over the top here. - Floydian τ ¢ 02:41, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Floydian: the relevant discussion is at WP:ANI. --Kinu t/c 06:10, 4 February 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 Gymnastics at the 1936 Summer Olympics – Women's artistic team all-around. Redirects are cheap. Viable search term Star Mississippi 23:41, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Gianna Guaita[edit]

Gianna Guaita (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)

Guaita was a non-medaling Olympic competitor. We have decided such people are not default notable. The only sourcing I could find was mention in super comprehensive sources that do not add towards meeting GNG and coverage in Wikipedia mirrors John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:15, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree with a redirect if there was substantive content to WP:PRESERVE, but the article merely recites that she was an Italian gymnast who competed in the all-around event at the 1936 Olympics. Cbl62 (talk) 18:31, 8 February 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 Pole to Pole with Michael Palin. minimal participation, but was what the nom wanted anyway. Star Mississippi 23:42, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pole to Pole: The Photographs[edit]

Pole to Pole: The Photographs (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)

Seeking a redirect to Pole to Pole with Michael Palin as it's a collection of images from that television series. Not seeing any coverage that satisfies WP:BK. BriefEdits (talk) 17:23, 2 February 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) 22:44, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Frank Raab[edit]

Frank Raab (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 through lack of significant coverage. A few paid obituaries were published in 1940, but they were neither significant or independent.

Meets WP:GYMNAST, but per WP:NSPORTS they are required to meet WP:GNG, which they do not do. BilledMammal (talk) 17:08, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. BilledMammal (talk) 17:08, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. BilledMammal (talk) 17:08, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. BilledMammal (talk) 17:08, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The discussion in which it was determined that non-medalists at the Olympics are not default notable should be implemnted as a revision to all sports-related notability guidelines so they only say medalists are default notable. Beyond this, the 1904 Olympics was essentially an American Olympics. over 500 of the just over 600 competitors are classes as Americans, but this is actually deceptively low since some of the non-US citzens were long term residents of the US who came under sponsorship of athletic-clubs in the US. We also do not have the sourcing here needed to keep any article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:26, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: what is a paid obituary and in what way were they not independent? Geschichte (talk) 10:02, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • A paid obituary is one the family pays to be printed. They are generally composed by the family. The newspaper does not verrify the details. If they do have an editor review them, it is only for style and spelling issues, the newspaper does not stand behind the details. They are thus to work or a relative, not the work of the newspaper itself.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:35, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • In this specific case the obituary does not even mention that Raab was an Olympic competitor. It says he was a machinest. It says where and when he died, when the service will be and who his family are. Some would argue it is not really an obituary at all, but is instead a death notice.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:40, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • OK. This type of obituary is free in my country, hence my question about the word "paid". So here, they can be distinguished by the relatives' names signing the piece. Geschichte (talk) 12:59, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to United States at the 1904 Summer Olympics#Gymnastics if nothing can be found on him per WP:ATD and WP:PRESERVE. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 14:50, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Despite being an American athlete competing in an Olympics hosted in the United States, I find no newspaper coverage of him in 1904. The Olympics did not receive nearly the coverage in 1904 that it does today, and on top of that Raab was not one of the significant competitors -- finishing 92nd in the triathlon and 69th in the all-around. Google searches and a search of the LA84 Foundation's on-line library of Olympic materials also failed to turn up SIGCOV. His own obituary/death notice (regardless of independence) doesn't even mention that he was an athlete, further undercutting any notion that he was notable for his athletic efforts. I also question the wisdom of a redirect given there are other Frank Raabs who are more notable. See, e.g., Rear Admiral Frank Raab Cbl62 (talk) 20:11, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Frank Raab (admiral) now exists. After the current Frank Raab is deleted, the admiral can be moved to reflect its being the primary topic. Cbl62 (talk) 21:56, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Before doing that someone needs to make sure to extinguish all links intended to go to this name. In the over-linked cast listings on films (some of which film articles are sourced to IMDb), I have found multiple false links. In one case it was to a person born 65 years after the film was made.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:56, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've cleaned them up. It's a little premature, but given that the admiral is clearly primary, and this seems certain to be deleted, I don't believe there will be an issue. BilledMammal (talk) 14:12, 8 February 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. ✗plicit 23:44, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pierfrancesco Garzia[edit]

Pierfrancesco Garzia (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 WP:BEFORE search failed to uncover enough coverage to meet WP:GNG. The subject is not a professional snooker player as far as I can see. (Professionals in snooker are the players who are members of the World Professional Billiards and Snooker Association). BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 16:49, 2 February 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. Even though I commented, I haven't !voted. The sources found by User:GGT has convinced everyone who participated in this discussion that the subject meets GNG, and the nomination was withdrawn by the nominator with Special:Diff/1069651148. (non-admin closure) ~StyyxTalk? ^-^ 11:25, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sabri Kaliç[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:GNG. REFBOMB with book selling sites. Kadıköylü (talk) 17:44, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:20, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – AssumeGoodWraith (talk | contribs) 04:15, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Deleted on Turkish Wikipedia. Kind regards.--Kadıköylü (talk) 17:56, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I am very, very hesitant to support deletion of someone who's obviously had a long career as an artist and a translator, and has managed to gain some attention in English sources. It's thin, at least in English, and this needs attention from a Wikipedia editor of good faith who knows Turkish. I removed the bookspam, BTW. Drmies (talk) 14:11, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Drmies I can't find any significant coverage in Turkish, sources or books, about this person apart from whatever is already in this article. I'm not able to access the books cited, so I won't make a comment on them. The first source from nediyor is pretty much a copy of the Turkish WP article (which existed back then) with a sentence being added that "the famous director and writer has passed away after suffering from a heart attack", also the reliability of this source is questionable, given that according to this piece by Hürriyet, the site filters stuff based on Tweets, which confuses me as to who is actually writing it (no author listed in the source, which makes it more difficult). The two sources of Kisafilm.com only mention him being the director of dozens of non-notable films, and it's also concerning that the 1997-98 one cites Ekşi Sözlük (simply put: Turkish 4chan, in which a so-called "entry" exists about thousands of things, even about me) as one of the used sources. The whole Sinemapro.com site is a permanent deadlink, and a Turkish search results in no mention of the website, meaning that I can't tell you anything about their credibility. A search for the author of the source doesn't result in anything apart from Wikipedia mirrors about Sabri Kaliç. The final source is from the Turkish government where they announce that they will pay money to ~65 projects varying from 2.400 Turkish Liras to 42.000TL, with a mention of Sabri Kaliç about his project getting a fund of 10.000TL. This is what I come up with, unless of course you don't think I'm in good faith. ~StyyxTalk? ^-^ 15:26, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • Styxx, at least you're more interesting than me: "böyle bir şey yok." Thanks for plowing through those sources and commenting on them. But here's the thing: I would have hoped that the book citation would be an indication that there is more material--books are sort of the highest form, and usually indicate there's other material. If there isn't, that's too bad. And I'll hasten to add that Cambridge Scholars Publishing has nothing to do with Cambridge UP or whatever, and is regarded by more than one of my colleagues as a misleading name. In this case, the book is a collection of conference proceedings, which is something, but not a lot. Meaning, the book as a whole is edited, but such proceedings rarely go through the same kind of review process that most edited collections (and monographs) go through. What that means here is that it won't take much for a person or a book or a theory to appear in a book, since the bar for conference presentations is much lower than for journal publications--but I had hope. But thanks again for looking, and for commenting here.
    • 1, 3, 6, 7 are not reliable sources.--Kadıköylü (talk) 14:49, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Drmies:, Could you explain what you are implying?--Kadıköylü (talk) 16:32, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • Kadıköylü, I am not implying anything. I don't dispute your comment on sources 1, 3, 6, 7, BTW. Drmies (talk) 17:57, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Keep The only recognition this person seems to have garnered (aside from the trivia entry of a 1-frame "film") is as a translator and reference #2 appears to be the only significant, independent, reliable coverage of that. This is, unfortunately, not enough to demonstrate notability. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 21:57, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
After looking through GGT's refernces, there is enough evidence that this person passes GNG. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:28, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Drmies's suspicions are correct and it is very difficult to locate sources for such biographies even with the knowledge of Turkish, in my experience. This is his profile on TEİS, a website that we would normally accept as reliable on tr.wiki, although I must say that their quality has been recently getting sloppy and this particular one is of questionable quality, citing some unreliable sources. It does, nonetheless, confirm, in combination with this page (again not a particularly reliable source) that this person had an article on them in the 2001 and 2003 editions of Tanzimat'tan Bugüne Edebiyatçılar Ansiklopedisi. A Google Books search also provides a match to confirm. Unfortunately, only the 2010 edition of this encyclopedia is available online and Kaliç's biography is not there, so I would presume that it was removed for the 2010 edition. On top of this, here is a posthumous tribute to Kaliç in a national newspaper, and this is another one and this is another one. Here is another article about him. Here is an article on his winning an award. This article has a paragraph about his work. This thesis discusses his book at length. As such he appears to clear GNG even with the sources available online, and I would expect more to be available offline, given his rather niche career in experimental cinema. --GGT (talk) 01:15, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: GGT has provided some potentially good sources. Further time is needed to give other contributors a chance to respond to them.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SpinningSpark 16:50, 2 February 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. Ajpolino (talk) 00:07, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sivarama Swami[edit]

Sivarama Swami (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)

All ISKCON preachers are not notable. There is no major work or post. Fails WP:NACADEMIC and WP:ANYBIO. Sources are dependent and connected with ISKCON. (similar to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hanumatpresaka Swami) Venkat TL (talk) 15:22, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A few more here: [8], [9], [10]. Dāsānudāsa (talk) 15:52, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify There may be enough here of notability outside the cult. But it is written in an overpersonal promotional style, and needs extensive editing. DGG ( talk ) 02:27, 21 January 2022 (UTC) .[reply]
I agree the article is a mess. I'm happy to spend some time on it. Dāsānudāsa (talk) 07:11, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – AssumeGoodWraith (talk | contribs) 04:13, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: @Dāsānudāsa: thanks for working on this, it's a huge transformation from the article that was originally nominated for AfD. There are still some basic facts in this biography that are not cited to WP:RS though - one of the footnotes cites hu-wiki. Is it possible to clear these up? I did not do a terribly in-depth check but I'm surprised that I've come up empty on this and a quick check on the publisher that is responsible for most of his books (I was looking to see if we could get a WP:AUTHOR pass). I'm surprised to find so little for a national order of merit winner, but I'm truly out of my depth with Magyar so I can't really help here. -- asilvering (talk) 05:03, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, @Asilvering: it was really only a quick pass to get rid of some of the puffery. When I get time, I'll go over it more thoroughly to add in some of the RS I've listed above. Dāsānudāsa (talk) 09:01, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Took me a while to get access to JSTOR paper you linked. Very disappointed to see that Link [6] has only 2 passing mentions, first line saying that (1) he is ISKCON guru and (2) he teaches Cow protection (citing ISKCON literature and SivaramaSwami website). Link [7] has 2 passing mentions that he found a valley and named it a pilgrim place (citing ISKCON literature.). Link [8] again has 2 passing mentions, citing ISKCON literature. If you are going to share any more link then also share why you feel it is worth looking into. Let's respect each others time. User:Asilvering an Order of 7, awarded on Philanthropy will not make the subject pass WP:ANYBIO.Venkat TL (talk) 11:53, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"Why [I] feel it is worth looking into" is because I think there's a difference between people like Hanumatpresaka Swami and the principal of Radhadesh (I can't remember the name), who are known only to ISKCON members, and those like Sivarama (and Radhanath, etc.), who are huge on social media, mentioned in the literature as being leaders in a notable religious movement, and have generally crossed over into mainstream notability. I respect your time, of course, and have supported your AfDs of those people and things who are clearly not notable. Dāsānudāsa (talk) 19:38, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 16:32, 2 February 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. Geschichte (talk) 12:57, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kurdish–Turkish conflict (disambiguation)[edit]

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

not needed anymore. Heanor (talk) 08:00, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 04:43, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 16:32, 2 February 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. ✗plicit 23:45, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Tanbe10[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Tanbe10 (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 Iranian band has no source in Persian sources. The resources used for the article are all personal websites, social networks and blogs and music download sites that have no credibility. Several other sources make no mention of the group or its activities, and the source may have been forged. Some resources are not available at all.

I hope users review the resources better. Persia ☘ 15:04, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

--Persia ☘ 15:08, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 16:15, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete This Band only exist on Wikipedia Mardetanha (talk) 20:52, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete par nom, non-notable band, lack of significant coverage. Brayan ocaner (talk) 22:32, 9 February 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 Wrestling at the 1928 Summer Olympics – Men's Greco-Roman featherweight#Round 1. Ajpolino (talk) 00:18, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Aage Meyer[edit]

Aage Meyer (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 through the lack of significant coverage, both in the article or through a WP:BEFORE search. Fails WP:NOLYMPICS due to not medalling. BilledMammal (talk) 12:02, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. BilledMammal (talk) 12:02, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. BilledMammal (talk) 12:02, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete In October it was decided that only those who medal in the Olympics are default notable for Olympic participation. The sources here are not enough to meet GNG, the essentially duplication of the one source that is too broad to show notability does not show notability. No other sources that would show notability are identified. To head off one incorrect attempt to keep this article, doing multiple non-notable things does not add up to being notable. No matter how many times someone participates in the Olympics if they do not medal they are not notable for that. If we could find in-depth coverage of their role in the Olympics from multiple sources that are independent of them, intellectually independent of each other and not hyper local "local person makes it big" human interest type coverage, than yes participating in the Olympics and not madaling could be supported as covered by GNG, but that is not the case here.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:49, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect as a new section of Wrestling at the 1928 Summer Olympics – Men's Greco-Roman featherweight, seeing as that was his earliest Olympic event. --Jkaharper (talk) 15:12, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 15:09, 2 February 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! 07:01, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

NIve[edit]

NIve (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)

Lacks notability, no RS, previously rejected in AFC, Fails WP:SINGER

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:NIve_(singer) Marcdenis51 (talk) 12:21, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 15:05, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Draftify - might indeed meet notability criteria, but right now the article does not pass WP:VERIFY. Move to draft to allow the editor time to provide refs. Onel5969 TT me 21:59, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I've added some content and tidied up a bit, and while there is more work to be done, I think this comfortably passes WP:SINGER and WP:GNG. Searching for this individual is kind of a trek due to his usage of three different name since 2014, but there is quite a plethora of sources out there. Onel5969, please let me know what you think so far. ✗plicit 12:19, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - nice job Explicit - my only concern was the state of the article and lack of refs, which now you've taken care of. Changing !vote. Onel5969 TT me 12:29, 5 February 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. ✗plicit 13:52, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sofia Symonds[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Sofia Symonds (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)

While the text of this of article created in November 2021 is not substantially identical enough to be an outright WP:G4 candidate, it appear to me that the May 2019 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sofia Symonds concerns still apply here: WP:NMODEL, WP:ANYBIO, WP:GNG and any number of other policies and guidelines. I note in particular that the purported USA Today reference includes a pop-up disclaimer: "this story is paid for by an advertiser. Members of the editorial and news staff of the USA TODAY Network were not involved in the creation of this content." As always, more than happy to be proven wrong. Pete AU aka Shirt58 (talk) 11:30, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:52, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete The USA Today clearly says at the bottom it wasn't written by USA Today staff, it's a paid promotion piece? The others aren't looking much better. French wiki uses pretty much the same sources. A Gsearch shows an interview in a Morocco newspaper, a few in Arabic that I can't read. Not much else found. Just a pretty lady that does stuff online I'm afraid. Oaktree b (talk) 19:57, 2 February 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 no consensus. What a mess. Those arguing to keep this article have spent far too long badgering the opposition, and far too little providing reliable sources and explaining what makes them so. Conversely, the few sources that have been provided (albeit late in the discussion) haven't been commented on by most !voters. The walls of text are long enough to scare most fresh eyes away; so I'm closing this as no consensus, explicitly with no prejudice against speedy renomination. I would like to remind the "keep" !voters in particular to confine their attentions to evidence for notability, substantiated by sources, in any future AfD, and to lay off of personal commentary. Vanamonde (Talk) 01:18, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sarah Azhari[edit]

Sarah Azhari (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 / WP:NACTOR. Noting IMDb is not an acceptable source. Dan arndt (talk) 04:07, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong Keep - When researching Sarah Azhari on Google Indonesia articles about her are found and her works are found on every possible big platform, press and even mentioned in books. Who really knows about Indonesia knows of Sarah Azhari and the Azhari family works in both movies, sitcom and music that are nonetheless a great part of history in Indonesian culture and society. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amoeba69th (talk • contribs) 06:48, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • as you mentioned, you don't talk Indonesian ... so I find it outstanding for you to analyze google researches in Indonesian language, in less than few minutes to assest 90% of the google search articles in indonesian regarding the matter are not relevant and do not prove notability... wondering if you have any magic forces to drive your amazing intuition! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amoeba69th (talk • contribs) 08:03, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The very nature of Google (and Internet search engines as a whole) means that it will pull literally everything that seems to be somewhat relevant and put it into the search results, hence my blanket statement about Google searches. The 95% figure is from over a decade of experience editing Wikipedia and looking for sources for various topics, and I see no reason why the Indonesian-language Google search would be any different from the English-language one. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 08:46, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Maybe because you are not Indonesian? so to me, your hypothesis that 95% of the entire google engine articles regarding a topic are just trashy gossip is just an understatement which sounds to me as someone that has YES, has an incredible amount of years of experience in working in Wikipedia and congratulations for that, but also assuming to know more than they do about a particular topic? and using their own judgment, despite actual facts that lacks of actual fundamental proof which could simply come from researching a bit deeper in a big cultural aspects of an entire nation cultural artifacts in movies and entertainment ? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/21_Cineplex - https://21cineplex.com/slowmotion/sarah-azhari-kebagian-peran-dadakan,364.htm. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amoeba69th (talk • contribs) 09:02, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Kapanlagi is useless for notability (too sparse). The PDF is much of the same, using her name for a completely disconnected concept. They don't discuss Sarah in any appreciable depth and merely say her name; that's nowhere near enough to justify citing it for her article. I cannot speak to the book absent a physical copy of it due to Google's viewing limits, but what I did see barely even spoke about Azhari specifically. Google Scholar is worthless unless you're making an WP:NACADEMIC argument. Seriously, if this is the highest calibre of sources you can come up with, the article's pretty much doomed. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 10:26, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • And for the record: It's the 21 Cineplex source specifically that I'm calling out as Shit She Says because the majority of the article is direct quotes attributed to her, to the point where the writer may as well have handed her the pen and gone off to lunch and filled in the remainder with one-line addenda. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 10:40, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • you do definetely are neglectful and have psychic abilities assuming that a book you can't read because of your google view is limited does not prove notability! first 95% of the indonesian google searches are based of not notability, you must have read ALL the articles, know you know so much of the writer's lunch schedule! wow!!!
  • "An exception to editing an article about yourself or someone you know is made if the article contains defamation or a serious error that needs to be corrected quickly. If you do make such an edit, please follow it up with an email to WP:VRT, Wikipedia's volunteer response team, or ask for help on WP:BLPN, our noticeboard for articles about living persons, or the talk page of the article in question." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.201.159.185 (talk) 20:34, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, I do am not Amoeba. Is it your first time accusing someone of sockpuppetry, dear Jeske?
  • let me explain the situation a little bit Jeske, now this is getting old... because it is complicated. Sarah Azhari was on every possible modeling magazines, television sitcoms and career as an actress, model and singer as been always in the spotlight of mediatic, sociostudies and....politics...particularly the modeling one...coming from a huge family, she is in fact the sister of Cintra Award winner Ayu Azhari, not that does merely give her notoriety....but it is evident that all of these sisters have reached a huge amount of notability because of their progressive view of women in a country that does not usually tolerate it... as you might know Indonesia does not grant of a progressive view of women. religion sociological aspects of it derives from it, because it is off-topic and there's TOO MUCH more to the thing. Despite that, sarah;s works and persona got at the center of the attention because politics as well played a huge role in her modeling career for oblivious reason. as you can read in Roy Suryo (whose was a minister in indonesia) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roy_Suryo the two sisters accused him to leak nude pictures in order to damage their reputation...the case was one of the biggest in Indonesian politics in the last decade to the point it re-shaped constitution and it's been studied still until now by sociologist all around the world ....and Sarah being the major playing role as well as her sister Rahma in these trials, then i don't really know if something that changes indonesian constitution of cyber security and defamation rights is not notable enough [4] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amoeba69th (talk • contribs) 00:32, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • If everything above is as you claim, then there should be absolutely no trouble finding third-party, in-depth sources with editorial oversight that discuss this (and you would be hard required to provide them in this case). As I have said, I cannot speak to either of the books' suitability as sources, and would defer that question to WT:WikiProject Indonesia.
  • The issue you keep running into is that you're making all these grandiose/controversial claims and yet are failing to provide ironclad sourcing that corroborates them. The more outrageous or unusual the claim, the stronger the cited source corroborating it must be, and the onus is on you, or whoever else is seeking to keep the article, to do the lifting on the sources, not on me (as, frankly, I don't care one way or another). You can't just say "Look at Google results" or "Look at book <foo>"; you need to provide links to specific sources and detailed bibliographical information for books in order to defend your position. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 00:49, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not sure you did read the NEWS article and comprehend the topics discussed in the article? First of all, if you did read it... you would DEFINETELY know what it is about....The articles goes for pages discussing the complicated dynamics of an Indonesian constitutional matter of Cybersecurity and Defamation rights in the the class action of Azhari vs. Suyo and you come out with WHAT YOU MEAN WITH THIS ARTICLE? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amoeba69th (talk • contribs) 01:50, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Because the very limited number of pages we can view don't help make your case at all. There is a reason why I'm not commenting on the books beyond my "first impressions" of them, and that is because Google Books limits page views fairly heavily. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 02:44, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    How in-depth can it be on her if her name isn't used in the text of the article? I searched the text of the book for her name and it only came up in that caption. It really sounds like you're trying to argue that this legal case is notable, which it may well be? But that's not the same as Azhari being notable. -- asilvering (talk) 03:41, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Translated As: Classic, I only read what I want to read but still the source you are providing WHICH I AM NOT READING because I dont want to (i cant) but still vote to Delete, {Not a ballot}. Amoeba69th (talk) 06:12, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have to go by Google Translate for Indonesian, as I've explained before. How long do you want me to take to sort through an entire PDF, plug it into the (hard-character-limited) translation interface, and then sort out the input into a language I can read? Please quit with the assumptions of bad faith and show the source to WT:WikiProject Indonesia, as they can assess the source in a timely fashion. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 10:00, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Google search result shows not much other than attention-grabbing infotaiments and gossip pieces. The sources given in argument between @Amoeba69th and @Jéské Couriano is a magazine released by Constitution Court on 2009, which talked mostly about the importance of protecting privacy of victims in cyberspace (coincidently citing her controversial case as an example of a victim). Very sparse and she is not the center of the discussion itself, she is just an example used by the magazine. Also, "her case was the biggest scandal to the point of reshaping constitution". As far as Im aware, there's no such a thing and there were only four amandments made to 1945 Constitution, all of which happened after fall of Suharto and very unrelated to petty porn scandal involving some politician. Google scholar result also shows not much. If you are really interested in Indonesian women being progressive, Im sure there are a lot more other figure to focus on. Apologize if my wording sounds aggresive or bad. If you have other sources that you would like to use for the argument keeping this article, I'll be happy to look at it. Im open to change my mind if proven otherwise, but for now i support the deletion. Thank you~ Nyanardsan (talk) 00:40, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • So you think the entire Actress, Model and Singer Sarah Azhari article who IS a progressive woman, as you might know.... should be deleted ? because that is what the voting is for... not that paragraph in particular, you are more than welcome to omit the paragraph if you think that is not of encyclopedic importance.Amoeba69th (talk) 01:31, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I think it should be deleted based on what I found (looking at sources in the article and the magazine you brought to the argument here and also the result on Google search is not great). But as I said before, I am open to change my mind and will look at other sources or arguments that you think would prove otherwise. Nyanardsan (talk) 01:48, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • are you a millenial? (if possible to ask - just saw you are busy in college) [5] Amoeba69th (talk) 02:12, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    By definition, I am not. Thank you for the source, Im not sure if that one actually establish notability since almost everything there is from her Instagram account directly, which makes it not independent. Nyanardsan (talk) 02:18, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • but do you know about Sarah Azhari or it is the first time you hear her name? millenial was not an insult or anything! what about if you read sarah azhari's page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarah_Azhari beside this talk? a lot of the works that she has done are well reported in bahasa indonesia as well and there are way more sources than what ive posted here in the talk page. to mention just one [6] Amoeba69th (talk) 02:26, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I do read the article, which is why I said before the sourcing are not that good. If you think there are more sources, please add it to the article because right now the article's sources are unrelated/passing mention on some articles related to Indonesian women, gossip/infotaiment pieces, or articles related to her controversies. Nyanardsan (talk) 02:35, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • what you mean by "is not that good"? and req "but do you know about Sarah Azhari or it is the first time you hear her name?" Amoeba69th (talk) 02:44, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Jeske you do always do WP:HIGHMAINT on questions given by others, but you do like to inflict your questioning of yours TO OTHERS! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amoeba69th (talk • contribs) 03:02, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Whether I know her or not is not important to discuss. As before, please add the relevant sources to the article so it meets WP:GNG and other editors would stop questioning her notability if possible. As I myself an Indonesian, I would like to help you with whether the sources you presented on your arguments are good or not (which unfortunatelly its not so far). Thats all it needs. Thank you~ Nyanardsan (talk) 03:30, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete because of insufficent sourcing. Reyk YO! 04:01, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • well, this talk page got as hot as Sarah in gossip talks.... but now i am curious to see if something I don't consider a reliable source it could be?

[7] I mean Kim Kardashian has a wikipediaAmoeba69th (talk) 09:45, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • yes, i did red it and thats why i said i dont consider it a good source myself either ... [8] Amoeba69th (talk) 10:16, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • cool and thanks, an admin told me what kind of articles would have been required and now i can see there is many sources like that, i will find some more...

i guess more than 1 and less than infinite are needed....any suggestion on how many? btw Isnt quoting someone in an article considered as secondary source anyway because the editor had processed what "they thought was relevant" ? (//"No, quotes from historical figures which are found in secondary sources are not considered primary sources. The author of the book/article has processed the quotation, selecting it from the original source."//) Amoeba69th (talk) 20:10, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Given Amoeba69th's WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior about this article, I'm beginning to wonder about UPE. Miniapolis 00:15, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've asked them point-blank about their connexion to Azhari. They ignored the question/didn't answer it. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 00:46, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • i am not holding grudges, but isnt wikipedia of editorial "free expression"? ...i apologized already for sounding mad and limiting someone opinion.... but i am also finding sources so we can have a discussion without doing anything else.... why can't I SIMPLY express MY opinions and list sources without being accused of all this stuff ? what am i doing by expressing my points and the researches i've made ? i was simply stating the references so jeske and the others could finally give opinions about sources, why you guys are trying to shut me up? its a reflist talk or a pillory in my regards? Amoeba69th (talk) 01:12, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • We're asking about your connexion for a fairly understandable reason. Our concern isn't so much that you have a conflict of interest, but that you're possibly being paid to do this and have failed to disclose it, as you've dodged or ignored three direct questions about it now, counting the times I asked on IRC. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 04:05, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Jéské, I do am not getting paid to edit about it, is there anyone getting paid to edit wikipedia ? should not that be illegal? what about if i someone has enough money to even pay wikipedia to say the earth is flat? (sorry if i make such a statement, i know some people believe in that too) but i would have disclosed it if i was getting paid for it, wikipedia editing is curing my depression and making me more neurotic than i usually am... why would i risk a ban not disclosing a payment? Amoeba69th (talk) 04:25, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Amoeba69th's exhaustive battleground behavior notwithstanding, I concur with the consensus, and find that the sources presented do not provide WP:SIGCOV to this BLP article. Ravenswing 04:32, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: (despite my [WP:BATTLEGROUND|battleground behavior]]) for what reason the sources provided do not provide not mean WP:SIGCOV ? [14] Amoeba69th (talk) 07:07, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I wish to respectfully point out that, once crossed-out Deletes (Delete) are discarded, there are now five Delete comments & six Keep or Strong keep comments. So no consensus at the moment ... Peaceray (talk) 00:30, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment (no !vote yet). Disregarding all the trashy sources, the case of Sarah Azhari appears in numerous academic sources (search on Google Scholar and add "actress", "model" or "artis" to get the right person) about the changing public image of femininity and sexuality between exploitation and empowerment in the 2000s. Most of these are passing mentions, but there are lots of them, and I get the impression that authors who discuss that topic inevitably include Sarah Azhari as a well-known example (since I don't !vote "oppose", I don't feel obliged to list all these sources individually here; someone else may do it in a coherent and constructive manner). This alone of course doesn't make up WP:GNG, but given the fact that she has appeared in several films (a minor role in a major film, and major roles in lesser films) and TV shows (for which it shouldn't be that hard to collect some decent non-crappy sources), it should be clear she is not just some random beauty queen etc. which permanently haunt us here in endless AfDs. Whether these two key facts (multiple passing mentions in academic sources; mid-to-low ranking but pretty well-known actress in Indonesia) are enough for WP:GNG—dunno. –Austronesier (talk) 11:23, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom; not enough WP:SIGCOV to meet the GNG, let alone the subject-specific guidelines noted above. Interesting that this "discussion" is much longer than the article itself; although UPE has been denied, there seems to be a substantial conflict of interest. Miniapolis 15:03, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep – the article is bad because no one is updating it. The Indonesian article provides a bit more context on her case. It made prominent news headlines in Indonesia. Amoeba69 is not exaggerating, it's just a little bit hard to find sources on it because it's historical (late 90s and early 00s) and Indonesian news sources aren't exactly digitized back then.

    Her case is used in at least one PhD thesis from Monash University (see here). A 2014 book on sex and sexualities in Indonesia also brings up her case (see here). An Eka Kurniawan anthology of short stories, much reprinted (see here) mentions her in passing, acknowledging her fame. Tirto.id, not a gossip tabloid but a reputable news source, has her biography mentioning her case (see here). Finally, here is the Film & Video Directorate of the Information Ministry of Indonesia in 1999 publishing a book titled What & Who in Indonesian Film giving an entire biographical section for Sarah Azhari (see here). Her notability is rather historical, not current; that's why it's a bit hard to find things further than gossipy articles, even more so if you're coming in not from the Indonesian locale Google. In other words, she's a household name around here. Xn00bit (talk) 15:30, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Edit to add: here she is from a news article in 2009. Her name the first words in the headline, the headline says she is being defamed by Roy Suryo. The entire article talks about her process in the police. Kapanlagi, despite the user above saying it's worthless, is actually one of the earliest internet publications in Indonesia, and in this 2009 article again her case is mentioned, with her at the forefront. As well as this detik article, another early internet publication. I'm just trying to say that it's a historical case rather than a current one, and the case is pretty much worth mentioning since it appears in many academic studies.Xn00bit (talk) 15:40, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
At least one of the sources from Kapanlagi that were proffered are worthless. One is a (frankly skeevy) tabloidy comparison between her and Kim Kardashian (per the GTrans). The other one was dismissed at WP:RSN as more of the same, though I'd call this source borderline (again, per the Google Translate). —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 01:58, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Xn00bit. dwadieff ✉ 16:45, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep If we have articles for American celebrities like Kim Kardashian, it seems to me that we should have the same for Indonesian celebrities. That much of the material is in Indonesian is not an argument for deleting it. I have no doubt that if we keep digging, or involve the Indonesian speaking community, this will become obvious that Azhari is notable, albeit with a lot of notoriety.
If the deletion proponents prevail, I request that an administrator moves this into the Draft space simply as not ready for prime time. Again, I have no doubt that additional sources will be found; the difficulty here is language.
Dropping this thesis citation here:
  • Muttaqien, Zaenal (May 2011). Staging a Life: Portraying Femininities in the Auto/biographies of Indonesian Female Celebrities (PhD). Monash University. p. 5.
Peaceray (talk) 20:33, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The WP:WAX argument isn't a good one, but I would not be averse to a draftification as opposed to deletion. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 01:58, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I fully expected that someone would bring up the WAX portion of the Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions essay while not addressing the Systematic bias (another essay) point that I raised.
Two points to consider:
  • Español, Bahasa Indonesia, Jawa, مصرى, & Bahasa Melayu Wikipedias all consider Azhari to be notable enough for an article.
  • English Wikipedia has a rigor for reliable sources that in turn can be utilitarian & exemplary for other Wikipedias. If significant RS can be found, regardless of the language or media, then they establish notability & can be reused elsewhere.
Peaceray (talk) 02:12, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You can't make the argument that this should be kept because other Wikipediae have an article on her. Not only does this just double down on the WAX argument, but standards for inclusion and sourcing aren't uniform across the other projects, and the English-language edition of Wikipedia has amongst the strictest sourcing requirements to my knowledge, especially for content about living people. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 21:28, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I am making the argument of systematic bias, to which you have failed to respond, again.
You also seem to be repeating my point that enwiki has rigorous standards for WP:BLP. I was also making the point that if we incorporate WP:RS into this article, other Wikipediae can make use of them as well. Peaceray (talk) 21:40, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not addressing the argument of systemic bias because it doesn't help anything in an AfD discussion, and would be far better addressed by a massive, likely multi-year discussion. I'm not going to deny that Wikipedia has a systemic bias as a consequence of its userbase. However, it's really not a good argument to make when we're discussing a single article and whether or not it should be deleted based on its sourcing (as that is the deletion argument proffered by the nominator). If anything, the systemic bias makes it harder to actually read the sources - especially the offline sources people are attempting to point to - simply because the English-language Wikipedia doesn't have a whole lot of native speakers of Indonesian. I would imagine this is also a huge part of the reason as to why we don't have a lot of articles on Indonesian topics en generale. How do you propose we fix this, short of getting native Indonesian speakers to give a fuck? —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 21:50, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I could do a mass message to some of the participants at Category:User id-N using {{Please see}}. My guess is that most native ID speakers are unaware of this discussion.
I have done this before for an article translated from Icelandic. I need a little time to prepare the target list. I prefer to avoid the casual editors, preferring to those in the category who are prolific editors, part of WP:ID, or who admins on idwiki or enwiki. I think I could get this done in the next 48 hours or so. Peaceray (talk) 22:04, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to make notice and respect the fact there are Indonesian editors and Indonesian admins already here and some of them already expressed their opinions... I think, more would be required to bring consensus but they cannot be forced to give a f*** about wiki english, im sure some are even unaware of the discussion happening, and some are simply too busy with their wikipedia to even think of thinking to get headaches from being in these types of discussions but for the one willing to it, i guess more consensus needs to be brought up Amoeba69th (talk) 22:53, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: What's the likelihood that there are more in-depth sources in offline sources, and would they be worthwhile to cite in the article? (This is without prejudice to, and can potentially be read as in defence of, the two book sources Amoeba69th proffered above if the books go into more depth than the page previews allow.) —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 22:16, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 14:30, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, for the reasons of those who want to keep this article. Davidgoodheart (talk) 21:51, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: After Austronesier comments [12]. I was on the fence about the coverage of her actual career, but the variety of sources using her as an example of a phenomenon (women's image in media?) decides me. I think there's enough there to establish notability. signed, Willondon (talk) 02:23, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - After looking at the sources offered here, I'm still not seeing enough biographical coverage to amount to notability. Yes, there is evidence that she is famous, but not that she meets the criteria for notability. — jmcgnh(talk) (contribs) 20:25, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: to respond to Jeske regarding offline sources inquiry i'd like to show the fact there are many offline sources that were never digitized regarding this actress that was notorious in the 2000's. you can see a simple google reseach [15] how many journals and magazines are still on sale featuring Azhari, and some of them for example the femina magazine describes her career in Indonesian sinetron. [16] i do am sure however there's plenty more. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amoeba69th (talk • contribs) 21:30, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Is it so damn hard to keep the {{reflist-talk}} at the very bottom of the page?
    Them being digitised is irrelevant, as we do accept offline sources if properly cited (i.e. enough bibliographical information is provided to look the source up in an archive or library). This is also why your Google Books links weren't particularly helpful relative to a proper book cite, which needs (at minimum) all of the title, author, publisher, year of publication, pages being cited, and the ISBN/OCLC#. Google Books just heavily limits how many pages you can look at in a book preview, which in turn makes it kinda useless for actually trying to assess a book. Better to let someone who actually has access to the book cite it, as they can provide the relevant page numbers. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 20:59, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not enough sources Starship SN20 talk
    which of the 18 sources provided are not proof of GNG? Amoeba69th (talk) 20:07, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Biografi and Works can be found also on [17] which seems is a non user generated database (to reference not like IMBD) lets say....seems a bit outdated but it's updated daily... (there are some sources on the article not mentioned in this discussion, can i add them to match?) Amoeba69th (talk) 23:35, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ kapanlagi.com/showbiz/film/indonesia/film-sarah-azhari-ini-jadi-sisa-kejayaan-horor-erotis-indonesia-043d1c.html
  2. ^ https://www.google.com/books/edition/Sex_and_Sexualities_in_Contemporary_Indo/JWq2BQAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=sarah+azhari&pg=PT379&printsec=frontcover
  3. ^ https://repository.uinjkt.ac.id/dspace/bitstream/123456789/535/1/101955-ZAENAL%20MUTTAQIEN-FAH.pdf -
  4. ^ MEDIA, MK (May 1, 2009). "Majalah Konsitusi Mei 2009: Ancaman Pidana "Cybercrime" dalam UU ITE adalah Konstitusional". Media Mahkamah Konstitusi – via Google Books.
  5. ^ "Milenial Cenderung Tak Mengenal Sarah Azhari, Padahal Dia Bukan Orang Sembarangan, Ini Profilnya - Tribunjabar.id". jabar.tribunnews.com.
  6. ^ "Sarah Anti-adegan Laga". liputan6.com. July 29, 2002.
  7. ^ Jum'at, 27 April 2012 16:34 Penulis: Riswinanti Permatasari. "Sarah Azhari vs Kim Kardashian, Lebih Hot Mana?". KapanLagi.com.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link)
  8. ^ Media, Kompas Cyber (July 23, 2021). "Sarah Azhari Beri Semangat di Masa Pandemi Covid-19 Lewat Single Dance to Survive Halaman 2". KOMPAS.com.
  9. ^ "Biografi dan Profil Lengkap Agama dan Umur Sarah Azhari yang Kecantikannya Bikin Gagal Fokus". correcto.id.
  10. ^ "KapanLagi.com: Profil Sarah Azhari". KapanLagi.com.
  11. ^ "Biodata Lengkap Sarah Azhari, Model Seksi Era 2000an yang Dinikahi Anak Pejabat - Semua Halaman - HIts". hits.grid.id.
  12. ^ "Profil Sarah Azhari, Wajahnya Tetap Menawan di Usia 40-an, Kini Hijrah ke LA Amerika Serikat". Sripoku.com.
  13. ^ https://celebrity-okezone-com.translate.goog/read/2021/11/11/33/2500468/biodata-dan-agama-ayu-azhari-artis-seksi-yang-pernah-alami-kasus-penyebaran-foto-bugil-di-internet?_x_tr_sl=id&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=en-US&_x_tr_pto=sc
  14. ^ https://www.liputan6.com/tag/sarah-azhari?type=profile
  15. ^ "sarah azhari tokopedia - Google Search". www.google.com.
  16. ^ https://www.tokopedia.com/tokobukunainggolan/majalah-femina-april-1997-cover-model-sarah-azhari?whid=0
  17. ^ "Sarah Azhari". filmindonesia.or.id.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. While both the Keep and the Delete !voters make valid points, there is no consensus to delete this page. Given this is one of a number of similar pages in Category:Chemical data pages, a broader discussion (say, at WP:VPP) is the better place to develop consensus rather than in a one-off AfD discussion. (non-admin closure) UnitedStatesian (talk) 19:52, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Caffeine (data page)[edit]

Caffeine (data page) (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)
AfDs for this article:
Butadiene (data page) (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)
Butadiene added -DePiep 12:06, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Struck by me as a procedural objection. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:57, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Page is subordinate to Caffeine. Containted a fullblown infobox {{Chembox}} only, which I recently merged into the parent article (nonredundant data only): [13] here. After this, removed superfluous data from this article (=all data) and tagged WP:A3/empty. The speedy was contested by [wrong username] Boghog for reasons not fully clear or convincing to me. I claim that this data page article had no reason to exist because all data can gently be included in the parent article, obviously, and there is nor was a reason to apply WP:SPLIT (in other words: this is a reversed split operation). DePiep (talk) 13:56, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Correction, username mistake: it was Boghog (in this talk) who contested the second speedy (my mistake, my apologies to both). Argumentation unghanged. -DePiep (talk) 16:28, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: As background, {{chembox}} was added to caffeine in December of 2005. This large chemical infobox was split out as a data page in September 2011, because this large chembox was messing up the layout (see this and this discussion). The material from this data page was then merged on 11 January 2022 back into Caffeine#Chemical_data. Boghog (talk) 16:58, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The parent article already has a large {{drugbox}} and adding a second large {{chembox}} starts to overwhelm the article. The single {{chembox}} in this data page is cleaner and less cluttered than the four infoboxes that currently exist in Caffeine#Chemical_data section. In addition, there is a convenient and logical link from the bottom of {{drugbox}} to this data page. The criteria for WP:WHENSPLIT are (1) specific material within one section becomes too large or (2) the material is out of scope. Both apply to Caffeine#Chemical_data (the material is both too verbose and detailed for a general article about caffeine). Hence the split that was made in 2011 should be maintained. We need a better long term solution, probably involving Wikidata, but until such a solution is in place, it is better to leave in place the split that was done back in 2011. Boghog (talk) 17:22, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    here Boghog is adding a link to the 100% redundant data page, I reverted, and here they are editwarring to make a WP:POINT without improving WP. -DePiep (talk) 17:30, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I directly refer to the link in my keep arguments above. Please keep this link in place until the AFD discussion has reached a consensus. Boghog (talk) 17:34, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Editing an article to illustrate your discussion point is disruptive. Mainspace is not for arguing, not for "illustrating". -DePiep (talk) 18:15, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The link is part of the AFD discussion. That is why I reverted to Status quo ante bellum. Removing the link is disruptive. Boghog (talk) 18:54, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Boghog: re "starts to overwhelm": well, this data is 4kB of the 183kB (2%) [14]. Moving data to the datapage would still leave a huge article. So instead, we could note that all the chemical information is giving good reason for a (content) split, as has been noted here, by creating Caffeine (chemical). (possible outcome of this AfD).
re "cluttered ... in Caffeine#Chemical_data section": I see a nice table gallery with four topical tables. Floating gently in mobile view even, aka responsiveness. A convenient gallery or overview is what I expect for a data sheet. Maybe we could consider things like: add topics/tableheaders to the TOC; but only as an improvement not a prerequisite.
re "four infoboxes": Yes these four data tables are (stripped down) infoboxes. Not ideal, but coming from formal WP:infobox (IB), {{Chembox}} and {{Drugbox}} have scope creep in many ways: having data not present in article body, prominent external link list, multiple IBs in one article, non-IB usage: all accepted AFAIK because it improves the article in favor of wikilawyering into emptyness. Sure this can be improved—as a redesign of the IB, not by an incidental removal of an IB.
re "the single infobox in this data page ..": The bulky list is not an improvement compared to the four dedicated, well-titled tables in Caffeine. On top of this: just a standalone infobox as an article? Inacceptable, especially when knowing that there is an alternative.
In general: from this, I do not get which data sheet presentation you Boghog would prefer or find acceptable. Or, more to the point, which data presentation issues are deleting-cause for you? -DePiep (talk) 07:10, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or re-arrange to have a separate Caffeine (chemical) article (where Caffeine remains as the more bio-chem focus) if there is lots of non-biochem chem to say. A multicolumn/fragmented infobox at Caffeine#Chemical data is non-standard compared to other chemical infoboxes, jarring/difficult for reader to find this info especially buried at the end of the article. Boghog is certainly welcome to contest a reverse-split and it's standard (as well as polite) that one doesn't hide or delete content subject to afd while the afd is running. And doing this merge (into a separate section of the main article) without prior current discussion is against consensus of previous discussions cited by Boghog. DMacks (talk) 17:42, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Non-biochemical topics (demonstrating there really is potential for non-biochem expansion...no time to write content into the main article right now):
    DMacks (talk) 18:46, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    ... but what I do not understand: how or why would such a gracious content split from article Caffeine need a Caffeine (data page) article to exist at any moment (before/during/after split operation)? That split is from parent article, all data page info is redundant: data page deletion does not hinder content split. The essence of WP:SPLIT-revert is also: when a data page is merited as a fullblown standalone article, it can always be (re)created. (WP:SPLIT makes clear that when size of data is capsizing the article, split out data is to be considered— see for example Properties of water <-> Water (data page)). For Caffeine data this is not the case. -DePiep (talk) 09:47, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Could you pay a another visit to this question, DMacks? -DePiep (talk) 07:22, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't see any new topic to address or further comment for me to make here. DMacks (talk) 18:53, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    My question was, DMacks, how keeping/having this data page relates to your idea to create "Caffeine (chemical)". Even a move does not seem helpful for this; and, of course, such a future move would cause the same issue again (keep-to-move-later IMO not a good workable AfD outcome). But alas. -DePiep (talk) 09:26, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • I see. To clarify in technical terms, I'd move (data page) to (chemical), with no redirect, and move some chemical content from the current article to the (chemical) article. DMacks (talk) 16:17, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, clarified. -DePiep (talk) 05:21, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or better, revert to earlier situation. Keep these datapages when there is sufficient data available (which, for Caffeine and many others, is easily met). We created these datapages because of the datacreep in articles, and now we revert it for no reason. Most of the data that is there is (generally) easily sourced, and where the articles are stubby in nature mark them as such so they can be expanded. Only delete if there is no significant expansion possible, and only delete data if it cannot be sourced. --Dirk Beetstra T C 18:02, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    There is a lot of physical chemistry data involved with making caffeine-containing beverages. A lot of that is depending on solubility data in e.g. water at a range of temperatures. Having a graph of solubility IN the main article is however total overkill, but a table and graph of the data in a datapage is certainly warranted. A sentence in the main page that states that you make tea at 95degC (or whatever temperature) then can refer to that table/graph. Same for coffee. Similar goes for spectroscopic data, steam extraction data, solubilities in ethanol/water mixtures, scCO2 (decaf), ethyl acetate (also decaf). Such raw data is not suitable for the article (bloating), but can help to explain or support. Dirk Beetstra T C 20:29, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
About discussion flow. Here Beetstra WP:refunds page Butadiene (data page) into mainspace. For this Beetstra had to use their admin rights (instead of asking for a WP:REFUND i.e. have another editor checking), manually (intentionally) removing the relevant tag, and while explicity acknowledging relevance for this AfD, leaving it to other(s) to list it here (see es). This is making a WP:POINT in mainspace (is why I write more extensive here). More obvious solution is: if that redundant page should be visible for XfD, it be in Draft space. -DePiep (talk) 09:12, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I see you use "these datapages" (plural), Beetstra, but by now it is established that we are discussing a single article here. -DePiep (talk) 07:22, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or merge. I especially like DMacks' idea of having two caffeine articles, one for the drug aspects and the other for the strictly chemical aspects, with this data in the latter. I feel like there is no perfect solution here, and I can appreciate how having a data page consisting mainly of an infobox is a little odd, but I do not believe that deletion is the solution. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:15, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Tryptofish: thanks for this contribution. Allow me to note: "keep or merge" is what this afd is about ;-). Personally I can support the chemical-split too; also I'd like to read why you think deletion of that "odd" article is not needed. -DePiep (talk) 13:02, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    My thinking is that there is no good reason to remove the information from our content, and the effect of merging/rearranging the data page content into a "chemical" page would naturally make the "data" page no longer needed; I suppose that would amount to an included deletion, but by convention, we regard a merging process as distinct from deletion. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:54, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Transient inclusion of butadiene data-page, no discussion of its merits
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
  • Oppose butadiene as out-of-process. It was inserted into this AFD a day later, after substantial discussion that was only with caffeine in the nom, and discussion that has substantial focus on aspects that are specific to caffeine and/or different from butadiene. DePiep, this is the second time and way you are acting in ways that are potentially disruptive. Please stop. DMacks (talk) 13:49, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Fine with me, while noting that I acted by GF advice in es. Do not understand "second time" suggestion. -DePiep (talk) 16:47, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural note: I withdraw article Butadiene (data page) I added late. AfD is about Caffeine (data page) solely. Sorry for the confusion caused. (I expect an admin will remove afd-tag from the artice; any action required by me?). -DePiep (talk) 16:55, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Because you, the nominator, have withdrawn it, and nobody commented in favor of deletion, it is not necessary for an admin to act on it, so I removed the afd tag. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:56, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose butadiene per DMacks. I have boldly struck the out-of-process addition, and I repeat the caution against continuation of the disruptive conduct. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:57, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: it is an article. As such, irrespective of its perceived history, motivation, intention (i.e., backgrounds invisible to the Reader of the encyclopedia), it must stand as an articleby itself full stop. The introductionary WP:What is an article? mentions: notable, summarizes comprehensively, encyclopedic style of language, well copyedited, references to RS, has wikilinks in/out (all 6 bullets, my cutout). Understandably a data page does not have the usual longer verbose, but that is not essential (ie, no elaborate body texts is not an issue). However. The article is an infobox only, plainly duplicates information already present elsewhere, does not reach the WP:stub bar from below. The article does not present itself as urgently needed in the encylopedia. It lacks substance. Being an AfD, this approach should be considered too. -DePiep (talk) 09:44, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Before those criteria, there is 'A Wikipedia article or entry is a page on this site that has encyclopedic information on it. A well-written encyclopedia article:'. This is a page with encyclopedic information on it. I can agree that it is not very well written (I would even say badly written), but that does not mean that it does not have merit. Many stub articles contain encyclopedic information, but lack on all of those points you mention. We do not delete them all, we try to improve them.
    Note: that the article now plainly duplicates information already present[ed] elsewhere is because you went against the earlier consensus of splitting out the information and have merged it back into the main article. Dirk Beetstra T C 11:10, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Of course the article has encyclopedic information. But that is not enough. The criteria mentioned are an and-list: an article must have some qualities in those too. Anyway, if you think this data page can be improved into a viable article, there is the royal route: start from data as in parent article, and apply WP:SPLIT if and when when actual data quantity merits a separation. Before this, development can take place in Draft:Caffeine (data page) (possible outcome of this AfD). OTOH, creating a separate article (data page or anything else) is not an free option ("we've chosen it so the article is OK"), it must be based on guidelines and article-worthyness. For "future worthyness" of an article: then (re)create that article if and when that happens: in that future. (For our information: candidate data in Caffeine page is only 4kB of the 183kB [15]). Today, it is not an article. -DePiep (talk) 06:15, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Meh, I think above this royal route is rather discouraged as it would go against the consensus (which you have not shown that it has changed). We do not place all our stubs in draft, we happily accomodate them in mainspace. Dirk Beetstra T C 14:07, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Beetstra: Why are you, again, replying this dismissive and downgrading to my post? How do you expect me to reply? In kind? -DePiep (talk) 09:00, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Of course, AfD exists to establish (new) consensus. "Some editors like it this way" is not a sound article motivation. Anyway, I am explicitly invoking guidelines and policies like WP:Article size, WP:SPINOUT, WP:MERGE, WP:NOTABLE, WP:SPLIT, WP:NOTABLE, not personal preference (that is: I do believe and support that these guidelines & approaches improve the encyclopedia in this topic). I have not read anywhere these WP:guidelines, policies & thoughts something that urges or even only invites us to (a) keep an immature substandard article, nor (b) split 2% of info out of an article into an incomplete article. -DePiep (talk) 09:18, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Please discuss the proposal of moving chemical information into this page and retitling it Caffeine (chemical).
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:49, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • As I discussed above: "There is a lot of physical chemistry data involved with making caffeine-containing beverages. A lot of that is depending on solubility data in e.g. water at a range of temperatures. Having a graph of solubility IN the main article is however total overkill , but a table and graph of the data in a datapage is certainly warranted. A sentence in the main page that states that you make tea at 95degC (or whatever temperature) then can refer to that table/graph. Same for coffee. Similar goes for spectroscopic data, steam extraction data, solubilities in ethanol/water mixtures, scCO2 (decaf), ethyl acetate (also decaf). Such raw data is not suitable for the article (bloating), but can help to explain or support." The idea of making a Caffeine (chemical) is of interest and may stand a chance (per DMacks), but also that article should not become a dumping ground for good, verifiable, encyclopedic but tangential/supporting information, and I think it is a separate discussion.
I still believe that many of these datapages (intentional plural, we have many of them, we should be discussing them as a group what we want with them), including Caffeine (data page), could be transformed into a reasonable 'article', and that the information is of interest to multiple articles (Caffeine as its current description of the drug, Caffeine (chemical), Coffee, Decaffeination, Decaffeinated coffee, Tea, etc. can all point here for more extensive data). That is similar to Water (data page) where multiple articles (water, Properties of water, Ice, Heavy water, Outline of water, etc) are pointing to the datapage, and somewhat akin to what scientific publishing does with supplementary data pages. For that reason, doing a merge and then split again (which may end up in the current status quo since we did not discuss first what we want with datapages in the first place), moving it elsewhere and then wait for creation of another page where some of the data may fit, or whatever is in my opinion 'too soon' and I will reiterate my opinion to keep and develop this, and suggest to have a broad discussion on what we want to do with datapages in the first place. --Dirk Beetstra T C 05:19, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per WP:NOT, and specifically WP:NOTDATABASE. I'm sorry to be the turd in the punchbowl here, and I respect the fact that the other editors commenting above are longstanding contributors who have built immense chemistry/biochemistry content. But I oppose having articles like Caffeine (data page) on philosophical grounds. This is an encyclopedia. Data that doesn't fit into the flow of an encyclopedia article on a topic -- even useful data, even interesting data, even data that some people might like to have handy for reference -- shouldn't be hosted here. Many other websites collect useful chemical data; but that's not our thing. If the "Chemistry of caffeine" is a notable topic (and I'm somewhat confident it is!) then anyone is welcome to write an encyclopedia article on that topic, including whatever data and figures are relevant to that article. But absent that article, this is just using Wikipedia to host a database entry for caffeine, when other websites already do this, and are better suited to do so. Ajpolino (talk) 23:42, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Ajpolino: That argument then also goes for Water (data page)? Dirk Beetstra T C 05:48, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, certainly. Ajpolino (talk) 03:48, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Ajpolino: in regard to your original remark: what do you think of this solution then: Caffeine#Chemical_data? Dirk Beetstra T C 05:25, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I suppose to me that's roughly equivalent to having the data tables hidden away at a separate title (as they are now). I'm sure we can agree that not all information on a topic belongs in that topic's Wikipedia article (e.g. we don't describe each of Harry Styles' tattoos at Harry Styles (though take a look; sources exist)). We make editorial judgements all the time to determine what information belongs in an article, and what does not. Perhaps on some items reasonable people will disagree. To me, the Gmelin reference number, dipole moment, hell even the boiling point just aren't germane to caffeine. Maybe if someone wrote up a whole article that was truly an encyclopedia article on Caffeine chemistry, those things would have a clear place. But here it seems like we just shoehorned some arbitrary data tables into the article because we couldn't bear to remove facts from a page. Ajpolino (talk) 00:54, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Ajpolino: yes, but there is more. Solubility data of caffeine is of interest to many other articles (decaf coffee, the process of decaffeination, making coffee, caffeine uptake). The Gmelin reference is more specific to Caffeine chemistry (as are the boiling and melting points). But there is data that belongs here, there is data that belongs there, and there is data that belongs here, there (and there and there). (and I could also envisage a 'list of Harry Styles' tattoos' - maybe not that different from 'list of physical properties of Caffeine'). Dirk Beetstra T C 12:54, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I think List of physical properties of caffeine would be the most appropriate place for something like this. WP:LISTN gives fairly broad latitude for what constitutes acceptable topics for standalone lists, and it seems to me there's at least a decent argument to be made that this could qualify. But even then, what would be the point of us having List of physical properties of each conceivable chemical pages? Wouldn't we just be mirroring what PubChem and other chemistry databases do? Ajpolino (talk) 00:52, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    No, because ideally it would put the different types of physical data into sections and give context. Note that list of physical properties may become a misnomer if we also include e.g. chemical properties, and that I would find it bureaucratic if an article that does not have the word list in it could not be treated like one (meh: ‘<chemical> (data list)’?).
    You're also right that we should have limits, not every chemical needs this. I think that this is something that needs a broader discussion regarding how to proceed. Dirk Beetstra T C 01:58, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Last relist, need to get more views on whether a move is appropriate.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:08, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment This came up a couple of weeks ago with the data-page of another common chemical. At the time, I suggested delete for that chemical properties "page" as I felt the whole concept was silly; the basic data should be in the main article, and we're not a chemical database. But I was told that separate data-pages is how the chemistry community has chosen to do it. I still think it's daft, but if it's consensus, so be it. Does anyone know where the consensus was reached? If we don't like these data-pages, it would be most helpful to get the consensus changed rather than fight a patchy action at AfD. Elemimele (talk) 20:33, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Elemimele: Ido not disagree per se, but the datapage is ‘supplemental’ to a lot of caffeine related subjects, coffee, decaffeination, tea, caffeine (drug), caffeine (chemical) all (can) benefit from it, and in each of the articles it is rather bloating (see what happens here: Caffeine#Chemical_data). I guess your last comment aligns with an early suggestion of me: do an RfC to see what we actually want with these datapages. Dirk Beetstra T C 05:21, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Beetstra:, yup, that's precisely why I find these data-pages a bit dubious. They often seem to duplicate information that's in the main article. Caffeine is an example, because at the bottom of its normal info-box (top right of the article) there is a teeny-weeny link to the caffeine data-page that we're currently considering deleting, and yet the entire information in the data-page is also in the main article as you linked. Why do both? It'd be good to know in general what people expect to get out of chemical data-pages, and where they want them used. I'd certainly be interested in a RfC. Elemimele (talk) 11:18, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Elemimele: No, now you misunderstood. The information I link to from the article into the datapage. Now it was merged back without significant discussion and we landed here. But my point is: whether located in the (better: a) main article as a contextless section, or in a separate datapage, it still violates WP:NOTDATABASE. And that paragraph should be replicated in all pages that talk about caffeine (the problem is more obvious for water (data page) … do we put it in water or ice .. or all). So just outright delete? But much of that data is encyclopedic, there are enough references that show you how solubility of caffeine in scCO2, ethyl acetate and water is important to the many subjects involving caffeine. So then replicate it again? Or make a datapage with more context for the data that is presented so that other pages can ‘use’ it? Dirk Beetstra T C 11:31, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Beetstra:, ah, okay, that makes a lot of sense. This goes beyond an AfC thing, but I take it you would then argue that for chemicals of general interest, such as caffeine, we should have a data-page to which multiple articles can refer? Or is there value in a template that would appear visually in the other articles (I would say not, as it would be undue weight in an article on coffee). If the actual data are to be removed into a data-page, then I think it would help if the link in the chemical info-box were a lot more obvious. Is there some way in which a page can function as a stand-alone page when referred to from "coffee" but appear in full in the main article about caffeine, as though it were a template? I don't know what's best...
    About WP:NOTDATABASE, the point is that we shouldn't have indiscriminate data without a context. Fortunately the basic chemical data typically displayed in info-boxes have all the titles wiki-linked, so if someone doesn't know what a molar mass is, they'll get a much better context here than any other source of chemical information. I also think that many of our readers, for example 6th form students, will find Wikipedia far more accessible than Chemspider etc., so provided we're not sticking great swathes of obscure data into the data-pages (or articles), it's genuinely useful stuff that should be here. I just want it to be easy to find from the main article; I don't care how that's achieved. Elemimele (talk) 13:26, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Elemimele: Yes, that is the point. But even if as a section in an article, or as a separate datapage, all the data should be contextualized. I should not just have a table on a page (or a set of tables in a section), but rather a (very) short lede, then sections with different 'types' of data (e.g. for caffeine a section with solubility data in different solvents) with again a bit of context why these tables are of interest (pointing back to decaf coffee, process of decaffeination, etc.). If there are then sections that are only relevant for one article, they probably should not be in the datapage. And we should probably have this only for chemicals where that condition is met, and only if there is 'sufficient' data beyond what you would need - if it is just one graph/table then it can be stored in one article, but if there is more then datapage. Yes, this discussion is way beyond an AfD, this needs centralized discussion on what we actually want with these datapages. Dirk Beetstra T C 12:46, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Beetstra: Above, you use the argument against the earlier consensus, go against the consensus, was by consensus removed to keep (BTW, I did not find a diff for that consensus; pls someone add). But of course, this AfD is able to overrule that or any consensus. Earlier consensus is not forbidding us to run and conclude an AfD. (Arguments from that consensus-discussion could be reused as valid, of course—both ways). -DePiep (talk) 15:12, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Of course an AfD can do that. But this AfD was not set up to override consensus, this AfD was (and you may not have known that, discussions were linked above) initiated after you bluntly undid the consensus, ‘blanked’ the page, first tried to speedy it (hence no discussion to overturn the consensus) and then coming here to delete a page that was empty. But the consensus to split is larger than caffeine, we also have butadiene, water, and some others. This AfD consensus cannot set a new consensus for all the others. That is why I have, since well before this discussion, stated that we first should discuss what we want to do with these datapages, then implement that. Dirk Beetstra T C 02:14, 11 February 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. ✗plicit 14:23, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

National Development Party (India)[edit]

National Development Party (India) (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)

Zero online coverage & the entire article unsourced, breaking NCORP guidelines. Khgk (talk) 12:55, 2 February 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. ✗plicit 14:23, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dominique Mendy (footballer, born 1994)[edit]

Dominique Mendy (footballer, born 1994) (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 as there are no in-depth articles about him. Fails WP:NFOOTY as he hasn't played in a fully-pro league or for a senior national team. Nehme1499 12:33, 2 February 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! 06:58, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Malek Shalabiya[edit]

Malek Shalabiya (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 as there are no in-depth articles about him. Fails WP:NFOOTY as he hasn't played in a fully-pro league or for a senior national team. Nehme1499 12:32, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

keep per below. GiantSnowman 18:13, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom.--Ortizesp (talk) 15:35, 3 February 2022 (UTC) Keep per NT cap.--Ortizesp (talk) 14:05, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep He gave his debut for Jordan national team recently.Have a look at Transfermarkt Footy777 (talk) 08:37, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Footy777: TM is not a reliable source. Regardless, I have amended the article and will retract my nomination. Nehme1499 09:03, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Pinging @GiantSnowman and Ortizesp. Nehme1499 09:04, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The cap is confirmed by Soccerway, which is a RS. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:06, 8 February 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:34, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ashraf Al-Masaeed[edit]

Ashraf Al-Masaeed (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 as there are no in-depth articles about him. Fails WP:NFOOTY as he hasn't played in a fully-pro league or for a senior national team. Nehme1499 12:31, 2 February 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:35, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mahmoud Muwafi[edit]

Mahmoud Muwafi (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 as there are no in-depth articles about him. Fails WP:NFOOTY as he hasn't played in a fully-pro league or for a senior national team. Nehme1499 12:30, 2 February 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:35, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Scott Martin (racing driver)[edit]

Scott Martin (racing driver) (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)

Unable to find significant coverage of the subject of this WP:BLP from independent reliable sources. Article does nothing to establish WP:SIGCOV. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FactFinderGeneral (talk • contribs)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Wrestling at the 1908 Summer Olympics – Men's Greco-Roman lightweight. Redirects are a valid ATD and this could be a viable search term. No harm is caused by the Redirect. Star Mississippi 02:14, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ulferd Bruseker[edit]

Ulferd Bruseker (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. No evidence found of any notability, is just included in some databases. I checked Delpher.nl (large database of Dutch newspapers) both for Ulferd Bruseker and for Frits Bruseker, and found nothing that would add notability. Looking for Bruseker worstelen (Dutch for wrestling) gave some Brusekers in result lists (but no further information), but their initials were "M Bruseker", "W Bruseker", so apparently not about the one we have an article on. Other articles like this again mentions him (as participating in the Olympic wrestling event), but again without any further information. Similar here. The most extensive result I could find was a very short review of his Olympic 1st round defeat, here. This article by the way contradicts our Wrestling at the 1908 Summer Olympics – Men's Greco-Roman lightweight article, switching the results and opponents of Bruseker and his compatriot Van Moppes. I have no idea if our article is right, or if the review from the day is right. But our article is confirmed by this (one line about Bruseker), so I guess the "best" article I found so far is not trustworthy... I haven't found any article that actually gives any further information about Bruseker, but I may have missed it.

I had redirected the article to Wrestling at the 1908 Summer Olympics – Men's Greco-Roman lightweight, which seems like the logical solution here, but was reverted. Fram (talk) 10:31, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fram, the wrestler's common initials were "U O Bruseker". Bruseker + worstelaar will provide additional hits but, as far as I can tell, not at the quality needed. I appreciate the quality and depth of your WP:BEFORE! gidonb (talk) 01:06, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Wrestling at the 1908 Summer Olympics – Men's Greco-Roman lightweight Per nom and gidonb. Not notable, but redirection is a valid alternative to deletion. Kudos to nom for being bold and just creating the redirect initially, but alas he was reverted so here we are. Smartyllama (talk) 15:09, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is a horrible plan. Wikipedia should not be turned into a bunch of redirects to non-notable people. If people do not meet our inclusion criteria we should in general delete the articles. We should only redirect if we have a target article that actually has substanial prose text about the person. Redicting to a bare mention in a long list is just not a good idea.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:36, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
JPL, you grossly miscategorize the target. There is much more there than a bare mention. And even if it was just a mention, per WP:RFD: Redirects are cheap. They take up little storage space and use very little bandwidth. It doesn't really hurt things if there are a few of them scattered around. gidonb (talk) 04:29, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If we redirect every non-notable person who competed in the Olympics, we will end up with thousands if not tens of thousands of new redirects. This is way more than a few.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:24, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If the costs are extremely small, it doesn't matter. For example, if each redirect eats up zero point ONE HUNDRED ZEROS then 1% of the WP budget, it doesn't matter at all if we create 1, 10, 100, 1.000, or 10.000 redirects for Olympians. On the benefit side, the picture is VERY different. Each of these names is a likely search term every once in a while and will bring hits to WP. Among these people potential new editors and donors. Even just readers, who land on very factual articles, will be left with a good impression and add to our traffic and reputation. So the benefits have an enormous edge over the costs. HUGE! gidonb (talk) 12:49, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and Johnpacklambert. Fails WP:GNG. Avilich (talk) 02:00, 7 February 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 userfied by creator. (non-admin closure) Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 16:28, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hoarding and traumatic life events[edit]

Hoarding and traumatic life events (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)

Simply put, there's nothing in here that couldn't be covered in compulsive hoarding. 90% of the article is about hoarding, and the other 10% a short bit about how there's a link between the two, and generic medical advice like "Individuals with hoarding disorder can discuss their traumatic life events with a licensed clinical psychologist to determine how their traumatic life experiences impact their hoarding behavior" and more research is needed platitudes. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 10:18, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Edit, I almost wrote like "Feels like a student essay" and... well that's more or less what it is. Pinging @Helaine (Wiki Ed) and Ian (Wiki Ed): so they can advise instructors. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 10:22, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Headbomb: I normally just move things like this back to their sandbox (and try to give them advice on how to fix/rewrite it, but you're under no obligation to do the latter). Ian (Wiki Ed) (talk) 15:31, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Since this is part of some coursework, or whatever is involved here, an alternative to deletion could be to move this back to userspace at User:GabriellePasturel/Hoarding and Traumatic Life Events. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 10:30, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This really isn't a personal essay in the sense of NOTESSAY though. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 15:43, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, since everyone seems fine with the idea of userfying, I've done that. Nomination can be closed. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 15:44, 2 February 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! 06:56, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Squandro[edit]

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

The sources for this page range from a Geocities link to a news feed, to a newspaper article that seems to post-date the creation of the article itself. Google Books turns up one (inaccessible) result, Google Scholar nothing other than the aforementioned newspaper article (the reference in American Indian Wars is to a Squandro tribe, not an individual). I think what may have happened here is a confusion with Squanto, plus some heavy local myth cruft and an author with a ghost story to tell. Vizjim (talk) 10:05, 2 February 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 Camerata Academica of the Antipodes. (non-admin closure) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 15:37, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Leon Coward[edit]

Leon Coward (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)

Australian pianist who does not pass WP:BASIC or WP:ENT. The best references are a series of (non-solo) concert reviews in a single online publication published by British Society for Eighteenth-Century Studies. Those concerts are by a family ensemble called Camerata Academica of the Antipodes composed of siblings Leon, Imogen Coward, and Taliésin Coward. I don't think they give him notability (even assuming a series of reviews in a marginal, non-expert publication could do so anyway, which is doubtful). AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 15:39, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

shaidar cuebiyar Nice work on Camerata Academica of the Antipodes. Changing my !vote to redirect as per my comment above. Aoziwe (talk) 08:51, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:BIO and WP:ENT. LibStar (talk) 05:54, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Less Unless (talk) 08:16, 2 February 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 merge to List of Roblox games. (But for the record, alternatives to deletion should be considered before coming to AfD, which is a last resort.) czar 16:55, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hyundai Mobility Adventure[edit]

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

Non-notable topic. I did a search on google and the only source I saw when looking through a Google News search that I knew was reliable for sure (by looking at WP:RSP) was "The Register" however it doesn't seems to add much to its notability. I would also agree with adding this game to List of Roblox games as an alternative to deletion ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 18:48, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 18:48, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 18:48, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The Korean Economic Daily and Aju Business Daily articles alraedy cited appear to be WP:SIGCOV, independent (they are attributed to different authors), and reliable. NemesisAT (talk) 18:50, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @NemesisAT: Ah ok. I would assume you also oppose adding this game onto List of Roblox games? A lot of the sources I was finding while doing a WP:BEFORE search were from things like "Motorbox" or "MediaPost" and I saw a lot of sources with very similar names or were just advertising from Hyundai. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 18:55, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    No I'm not opposed at all though I would prefer to keep this article as well as add the game to that list. NemesisAT (talk) 17:57, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It's a real video game and there're some references in this article. --Hajoon0102 💬 00:36, 26 January 2022 (UTC)— Note to closing admin: Hajoon0102 (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD. [reply]
    @Hajoon0102: "It's a real video game" so is every other video game. It being real is not the concern here. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 02:50, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Blaze Wolf: Okay. But, there're some reliable sources. So, my opinion is keep. --Hajoon0102 💬 03:06, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Hajoon0102: I also proposed for the game to be added on to List of Roblox games instead of just being straight up deleted, which is usually where a game on Roblox belongs if it's notable. The inclusion criteria states this, "All entries on this list must be notable (having their own articles) or backed by reliable secondary sources", so if this is eventually decided as keep then I'll add it to that since it would fall into the inclusion criteria. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 14:11, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to List of Roblox games it's got some routine-ish coverage from Korean business news, the kind that you typically get when the biggest Korean car manufacturer announces anything. My sense is that this is a blip in the radar and unlikely to get lasting coverage in RS. It's been almost 3 months since it came out with hardly any impact since then. Even as far as Roblox games go, this one feels on the less notable end. Axem Titanium (talk) 02:32, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There're some reliable sources. So there is no reason to delete it. --59.9.162.158 (talk) 04:39, 27 January 2022 (UTC)— 59.9.162.158 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
    Not meaning to sound rude but, so far 2 out of 3 of your edits have been reverted. That shows me you don't have much experience in editing Wikipedia and that you don't understand Wikipedia's rules all that well. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 13:50, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to List of Roblox games Per Axem Titanium, a sensible compromise when it has had some reliable source coverage but doesn't seem to pass WP:SUSTAINED. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 14:13, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per Axem and Zxcvbnm. Sergecross73 msg me 20:56, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, not sure if this was already made clear but I'm making it clear that I'm also proposing this article be merged into List of Roblox games as an alternative to deletion. Not sure if this was clear already due to how weirdly I worded it in the original nom. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 21:47, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    It is usually frowned upon to propose a merge in an AfD. Otherwise you can simply make a merge proposal instead. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 03:38, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    They didn't though, they merely said that they're fine with that outcome as well, which is completely fine. Sergecross73 msg me 19:50, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Less Unless (talk) 08:15, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge per Axem and Zxcvbnm as well. Nomader (talk) 03:02, 3 February 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. Star Mississippi 02:13, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of CBA playoff series[edit]

List of CBA playoff 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)

On the surface, this list seems to be against WP:NOTSTATS, as it is simply a list of CBA playoff series, and WP is not a sports almanac. Article also only has one source, which isn't independent. Perhaps these should be redirected to individual seasons. Spf121188 (talk) 15:33, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Vinnylospo, I would encourage you to take a look at WP:NOTSTATS, and if you want the page kept (which I understand, since you published the page,) you'll need to find a way to demonstrate why this article should keep it's own space by way of WP policy rather than asserting it's perceived importance. Bagumba actually brings up a good alternative, by making a subsection on Chinese Basketball Association, also they bring up that all of the sources on this article are simply stat pages, with zero secondary or tertiary sources. Spf121188 (talk) 13:34, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 21:56, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, per WP:NOTSTATS, this article does not have much if any encyclopedic content. With it all being based from one source, it is basically just copying and restating what is already mentioned on that source. Also reads like a directory, aka WP:NOTDIRECTORY.Rollidan (talk) 22:51, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Less Unless (talk) 08:15, 2 February 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. Sandstein 08:41, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Manos family[edit]

Manos family (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)

Unreferenced since 2006, we already have an article listing everyone with the surname "Manos", nothing found in my WP:BEFORE for the Manos family as a whole. Fails WP:GNG/WP:LISTN. FOARP (talk) 11:20, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(←) @FOARP: I was actually going to expand this article and reference it properly because I am gathering information related to the Manos family. They are a notable family due to being one of the Phanariot families and apart from that, being part of the Greek royal family through Aspasia Manos. I would suggest to delete this Manos (name) and I will proceed to expand it. Thank you in advance. Othon I (talk) 12:22, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This appears to indicate the notability of Aspasia Manos, not the Manos family, but feel free to post your sources. FOARP (talk) 12:41, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have edited the article and I am working on adding more material. Unsourced material has been deleted. Thanks Othon I (talk) 12:26, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, but I reserve the right to change my mind. (1) It's not appropriate, in any case, to delete Manos (name). If you are serious about doing so, Othon I, then you must prod it or create a new AfD; it cannot be smuggled through on this one. There may be other people with the name Manos whose relation to this family we cannot prove (e.g. John_Michael_Manos). Wikipedia has lists of people who share a family name so that our readers can find the one they're looking for. It's fundamentally wrong to deny our readers the chance to find the right Manos because we've decided to have a list restricted to the select ones who belong to a particular clan. That is why the name article is important, even if the family article is kept. But (2) in its current state the article is ripe for deletion. Apart from the name-list, it is very obviously one person's personal opinion ("...for reasons I mentioned..."), using vocabulary that isn't appropriate ("...to the unquestionable benefit..."; we can't say "unquestionable" unless someone in a reliable source said it's beyond question; this is a description of a human opinion about the benefit, rather than a blatant fact, and must be assigned to a person). But worst, the whole thing is unsourced. Not one reference. If the family really are that influential, I would expect there to be loads of stuff about them in good history books and articles, and a string of influential figures throughout history, not a jump from 1699 to 1869, and a list of only three notable people. But this is why I reserve the right to change my mind: if someone finds some good historical sources, and puts them in, and I'll consider a Keep! Note also, current text looks fairly similar to [17] but I don't know who copied who. Elemimele (talk) 14:01, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Less Unless (talk) 08:13, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete perhaps create a template for bottom of the page which can be used to link the ones with existing pages.Gusfriend (talk) 07:29, 3 February 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 no consensus. Stifle (talk) 14:56, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nada Mourtada-Sabbah[edit]

Nada Mourtada-Sabbah (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 came here trying to investigate the "close paraphrasing" tag. Instead, here we are. First I can find no evidence that this passes WP:GNG; I couldn't find independent coverage of the subject. As for WP:NPROF according to SCOPUS her work hasn't garnered many citations. No indication that her position was a "Named chair or distinguished professor appointment" per the 5th criterion. She has co-authored several books but nothing in WP:AUTHOR seems to apply here. Mysteriously, there's no mention of her at the AUS website any longer, and I can find no news of what she's doing now. To complete the picture, the article was created by a single-purpose account that shared a name with the subject. Certainly no rules broken, but it does fit with everything else to suggest this may be an article created for promotional purposes, and that doesn't meet our notability criteria. Perhaps someone else can turn up some sources? I've come up empty. Ajpolino (talk) 05:23, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - I have removed the fluff. Her work on the political question has been cited in multiple legal articles, but doesn't end up in Google Scholar. I have added what I could find and look forward to hearing other thoughts on her. If this article does not survive AfD, can it be moved to a draft in case more sources are found? DaffodilOcean (talk) 23:29, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:10, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - Thank you DO for your work on this article. Now that we know the subject's current position, I feel it's likely that other sources would exist in Arabic, which (shame on me) I cannot read. So I'd also lean "Weak keep" based on the gentle assumption that there's more material out there, and no benefit to deleting the article. Ajpolino (talk) 18:16, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Less Unless (talk) 08:12, 2 February 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. Star Mississippi 02:05, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bahativka[edit]

Bahativka (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 disambiguation needed. The only Bahativka mentioned in Wikipedia is the municipality in Crimea. I propose moving Bahativka, Crimea back to Bahativka. Leschnei (talk) 14:05, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Less Unless (talk) 08:11, 2 February 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. The arguments citing WP:BIO1E has not been successfully refuted. Stifle (talk) 14:57, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mithridates (soldier)[edit]

Mithridates (soldier) (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:BIO1E Extremely minor figure in the writing of Plutarch. Current version is essentially a plot summary of parts of Plutarch's Life of Artaxerxes. There's not really any significant coverage of this individual in the academic literature as far as I can see. The death penalty that they were supposedly subjected to, Scaphism seems notable and is a possible redirect target. Any content of this article can easily be covered elsewhere. Hemiauchenia (talk) 01:11, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Hemiauchenia (talk) 01:11, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Hemiauchenia (talk) 01:11, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iraq-related deletion discussions. Hemiauchenia (talk) 01:11, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Hemiauchenia (talk) 01:11, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Before a certain point in history (and 401 BC is certainly before that point), anyone known to us can be reasonably treated as notable; the records are so sparse it's a bit absurd to try make gradients. (The subject seems to have the level of scholarly mention I'd expect of minor-but-known ancient figures, both included and not in the article.) That doesn't necessarily answer whether we should have a stand-alone article, which is closer to the nominator's contention, so it's worth responding to that too. Mithridates is the first known case of (supposed) scaphism, and it's reasonable to have a stand-alone article discussing the specific context of this case; readers could reasonably desire to know more than would be due to include in the scaphism article itself about a single individual. There's also the open question of whether scaphism actually existed, and merging further Mithridates-related content to that article would risk unbalancing its perspective even more in favour of that of its historical accuracy (as it stands the article is already severely imbalanced), while simply redirecting -- or the damnably realistic outcome of a merge that eventually gets turned into a de facto redirect by such content being removed as undue -- would leave the interested reader with no place to find detail they might reasonably want to read. The article could use some work (some of the quotes can be turned into properly contextualized own-words text), but this is a normal-editing matter. Vaticidalprophet 04:35, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Before a certain point in history (and 401 BC is certainly before that point), anyone known to us can be reasonably treated as notable is certainly an "interesting" interpretation of the notability guidelines. There are plenty of individuals recorded in cuneiform transactions and the like that I would not consider notable. The detail surrounding the deaths of Cyrus are better covered at Cyrus the Younger or the battle article. Hemiauchenia (talk) 05:25, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The argument that everyone whose name is known from classical antiquity possesses some notability is venerable, but unnecessary here—the fact that this Mithridates is mentioned in other articles, about Cyrus, Artaxerxes, scaphism, etc. makes that line of argument redundant. However, it may be difficult to cover the topic adequately over the course of multiple articles; in each of these he would naturally be mentioned only in passing, or for one aspect of this article. If someone tried to fold all of this into any of them—although I think perhaps the quotations are excessive, and that they could be trimmed and/or summarized to better effect—the chances are that the material would be significantly edited down because of undue weight in what is, admittedly, a minor episode. Nonetheless, we have a soldier who ostensibly killed a king, or at least the claimant to the throne, and thereby changed the course of a war. That makes him notable, and the fact that he later boasted of his exploit and was put to death in what may be the first historical or literary example of a particularly gruesome method of punishment is also notable. This collection of facts doesn't really belong in any one other article, except perhaps as a passing mention, and this topic deserves a bit more than that. It may be too long as is, but that can be fixed, leaving a respectable short article. P Aculeius (talk) 15:59, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Surely this –>> "According to Plutarch's Life of Artaxerxes, a young Persian soldier named Mithridates unknowingly struck Cyrus the Younger during the Battle of Cunaxa... Mithridates boasted of killing Cyrus in the court, and Parysatis had him executed by scaphism" <<– in the article of Cyrus the Younger (and similar notices elsewhere) is already enough. Topic doesn't merit a standalone article (the definition of 'notability') due to lack of coverage in secondary sources (WP:NBASIC). And who knows if Plutarch's account can even be taken at face value. Avilich (talk) 23:56, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Whether Plutarch's account is accurate is not the point: figures from legend or mythology are still notable irrespective of their historicity, and Plutarch is generally regarded as a reliable source, even though he reported stories and traditions as well as provable fact—and he admitted as much, just as modern historians mention widely-known anecdotes: they're an indication of how people regarded historical persons and events, whether or not the anecdotes themselves can be proven. The question of secondary sources is relevant, but I found some (including some recent ones) with a simple Google search for "Mithridates, slayer of Cyrus" (perhaps not the best formulation, but the fact that it worked means that the sources demanded exist, and that "Before" was not followed). Notability is a given: he's the killer (or assassin, even unwittingly) of a king, whose deed changed the course of a civil war. Not to mention the first known victim of an infamous form of execution. The only reason for not having an article would be if there's not enough material, but the fact that a thorough discussion of this fellow, even pared down from the article's present state, would be unduly long in an article about Cyrus or Artaxerxes, means that a stand-alone article is justified. P Aculeius (talk) 05:45, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It would not be unduly long because that sentence contains all that is known about him. "Notability" (not has nothing to do with someone being a killer or associated with someone important: it's just Wikipedia's term for a topic having received enough coverage that it requires an article for the information not to be unduly long elsewhere. This is not the case here. A standalone article simply adds nothing, and is just an unnecessary content fork, though those large quotes may give the opposite impression. Avilich (talk) 14:04, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The notion that the assassin of a king lacks notability because "notability cannot be inherited" contorts Wikipedia's notability guidelines beyond recognition. By this argument, none of the twentieth century's famous assassins merit inclusion—all of them were nobodies who came to public attention solely because of a single act, achieving nothing particularly noteworthy before or after it. You may well argue that "other facts are known about them", but that is a separate argument, and has nothing to do with notability. And the claim that "that sentence contains all that is known about him" is demonstrably false. The passages quoted, however excessive, include a number of details about his motivations, conduct, and personality, just as they do about the motives and character of the man who ordered his gruesome execution. But most of these details would likely be excluded from any articles about Artaxerxes or Cyrus, since Mithridates is not the subject of those articles, and in them a brief summary would be expected—much as we would not expect all of the facts about Lee Harvey Oswald to appear in the article about John F. Kennedy, or even the article about Kennedy's assassination (which is actually considerably shorter), or all of the details about Gavrilo Princip to appear under Franz Ferdinand or his assassination. A lack of notability cannot reasonably be argued in this case—the sole question is whether there would be sufficient content to justify a stand-alone article once the current contents are edited down to a reasonable length; and this can be determined from the fact that the various details that are properly be included here would be excessive in articles about other persons or topics that could discuss Mithridates, while even the main facts would have to be dispersed amongst multiple other articles. P Aculeius (talk) 15:13, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
A lack of notability cannot reasonably be argued in this case—the sole question is whether there would be sufficient content to justify a stand-alone article once the current contents are edited down to a reasonable length In Wikipedia, those are the same thing. And besides, after removing those gigantic quotes, all that remains can be summed up in one or two sentences in Cyrus the Younger's article with no loss of information. If you don't think that, then we'll have to agree to disagree. Avilich (talk) 00:31, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Notability has nothing to do with the length of an article; many notable persons have very short articles, or none at all. And it would be utterly inappropriate to "remove" the quotations without summarizing or paraphrasing the relevant passages, which would leave a great deal more than your one-sentence summary. What we have here is an article where the original editors identified the relevant facts, but failed to extract them from the original source, or provide additional context from secondary sources. That means that we have an article in need of improvement—not deletion. P Aculeius (talk) 05:04, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I said nothing of the length of the article specifically, just pointing out how WP:SIGCOV works. There's no evidence so far that the sources which the editors "failed" to find actually exist. Avilich (talk) 06:14, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You said that the two things I mentioned (lack of notability, sufficient content to justify a stand-alone article) were "the same thing". There are many notable persons about whom not much is known. And I clearly indicated that I found additional sources with a simple Google search, which you could have replicated just by typing in the same search terms (which I said were probably sub-optimal). But it's not my job to pile up evidence in order to save the article—I'm merely pointing out that the nomination is premised on the claim that there are no academic sources, when the most cursory of searches would have found some. This nomination fails to demonstrate lack of notability or lack of sources, so the discussion should be closed as "keep". Any editor is free to improve the article by reworking and/or editing down the quotations—bearing in mind that the subject is historically significant, and that there is more to say about him than would justifiably be merged into other articles; the "improvement" should not be done with the goal of reducing the article to one or two sentences in order to renominate it for deletion. Just because the quotations are overly-long doesn't mean that there shouldn't be any; just because some of the details don't seem important to the course of history doesn't mean they shouldn't be mentioned. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not just a collection of highlights with all of the details squeezed out. P Aculeius (talk) 16:03, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment At a minimum this article has way too much coatracking about things not directly related to the subject, and way too many and too long quotes directly from sources. If it is kept, we need to rework it to focus on the subject and to not look like it belongs in Wikisource.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:18, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. There is quite a lot of discussion on Mithridates in Carsten Binder, Plutarchs Vita des Artaxerxes, de Gruyter, 2008 (ISBN 9783110202694). However Binder does say that nothing more can be said of Mithridates than what Plutarch tells. He mostly deals with the sources of Plutarch for the story and a literary analysis of its use within the narrative. I don't think Wikipedia should reproduce that kind of in-depth analysis of a text and therefore think the article has to be deleted, or possibly redirected to Cyrus the Younger#Expedition against Artaxerxes II (401 BC). There may be more room to talk about the story in an article Life of Artaxerxes. I have Binder's book in pdf if someone wants to create this article (but it's in German). T8612 (talk) 10:48, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep/merge to scaphism. This seems to me to be right on the borderline of being worth keeping – but I think that a lot of discussion of notability in this AfD so far is utterly unrelated to what our guidelines actually say. WP:GNG sets out as a standard for notability "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject", and I think this is the standard we should be considering the article by.
P.Aculeius' assertion that assassins of world leaders must be notable in general because otherwise we wouldn't be able to have a page on e.g. Lee Harvey Oswald seems to me to be clearly wrong – Lee Harvey Oswald meets GNG through being the subject of several books. If Mithridates had likewise been the subject of several books, he would be unquestionably notable. (And, uh, Mithridates wasn't an assassin, and he didn't kill a world leader; he was the soldier who happened to be credited with the death of a claimant to the throne!)
Not what I said. I said that the argument that "notability can't be inherited" can't be used to claim that "assassins aren't notable, because their notability is derived from their relationship to their victims". It's true that there are lots of reliable sources about 20th century assassins—because they're recent, whereas Plutarch may be the only source for Mithridates, simply because the death of Artaxerxes occurred more than two thousand years ago. But few if any of these persons did anything notable before or after killing someone famous; they are notable solely due to one act, but cannot be described as non-notable because "notability cannot be inherited". I'm not going to quibble about the loose description of Mithridates as an "assassin", which was never relevant to any point I made, but arguably two people claiming to be king, each one leading their own army against the other, could reasonably be described as "leaders"—in fact it sounds like Artaxerxes was on the verge of winning the war and becoming the undisputed king, when Mithridates happened to kill him. But whether you call him a "world leader" also isn't really important. My argument for notability is that he's the pivotal figure in ending the war (at least according to Plutarch), and sufficient details are known about him to justify an article—details that would not be adequately covered in any of the other articles that would naturally mention him. The fact that several modern writers discuss Mithridates—even if not in great detail—both strengthens the argument for keeping the article, and demonstrates that one of the premises for this nomination was incorrect. P Aculeius (talk) 00:04, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I also am highly suspicious of the argument that "once you get far enough back in history, anyone who we know the name of should be considered notable". If all we know about a figure is their name, and there is no discussion of them in reliable sources, then just blindly making an article which says "X was a figure in Greek history, mentioned on inscription Y" when nothing further can be said about them is pretty much pointless.
On the other hand, the fact that an ancient figure only appears in one ancient source does not mean that they are inherently not notable – Neaira (hetaira) is an example of a figure who exists in only one ancient source and yet has been the subject of a book-length biography by a modern scholar, and thus I would argue is notable. In the case of Mithridates, the fact that (per T8612 - I don't have access) Carsten Binder discusses the case in depth in his commentary on the life of Artaxerxes, plus the discussion by Bruce Lincoln in From Artaxerxes to Abu Ghraib makes me think that there is just about enough commentary in reliable sources to pass the notability barrier. I wouldn't object to a merge to scaphism given that all of the coverage seems to be about his execution, however. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 13:21, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Your source doesn't seem to offer any actual commentary on Mithridates though, just of Plutarch's portrayal of his torture in the context of "imperial violence". He even just quotes the entire thing and takes Plutarch's account at face value (offering, thus, as little additional commentary as possible) while making his point. Your source may be usable on scaphism, though. As for Binder, his analysis of Mithridates himself appears to be limited to (Google translation, p. 208) "nothing additional can be said about the Mithridates mentioned by Plutarch in addition to the information handed down here after Ctesias: He is said to have participated in the killing of Cyrus the Younger in the battle of Kunaxa may have been involved and later executed by Artaxerxes II at the instigation of the Parysatis" – which seems to confirm that the subject fails GNG. The rest of what Binder says concerns spelling, etymology (pp. 207–8), passing mentions, and, as T8612 said, a "literary analysis" of the story within the narrative, none of which is really relevant to Mithridates himself. So I still think that a brief notice in the article Cyrus the Younger (and others) is already enough, and that this should not be a standalone page. Avilich (talk) 20:20, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, as I said I think it's at best a marginal keep, and I could definitely be persuaded that merging to scaphism is the way forward. That said, I think that literary analysis of the story of Mithridates in Plutarch's narrative absolutely could fit into an article on Mithridates – just as, say, an analysis of the place of Aspasia in Old Comedy and fourth-century philosophy fits into an article on Aspasia. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 20:13, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- If this were about a modern murder, we would make if "murder of foo", but I think there was more than one Artaxerxes, so that the best answer is to do nothing. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:11, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: per Vaticidalprophet. ––FormalDude talk 00:13, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 15:35, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Less Unless (talk) 08:09, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per Avilich. Lkb335 (talk) 21:39, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: I'm sympathetic to lots of the keep arguments here, but the article has a problem beyond just notability: it's almost entirely giant block quotes. If anyone were to clean this up to try to match current en-wiki standards there'd be barely anything left - and what is left is covered on Scaphism and Cyrus the Younger. I think someone else should check to make sure there isn't anything important missing from either of those articles that is here (I didn't see anything I was inclined to copy over, but someone else might?), but both of those articles already link to each other, so deleting this one won't even really leave a hole there. -- asilvering (talk) 01:26, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This is a WP:BIO1E case: the man is known only for killing a ruler and being executed for it, and there's nothing to say about him that can't or shouldn't be said about him in the articles about the ruler and the execution method. Sandstein 08:38, 10 February 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. ✗plicit 13:54, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Melekwe Anthony E.[edit]

Melekwe Anthony E. (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)

Spam, not a single reliable source showing the notability (though poems were indeed published in some of the sources). Ymblanter (talk) 21:16, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The 'living breathing human being' aspect is in no way relevant Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:08, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Tombarks, you have just casted a egregious aspersion not only to Ymblanter but against the entire collaborative project. Please see WP:AGF and WP:ATA. Celestina007 (talk) 21:23, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Celestina007, If it seems that way, I apologise. That was and still isn't the intention. But Wikipedia clearly states that a topic is considered Notable Enough to have its own article so long it does not go against the "What Wikipedia is not" policy and the general notability guidelines (GNG), all of which this article does not go against.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 01:01, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 15:44, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Less Unless (talk) 08:07, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - simply lacks significant coverage. Fails the WP:BASIC notability test for biographies. His poems are hosted on a few different websites but I can't find a single instance of anyone writing in great detail about Melekwe Anthony E. so it's a clear and obvious delete Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 22:49, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - not enough in-depth coverage to pass WP:GNG. Onel5969 TT me 14:28, 3 February 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. Stifle (talk) 14:57, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Muntasir Mahdi[edit]

Muntasir Mahdi (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)

Highly promotional article about a non-notable author. Fails notability guidelines. Vinegarymass911 (talk) 19:39, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Vinegarymass911 (talk) 19:39, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Vinegarymass911 (talk) 19:39, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Keep Although the nominator got the impression of the subject being only an author, the main emphasis isn't on his writing tho. If you check the sources, they emphasize on his entrepreneurial sides and startups. The subject has got coverage from independent major dailies, magazines/publications, which lead to meeting WP:BASIC. Also, I'm not sure which parts are promotional tho, if specifically pointed, they can be rewritten.Tame (talk) 19:48, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 20:07, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I don't feel capable to judge the quality of the sources as I don't speak the language, a cursory glance doesn't seem to support keeping it. Oaktree b (talk) 20:27, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Oaktree b, You can always use translator (Googles chrome extension is a good way to get basic idea about foreign sources.) The sources used, except 1 IMO (BD Sarabela) are non-controversial, independent, major Bengali media outlets, which support to pass GNG. Tame (talk) 20:32, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I can see how the article may seem promotional, as all the english google search results for the subjects name are primarily business based. However there are numerous cited articles regarding the subject from valid publications. This one is from Anannya a bio and future projects interview. This one is him opening an IT college intended to help lower classes in his hometown, its from Kaler Kantho a legit pub. This one can be argued to be a promotional interview where he talks about his achievements and current business, but then again its an interview with a business person and the publication is legit Janakantha. To me it fits our notability requirements. I don't read bengali so I translated them using https://lingvanex.com/english-to-bengali it doesn't have character limit like google translate.
PS I think it should definitely be expanded with info pulled out from these sources.Rybkovich (talk) 21:46, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment@User:Vinegarymass911 I agree with you re a lot of the content being promotional. But at the same there is meat - the college and the books. If people buy the books that's notable, if a guy established a college that gives scholarships and is creating opportunity for young people, that's notable. There could be more, I think the creator should have an opportunity to expand instead of being shot down the same day the article is created. If I spoke Bengali I would look further into the books to see if they really are best sellers, same with getting more info re the college - is it legit? are people really getting scholarships? Unfortunately I don't. But there is a way to find out - see if there is more significant info added. Creating content is work and takes a lot of time, its personal and at the same time very fulfilling as you're creating it for others. It can be crushing when others are convinced that it should be deleted, even if you know that they are not against you and are instead doing what they feel is best for wikipedia. I know this personally. Per his profile the author seems like a genuine contributor and has done a lot for our project. Hence I feel he should be given an opportunity to put more work into his project. Rybkovich (talk) 04:02, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There is nothing notable about this person. --SVTCobra 03:00, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • @SVTCobra, Did u check the sources? Can you rebut any of them? If so, how come? This might need a rewrite, but fo shizz the person is a notable entrepreneur and business person. Tame (talk) 04:00, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Being someone who is able to read Bengali, I must say, although weird, but the person has got some independent, significant coverage from major, reliable newspapers and magazines. I agree with Rybkovich, the article indeed seems promo, but I think it might need a rewrite, and new info should be added, not delete it.103.109.56.38 (talk) 04:07, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Please bear in mind before leaving a vote that, all sources not-necessarily have to be in English. See:WP:NONENG. From what I've observed, most editors' attitude towards foreign sources are not appropriate. They just take a cursory look, and don't bother translating, and evaluate the article only based on the sources available in EN language. (Some even do not check the sources at all). Obviously there are exceptions, one example could be user Rybkovich. Tame (talk) 10:26, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment- Most of the sources about him, and not his company, are interviews and feel like Native advertising; not impossible for someone in marketing. Take this source and that; one has this line (Actually, there was a click in me. Although I started studying CSE, I always talked to people. But that is not possible in CSE. All my life I have been shouting 'I will be an engineer, I will be an engineer' but was that really my passion? Am I really moving towards my dream?) and the other has ("Actually, there was a click in me. Although I started studying CSE, I always talked to people. But that is not possible in CSE. Was it really my passion to shout 'I will be an engineer, I will be an engineer' all my life? Am I really moving towards my dream? ). Translated by Google. Six of the sources (7-12) are based on a press release about his company being launched. The Risingbd source seems reliable but then has this line (Muntasir Mahdi started his marketing career about seven and a half years ago. During this time he has been pushed a thousand times. Never got point amount support from anyone. Even after hearing the bitter words of thousands of people, he has come so far today. Some people are currently working on marketing in Bangladesh; He is one of them.) and again this line ( "Actually, there was a click in me. Although I started studying CSE, I always talked to people. But that is not possible in CSE. Was it really my passion to shout 'I will be an engineer, I will be an engineer' all my life? Am I really moving towards my dream? ). Source 19 is his podcast and source 17 is GoodReads. And source 16 is just a government list of books at the book fair. Source 18 has this line ( "Actually, there was a click in me. Although I started studying CSE, I always talked to people. But that is not possible in CSE. Was it really my passion to shout 'I will be an engineer, I will be an engineer' all my life? Am I really moving towards my dream?). Source 13 to 15 are press releases on his book being at the fair. It may seem like he has a wide coverage but in reality, he does not. I am impressed but not surprised given that he is a marketing specialist.Vinegarymass911 (talk) 13:37, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Vinegarymass911, You pointed out very specific PS materials, and kudos to you for it. But they concurrently contains independent coverage. While some of the articles do contain interviews, but they are partially, not for their entirety. -- Tame (talk) 13:49, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    No, they certainly do not.Vinegarymass911 (talk) 13:56, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Vinegarymass911's analysis. --আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 18:35, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Less Unless (talk) 08:06, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete doesn't pass WP:GNG. Wikipedia is not about marketing or promotional use. --NeverTry4Me - TT page 10:00, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Doesn't meet WP:GNG. I admittedly have a high bar for notability for anyone who is identified as a "digital marketer" which is a position that only requires that you have a computer and know a little about SEO. There are tens of thousands of wannabe digital marketers and it takes more than this person has to be considered notable. Liz Read! Talk! 06:57, 10 February 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 Hello Sailor. Sandstein 08:45, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, sailor[edit]

Hello, sailor (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 short definition of a neologism, and the primary reference of notability is Hello Sailor (novel), which can just stand on its own. ZimZalaBim talk 20:50, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • It used to be longer... Kind regards, Grueslayer 07:34, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Whatever else may be wrong with this article it is certainly not about a neologism. This was a commonplace phrase when I was growing up in the 1960s and had nothing to do with any novel. Phil Bridger (talk) 10:02, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It gets dozens of page views daily. The plethora of cultural references make it interesting. While there isn't a New York Times piece on the totemic status of the phrase, it appears to me to be noteworthy. Chumpih t 10:58, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOTDICT. Usage doesn't attract notability. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 20:59, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no evidence for WP:GNG. the refs are not aboyut phrase but homosexualism at sea. Loew Galitz (talk) 00:10, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Less Unless (talk) 08:05, 2 February 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. Liz Read! Talk! 00:46, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Benyamin Rezaei Khaligh[edit]

Benyamin Rezaei Khaligh (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 an A7 due to claims of book authorship and I have no native access to whatever there is in the given sources, so I'll bring this here. It's probably worth pointing out that the second paragraph in the "Early life" section is almost exactly what you get when putting the first paragraph of this article into Google Translate. The rest should be obvious by the time the text goes from third to first person. AngryHarpy‍talk 08:15, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 04:45, 2 February 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. ✗plicit 13:57, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Colegio Claret (Caracas)[edit]

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

The article has been unreferenced since at least 2012 and I couldn't find anything that would count as in-depth, secondary coverage when I looked. So I'm nominating this deletion for failing both WP:GNG and WP:NORG. I'm not super knowledgeable on what Venezuela media outlets exists though. So maybe someone can find usable references for it that I might have missed. Although I doubt there are any considering the grade levels of the school and where it's located. Adamant1 (talk) 08:00, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 04:45, 2 February 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. ✗plicit 13:58, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pugu Secondary School[edit]

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

The article is un-refenced, except for a dead link that isn't being used to cite anything, and when I did a WP:BEFORE I couldn't find anything about the school that would qualify as in-depth, direct coverage of it. Just some extremely trivial name drops in a few books about other things. Which don't work notability. Other then that the school has some notable alumni, but notability isn't inherited and either way they aren't enough on their own to justify keeping the article. Adamant1 (talk) 07:23, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 04:44, 2 February 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 Content farm. Liz Read! Talk! 00:44, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Article directory[edit]

Article directory (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)

And yet another article about a random online marketing practice full of original research and lacking proper sourcing for many years; this is essentially the topic of content farms. ZimZalaBim talk 03:39, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Selectively merge with (and redirect to) content farm Keep - Notable historical topic in the subject of SEO. Google search shows that sources WP:NEXIST, even if they are not yet used in the article. Nominator has described no reason to delete according to wikipedia policy other than WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Yes, the topic is content farms. We're describing what on earth that is and what they do, not endorsing them. Fieari (talk) 03:53, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • It looks like an article directory differs from a content farm in that it doesn't host the content, but just (paid for) links to other content. In this case, it might be worth a quick merge with content farm-- the fact that it used to be a way to get your SEO rank up, but now is punished, is a worthy fact to have in the encyclopedia, but you may be right that it doesn't need an entire article just to define the term and say it used to work but now doesn't. I'll change my !vote to selectively merge. Fieari (talk) 04:11, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 04:11, 2 February 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. Liz Read! Talk! 00:42, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Article marketing[edit]

Article marketing (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)

Lacked sufficient sources since 2008 and yet another of these crufty articles full of original research about online advertising. Unsure how this is really any different than what's covered in content marketing. ZimZalaBim talk 03:37, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 04:06, 2 February 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! 00:41, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dot.Kill[edit]

Dot.Kill (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)

Film appears to fail WP:NFILM as no reviews or other significant coverage was found.

PROD was removed by creator without addressing these concerns. DonaldD23 talk to me 02:32, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Source Search - "The Wrap" comes up with multiple articles in google news, though I'm not sure of their stats as a reliable source. Here's one: [19]. Looks like there's also an article in "Dread Central" [20]... again, don't know whether this is a reliable source or not. Also a mention in WIRED magazine here: [21]. WIRED is a reliable source to my knowledge, but I admit this might be considered a passing mention. These are the only real mentions I can find on google news. I will leave evaluation whether these meet WP:GNG up to other editors, I'm just here to help put the evidence on the table for now. (If pushed, I'd lean delete, but I'd rather abstain.) Fieari (talk) 04:06, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 04:05, 2 February 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. ✗plicit 14:00, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Article video marketing[edit]

Article video marketing (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)

Unsourced for over a decade, and one of various marketing-focused articles that just describe a random online advertising term; content can be a sentence in a broader article rather than all the original research here. ZimZalaBim talk 03:34, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previously nominated via WP:PROD, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 04:04, 2 February 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:39, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Save the Dinos[edit]

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

Non-notable video game. Most of the sources I could find consist of blogs and press releases. Some reviews exist, but they appear to fail WP:PRODUCTREV. Scorpions13256 (talk) 03:35, 2 February 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 merge to Mirdita. (non-admin closure) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 15:35, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Principality of Mirdita[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Principality of Mirdita (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 "principality of Mirdita" never existed. There is no bibliography which discusses a "principality" of Mirdita. This region was the southern part of the Ottoman county of Dukagjin since 1520-1536. It enjoyed tax privileges and the right to bear arms because the former overlords (Dukagjini family) had ascended in Ottoman hierarchy. In the late 17th century, it became the bajrak of Mirdita as a semi-autonomous Ottoman military-administrative unit, but it wasn't a principality, it had no princes and its hereditary chief (bajraktar) was appointed by the Ottomans. I think that the author of the article was led to write about a principality of Mirdita because the article's bibliography is based on the writings of a member of the family of bajraktars of Mirdita. Naturally, personal publications from members of old feudal families tend to put forward embellished narratives. Maleschreiber (talk) 15:39, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Phil Bridger: At most a small section of 4-5 lines can be salvaged because the article mentions some historical events which definitely happened under a historical narrative which doesn't correspond to historiography.--Maleschreiber (talk) 18:50, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Mirdita, preserve the material cited to Gjon Marku on someone's userspace pendign a WP:RS discussion about the work. Of course a thing to keep in mind is that we might not want to have too much in the first place as there's a potential WP:COI given family connections.--Calthinus (talk) 23:01, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • do not delete: Either Keep or Merge (not just redirect) to Mirdita. This article cites three sources, all likely to be RS. I had to locate one of these (Elsie) in the Mirdita article and copy it here. This article has details missing from the other. Maleschreiber's argument fails to make a case for deletion, but might imply renaming to Bajrak of Mirdita. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:09, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: If the article is kept, it propagates to readers a narrative that in one form or another, a Principality of Mirdita existed. My rationale for deletion is that such a principality never existed. The article has an infobox, an image which supposedly depicts its banner and a map which supposedly depicts its territories. The banner is from the 19th century and the map depicts borders which never existed.--Maleschreiber (talk) 23:00, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 02:19, 2 February 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. ✗plicit 14:02, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

David Fuller[edit]

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

Delete as per WP:PERP. No notability outside crime. Onel5969 TT me 16:35, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect title to Necrophilia#Modern necrophiliacs, as it was before this article was created. This person is only known as perp. He has no lasting notability. --Bejnar (talk) 15:44, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note that he committed two very high profile murders as well! -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:48, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There is an existing Wikipedia article that incorporates the relevant information. Also, I question the description of the murders as "very high profile". Yes, it was a thirty-year mystery; but not one substantially covered during that period. Which lack of coverage shows its relative lack of notability. --Bejnar (talk) 22:35, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Bejnar: Which article is this? -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:12, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The article is Necrophilia where the relevant information is his name, status as a modern necrophiliac, and a citation. Hence the original redirect. --Bejnar (talk) 14:02, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hardly an article incorporating all the relevant information. No details of his crimes. No mention at all of the two murders he committed. Interestingly, the other person mentioned there is Dennis Nilsen, also "only known as perp". Do you think he too has "no lasting notability"? -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:33, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 02:17, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, more noteworthy and extensively covered regarding multiple types of crime than would make small section(s) within another article(s) appropriate. WillJonesUK (talk) 23:17, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, passes WP:GNG as it has SIGCOV I have found here. There might be a separate discussion on whether Criminals with SIGCOV to be considered or not. Many gangsters are listed in Wiki for decades, and they did nothing except murder, extortion, etc crime. --Arunudoy (talk) 09:50, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, as the article has good coverage and subject is notable. Davidgoodheart (talk) 20:47, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Indeed, passes WP:GNG as it has SIGCOV. BabbaQ (talk) 22:48, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - the murders shouldn't be buried in Necrophilia. (uurrrgh, sorry). Martinevans123 (talk) 23:06, 5 February 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! 00:35, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Helana Sawires[edit]

Helana Sawires (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:NACTOR. Only one significant role. LibStar (talk) 00:27, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WP:PERX, WP:EVERYONEELSE. User has also been copypasting, word-for-word, the same exact rationale since January 2019. See ANI. Pilaz (talk) 09:25, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep There is some sourcing available tending to support BASIC, and while it seems to contain some reliance on interviews, note that it is in multiple independent main stream media with editorial over view , but it could be better. And the subject does have a significant nomination. I was leaning towards TOOSOON, but I think the subject gets over that line. If they had a little bit more it would be a definite keep for me. Aoziwe (talk) 10:39, 4 February 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. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) LibStar (talk) 01:27, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Where the Streets Had a Name[edit]

Where the Streets Had a Name (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:BOOKCRIT. LibStar (talk) 00:21, 2 February 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 The Basketball League. (non-admin closure) ASTIG️🎉 (HAPPY 2022) 10:30, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Atlanta Empire (TBL)[edit]

Atlanta Empire (TBL) (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 per WP:SUSTAINED. Mostly only covered by WP:PRIMARY and list sources; not seeing any significant depth of coverage of the team itself outside of a couple mentions that it exists/ed (such as the source that was added whose full coverage of the team is "The last summer he played at Empire in U.S. semi-pro league TBL"). Was created WP:TOOSOON for a very low-level sports league. Yosemiter (talk) 14:41, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Logs: 2020-08 ✍️ create
--Cewbot (talk) 00:02, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:11, 2 February 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. Liz Read! Talk! 23:10, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

B.L. Agro Industries[edit]

B.L. Agro Industries (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:NCORP. A WP:PROMO case and possible WP:COI. Hence, calling for an AfD discussion. - Hatchens (talk) 16:41, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:10, 2 February 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. ✗plicit 14:03, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Shreyas Pardiwalla[edit]

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

Fails WP:BIO, WP:GNG and WP:NPOV. Lack WP:SIGCOV. Hence, calling for an AfD discussion. - Hatchens (talk) 16:44, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:06, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment One hit in the Hindutstan Times in GNews, not sure how reliable that is for a source. not much else found. Oaktree b (talk) 02:44, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: I'm not seeing significant roles to meet WP:NACTOR, if there reviews that call Pardiwalla out with more than a passing mention, I'm not finding any. The existing sources in the article are mostly interview pieces (and mostly just fluff and puff at that), and nothing to show significant coverage. WP:TOOSOON at best. A couple of lines for the lead and a filmography table does not a notable article mean. Ravensfire (talk) 17:42, 4 February 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_February_2&oldid=1071131067"