Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2022 January 6

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< January 05 January 07 >

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. RL0919 (talk) 23:38, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fedsurrection[edit]

Fedsurrection (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)

New term lacking sourced specific definition not likely to "stick". Meatsgains(talk) 22:58, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Unreferenced article about a non-notable neologism. Cullen328 (talk) 23:50, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete Unsourced neologism. --ZimZalaBim talk 00:08, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete no sources, neologism, fails to assert importance/reason for notability. Jmertel23 (talk) 14:21, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable. Rubbish computer Ping me or leave a message on my talk page 18:54, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete The article has no sources and needs to be better developed. ✍A.WagnerC (talk) 03:48, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per everyone else. This term doesn't appear to be in popular use from what I'm personally seeing in social media. Nothing notable about this. Love of Corey (talk) 03:35, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Unsourced neologism not in popular use. --Kbabej (talk) 17:37, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete: Per nom. Unsourced orphan with no indication of notability. bop34 • talk • contribs 14:28, 13 January 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) 23:36, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Smith, Gambrell & Russell[edit]

Smith, Gambrell & Russell (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)

Borderline G11 eligible article that has been created multiple times on a law firm organization that fails to meet WP:NORG, invariably WP:ORGDEPTH isn’t met. A before search showed me hits in primary sources, directories and other user generated sources. Celestina007 (talk) 22:57, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - per nominator. Subject lacks significant coverage in reliable sources. Meatsgains(talk) 22:59, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete , but one of the partners, E. Smythe Gambrell, is notable as having been president. of the American Bar Association, the highest national level professional society. DGG ( talk ) 01:39, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non notable organization that fails to satisfy NCORP, due to lack in-depth significant coverage in RS. Brayan ocaner (talk) 22:18, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, I couldn't find sufficient sources to show notability. Suonii180 (talk) 13:22, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Per WP:NCORP bop34 • talk • contribs 14:30, 13 January 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 speedy keep. Nominator has withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 09:59, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Philip Hughes (footballer, born 1981)[edit]

Philip Hughes (footballer, born 1981) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I can't find any significant coverage to indicate this player passes GNG. As he's never played in a fully professional league, he doesn't meet NFOOTY either. MarchOfTheGreyhounds (talk) 22:55, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

While not exactly bowled over, I would err towards a "keep" recommendation. Guliolopez (talk) 12:14, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - meets GNG with the journal & Examiner articles above. FYI, the Guardian reference linked to above is not significant coverage, it is a trivia page. I have submitted to it in the past! GiantSnowman 20:44, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I withdraw my nomination. Guliolopez and Giant are right, he does meet GNG with those sources. For whatever reason I didn't find them, perhaps I didn't search hard enough. Thanks for your contribution and I admit I was completely wrong here! Please let me know if there's something else I need to do to officially withdraw the nom. MarchOfTheGreyhounds (talk) 23:33, 8 January 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. RL0919 (talk) 23:44, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Tiku Weds Sheru[edit]

Tiku Weds Sheru (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 subject. Draft Already exist. Blackfishes (talk) 14:59, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ignore the weird draft comment - does this meet WP:GNG?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 00:31, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: See prior relisting comment.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 22:16, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep passes GNG and NFF, decent amount of coverage. AryKun (talk) 13:02, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • weak keep - nothing really indicates how the production is actually notable, but there are multiple reports of the start of production, so in the strictest sense of multiple sources meaning notable, it seems to squeak by. -2pou (talk) 02:52, 9 January 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. Lack of participation after multiple relists. The nominator's own neutral stance makes even a soft deletion seem inappropriate. RL0919 (talk) 00:08, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Video Volunteers[edit]

Video Volunteers (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've declined a WP:G11 request as I'm not convinced this is purely advertising. However, this certainly isn't appropriate for Wikipedia in its current state, and I'm not convinced it's salvageable. Procedural nomination, so I abstain. (Note that there's some highly questionable BLP content in here. Normally I'd remove it, but in this case I'll leave it in situ during the AfD as it could theoretically impact on the notability of the topic.)  ‑ Iridescent 17:01, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions.  ‑ Iridescent 17:01, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions.  ‑ Iridescent 17:01, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions.  ‑ Iridescent 17:01, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions.  ‑ Iridescent 17:01, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions.  ‑ Iridescent 17:01, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: I have tagged G11 in this article, as recently I got an offer to join this organization. When I started verifying whether this was a real or a fraud organization, I found the Wikipedia entry. Then I saw there were confusing details and violations of Wikipedia policies. The confusing part was that the lead of this article says that this is a New York-based NGO, but the infobox says this only serves India. Then I went to their website and there were only Indian features, nothing US based. The article was created without any reliable sources. 3 sections are without citations. As a result, I preferred deletion because it appears to have been created for advertising purposes.❯❯❯ Chunky aka Al Kashmiri (✍️) 03:56, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not unusual for citizen-journalism type projects to be based in the US even if they don't serve a US market, as the US has constitutional free speech clauses and very weak libel laws, so being formally based in the US offers more protection to people saying things which might on occasion fall foul of national governments. (Wikipedia is based in the US for the same reason.) There isn't any doubt that this organization is notable by Wikipedia's standards; the issue is whether this version of the article (or any of the previous versions in the history) can be brought into line with Wikipedia's standards, or whether it's so irredeemably puffy that it makes more sense to delete it altogether. ‑ Iridescent 07:52, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:01, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 22:13, 6 January 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. Even weighing in Tratshin's edits during the discussion, consensus is Jessup is not notable. Star Mississippi 01:25, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher Jessup (musical artist)[edit]

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

Doesn't appear to pass WP:MUSIC. I only see one article with WP:SIGCOV, an article from the Darien Times (circulation: 6,454) from 2011. The rest is a bunch of non-notable awards. OhNoitsJamie Talk 20:50, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:02, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:02, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete "While Jessup's career has flourished, his personal life has always been troubled. He opened up in an Instagram post on November 22, 2021 about his turbulent childhood and mental health struggles." Where it isn't puffery like this, the entire article is just a resume, and was created by and is maintained by a small army of socks and SPAs, which most recently have been edit warring to remove the deletion notice from the article and revert any attempts to improve it. It does not meet GNG, and should be deleted. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 23:55, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete He clearly does not yet meet our inclusion criteria for musicians. He is under 25 so this may well change, but at present there is no reason to have this article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:15, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:TOOSOON, at least. He's a talented dude, so he should let his talent speak for itself rather than seeking sympathy like he's the only person who ever had a rough childhood. I can find no evidence that any of the items in his "Discography" were reviewed in reliable media and a few of them are only available in obscure screaming services (if that much). His "List of compositions" is just a personal resume. His awards are from real annual competitions but none of them ever receive significant coverage and they uniformly self-report the winners. However he does have one concert review at [1]. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:23, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I have made some improvements, removed puffery and fixed citations. I think this article is salvageable now. Tratshin (talk) 06:27, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment You've done a nice job cleaning it up, but I don't see any improvements to the notability issue. The NYT and Santa Barbara Independent sources don't mention Jessup. OhNoitsJamie Talk 14:57, 8 January 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) 21:47, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Daisy Lovelace[edit]

Daisy Lovelace (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 essentially a typed-out CV for an instructor at LinkedIn Learning. Its sourcing is non-independent and contains a good deal from LinkedIn itself. Her academic career is not distinguished enough to meet any of the criteria at WP:NPROF. I have not found any substantial reliable coverage that would point towards her meeting WP:GNG. Modussiccandi (talk) 20:40, 6 January 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) 21:50, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mohamed Sherif Kamel[edit]

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

Sources only have fleeting reference to his name. Fails WP:NBASIC rsjaffe 🗩 🖉 17:39, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There's definitely something fishy going on one of the editors of the article is Mohamedkamelerc and it was created by Lotayef, with the reverse happening at Ehab Lotayef, User:Mohamedkamelerc creating it and Lotayef editing it. Making SPI. Lavalizard101 (talk) 18:05, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
comment Article creator blocked for socking with Mohamedkamelerc. Make of that what you will. Lavalizard101 (talk) 18:54, 6 January 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) 21:53, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Anne Elisabeth Münster Halvari[edit]

Anne Elisabeth Münster Halvari (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 proven to pass WP:NPROF, draftified once already. Were I to draftfy it again that would be move warring, hence AfD.

Associate professors are unlikely to meet the notability criteria FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 16:03, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I notice 146 citations for Motivational predictors of change in oral health at [2] Is that enough? Vexations (talk) 17:15, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Vexations the usual expert I turn to in matters such as this is DGG. I have asked them for an unbiased assessment. FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 17:26, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete :Judging this has some difficulties: A subject field where i don't know the journals or the publication practice, literature primarily in a less used European language, and a subject where practices in different countries can be quite different. Notability under WP:PROF is normally judged on a global basis, but it may be ambiguous here here. Is the comparison with the overall dental literature, or the Norwgian dental literature? There is only one highly cited article, and it has a much more notable coauthor. DGG ( talk ) 20:18, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. One moderately cited paper falls short of WP:NPROF. At first glance, I thought there was some chance of WP:NAUTHOR, but the Books section of the article seems to only lists book chapters, not actual books. No sign of other notability. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 20:43, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Per nom. The subject fails WP:NACADEMIC. Comr Melody Idoghor (talk) 21:28, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Per nom. a single paper with 100+ citations, two awards from tooth paste companies that do not seem to be notable. --hroest 15:59, 10 January 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. (non-admin closure) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 18:38, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

USS LSM-110[edit]

USS LSM-110 (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)

Run-of-the-mill ship, just like lots of military equipment used consecutively by a few countries, but nothing remarkable. The awards are generic ones, given for "being there", and the sources are not sufficient to meet the WP:GNG. Some unaccepted military essay tries to claim that all commissioned ships are notable, but this is not an accepted (or acceptable) guideline. Fram (talk) 15:32, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • KEEP - The ship served with four navies. The article would benefit from a "Description" section, but as we know, requiring improvement is not a reason to delete. Sources are solid enough. Mjroots (talk) 16:29, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Having served with X navies is totally irrelevant. Sources are this photo site by navy enthusiasts, a fan site for boats hit by U-boats[3] which doesn't give any information about this ship actually being hit by a U-boat, and is just a database for this ship, and one line in a magazine[4]. The "sources" at the bottom don't seem to actaully be sources about these ships, e.g. in the given issue of Fairplay[5] I can't seem to find a reference to this ship? So it's not clear to me which sources you believe are "solid enough". Fram (talk) 16:38, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. We have long considered that all commissioned military vessels are notable enough for articles. See WP:MILUNIT #4, which, despite protests from one or two editors, is a long-accepted standard. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:56, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • "We"? Our long accepted standards are WP:GNG, and to a lesser degree some accepted SNGs like WP:PROF, WP:CORP, ... Project essays are by definition not accepted standards but proposals, rejected guidelines, informal thoughts, ... Furthermore, your essay states "As for any subject on Wikipedia, presumption of notability for a military unit or formation depends wholly on the existence of significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. The consensus within the Military history WikiProject is that the following types of units and formations are likely, but not certain, to have such coverage and therefore likely, but not certain, to be suitable for inclusion" (emphasis mine). The likelihood has been challenged in these cases, just pointing back to the essay claiming that this makes them undeletable is circular reasoning of the worst kind. Fram (talk) 11:17, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Necrothesp, Mjroots. Sources are solid enough for a ship of this type, especially like the details of the civilians killed while in Vietnamese service. Buckshot06 (talk) 19:46, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak redirect to Landing Ship Medium or weak delete. Three of the five sources only provide basic information about the ship, but nothing to ascertain notability, and certainly do not amount to significant coverage (without judging the reliability of the sources); and I couldn't verify Philip Gutzman's and George Veith's sources, but given similar page creations, I doubt they amount to a little more than a passing mention. In my mind, we don't have a GNG level of coverage. Happy to change my vote depending on how other editors rate these sources. Pilaz (talk) 23:40, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep Veith is RS and has several paragraphs about the ship's role in the evacuation of Nha Trang accessible online. Mztourist (talk) 03:33, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep LSMs are warships, moreover even commissioned into warfare and by several countries, aren't that notable enough? Delta (talk) 07:50, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • This one is marginal, but I'd lean toward keep per Mztourist - Veith is probably enough to get it over the bar. Parsecboy (talk) 13:14, 13 January 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 Landing Ship Medium. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/USS LSM-422 for the rationale. Sandstein 11:12, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

USS LSM-316[edit]

USS LSM-316 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No evidence of any actual notability (meeting some very liberal, unaccepted essay isn't sufficient). Awards are meaningless as they were distributed by the thousands for "being there", nothing more. Sources are not independent or not reliable and indepth. A run of the mill ship which had nothing remarkable in its career. Military equipment being sold from one country to another happens literally all the time. Fram (talk) 15:26, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Has coverage in RS to pass WP:GNG. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:27, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Landing Ship Medium, this ship does not pass WP:BASIC. Mztourist (talk) 04:07, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Passes GNG, and long standing consensus is that commissioned vessel = notable. - The Bushranger One ping only 07:10, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep LSMs are warships, moreover even commissioned into warfare and by several countries, aren't that notable enough? Delta (talk) 07:50, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Has there been some canvassing to get the Milhist editors suddenly out in droves (on all these AfDs) after so many days? Anyway, a lot of people from a project parrotting that these meet GNG (without evidence) and that they have a local consensus to keep these, doesn't make these true or valid of course. Fram (talk) 08:18, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • There were notices posted at MILHIST and SHIPS, but they were posted a week ago. Parsecboy (talk) 13:09, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes, that's why it's somewhat strange that there suddenly are three keeps from milhist people now, after nearly a week, and nothing for 4 days inbetween. Deltasquad was explicitly urged by thewolfchild to come and vote keep at these afds, for the others I don't know what if anything caused this. Fram (talk) 13:16, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • I don't know that I'd read too much into it - I was aware of these when the notice was initially posted, but didn't have time to look into them until today. Parsecboy (talk) 17:15, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per Mztourist - don't think there's enough meat on the bones to warrant an individual article. Parsecboy (talk) 13:09, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Landing Ship Medium, I couldn't find sufficient in-depth sources to pass WP:GNG. Suonii180 (talk) 13:33, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or redirect. A database (uboat.net), a self-published website (navsource.org), and a jstor link which doesn't appear to have in-depth and sustained coverage. Doesn't meet WP:GNG. Avilich (talk) 21:39, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Besides the RS showing passing GNG, one of the reasons of long standing consensus of retaining articles of commissioned military vessels is that it's literally impossible for there not to be extensive government reports on the proposal, planning, production, operation and long term analysis of such vessels. Editors need to instead put their attention to creating new articles and improving existing ones than to endlessly arguing over the literally of thousands of similar military vessel articles. Oakshade (talk) 03:29, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Government reports are not independent sources and do nothing to establish notability. Fram (talk) 08:21, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to suitable class page. Nobody has produced any actual references that would demonstrate this passes WP:GNG which is the relevant policy/guideline. WP:MUSTBESOURCES is not a sufficient argument. -Ljleppan (talk) 08:09, 14 January 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. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 20:59, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fahrettin Güneş[edit]

Fahrettin Güneş (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)

Took part and placed poorly in a regional song competition. Prior and later work does not meet WP:SINGER. Grk1011 (talk) 15:20, 6 January 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. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 20:58, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ron Mustafaa[edit]

Ron Mustafaa (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 or WP:ENT. Non-active actor with only one significant role (as a character in the US adaptation of Skins) and very little to no significant coverage. pinktoebeans (talk) 15:14, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. pinktoebeans (talk) 15:14, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. pinktoebeans (talk) 15:14, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. pinktoebeans (talk) 15:14, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Policy officer with the school board is a "low-level functionary" to be blunt, non-notable bit parts in movies or TV otherwise. Oaktree b (talk) 19:45, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The character he purportedly played in the US version Skins exists solely as a redirect to a different character in the UK version of Skins, but is not mentioned at all in that article to contextualize why it redirects there (I had to go to a completely different article to figure that out!) — and being a policy officer with a local school board is not a notability claim at all, so that does nothing whatsoever to lift his notability. Simply having had a television role is not an automatic notability freebie in and of itself; the notability test is not "article lists roles", but "article is referenced to reliable source coverage establishing the significance of said roles, such as analyzing his performances and/or showing that he won or was nominated for major acting awards for one or more of said roles". But there's none of that here. Bearcat (talk) 21:10, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, fails WP:ENT as he has not had significant enough roles. Suonii180 (talk) 14:00, 13 January 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) 21:58, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Next Turkvision Song Contest[edit]

Next Turkvision Song Contest (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)

Until last week, this page was at Turkvision Song Contest 2021 and it was changed to "next" as the contest didn't happen. What's more is that it just didn't happen: no information even stating that it was canceled. This is now an awkward placeholder article that is artificially pushing the contest back to some unknown time. All sources included refer to the 2021 contest that did not materialize. The recent updates about the next edition and 2022 are unsourced. Suggest deleting per WP:CRYSTAL. Grk1011 (talk) 14:56, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom.  dummelaksen  (talk • contribs) 15:19, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Yes deletes this article, please. I have unnamed this page for the future. I'm sure the competition will take place again sometime. I do not mind if the page is deleted . Ramona Schuck (talk) 10:03, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - agreed, no reason to continue to host this as it's not even confirmed when, or even if, there will be a future contest. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 19:14, 9 January 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 Landing Ship Medium. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/USS LSM-422 for the rationale. Sandstein 11:12, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

USS LSM-479[edit]

USS LSM-479 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No evidence of any notability. Deprodded on the basis of an unaccepted essay, but similar ships have already been deleted at AfD because there isn't the necessary sourcing available to actually meet the WP:GNG. Awards are generic ones, not given for any specific reason to this ship individually: and sources are either not independent or not significant. Fram (talk) 14:29, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 14:29, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 14:29, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 14:29, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. We have long considered that all commissioned military vessels are notable enough for articles. See WP:MILUNIT #4, which is a long-accepted standard. Which ships would those be? Stationary barracks ships? Not the same thing at all. They're no more than floating buildings. Would you like to tell us which actual warships have been deleted at AfD. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:02, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • That is not a "long accepted standard", that is an essay. The long accepted standard is the WP:GNG. Care to show how this run-of-the-mill ship, so important that it didn't even get a name, is actually notable? Fram (talk) 15:17, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • WP:MILUNIT is essentially the same as WP:SOLDIER and just like SOLDIER User:Necrothesp wants people to believe its an SNG when its just an essay. Just like SOLDIER, if you read the opening wording of WP:MILUNIT its clear that WP:BASIC must still be satisfied. Mztourist (talk) 04:39, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Landing Ship Medium as this particular ship does not pass WP:GNG. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:19, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP - the ship served with two navies. Article would benefit from the addition of a "Description" section, but needing improvement is not a reason to delete. Sourcing is solid enough. Mjroots (talk) 16:34, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Serving with two navies is irrelevant, military material being sold from one country to another and so on is normal procedure and doesn't make that material more or less notable. The sourcing is fan sites and databases. Fram (talk) 17:53, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Landing Ship Medium, fails WP:BASIC. Mztourist (talk) 08:10, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Landing Ship Medium. This vessel is lacking in WP:SIGCOV in reliable sources and fails WP:GNG. There are three sources cited in footnotes in this article; two are from blogs, one is from a reliable journal article but it simply lists the transfer of the ship to the French Navy alongside a dozen other transactions (a single line of text is devoted to this). My WP:BEFORE has turned up nothing useful, just more fanblogs. The Navsource blog lists a book as it's source (LSM-LSMR Amphibious Forces, Vol. II), but that's going to need to be checked on its own to see if it suffices as SIGCOV. If "it's a commissioned military vessel" is really the "long accepted standard", then I suggested those who believe such open an RfC to try and turn that into an SNG. I'll note that the opening para of WP:MILUNIT says The key to determining notability is ultimately coverage in independent sources per the general notability guideline. Furthermore, the examples it lists as notable ships are two cruisers and an aircraft carrier with detailed and well-documented histories, not auxiliary transports. -Indy beetle (talk) 08:21, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or redirect. Available sourcing fails WP:GNG, and group awards don't confer notability on individual recipients. Avilich (talk) 14:44, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Landing Ship Medium or delete. Clear lack of reliable, secondary, in-depth coverage to satisfy the GNG. Pilaz (talk) 23:29, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Has coverage in RS to pass WP:GNG. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:31, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Does listing the characteristics of the ship constitute significant coverage? Are uboat.net, navsource.org reliable sources? WP:ILIKEIT and WP:VAGUEWAVE. Pilaz (talk) 03:13, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can you please point out which sources make this article pass WP:GNG? I mean the nominator stated "sources are either not independent or not significant." and you are in a sense saying "yes they are". - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 05:08, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The ship passes the GNG, and long standing consensus is that commissioned vessels are all notable. - The Bushranger One ping only 07:13, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep LSMs are warships, moreover even commissioned into warfare and by several countries, aren't that notable enough? Delta (talk) 07:50, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Has there been some canvassing to get the Milhist editors suddenly out in droves (on all these AfDs) after so many days? Anyway, a lot of people from a project parrotting that these meet GNG (without evidence) and that they have a local consensus to keep these, doesn't make these true or valid of course. Fram (talk) 08:26, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per Mztourist and Indy. Parsecboy (talk) 13:52, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Landing Ship Medium, I couldn't find sufficient in-depth sources. Suonii180 (talk) 14:15, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to class page, no indicia of passing WP:GNG which is the relevant guideline/policy. -Ljleppan (talk) 08:05, 14 January 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. Eddie891 Talk Work 14:49, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Per Osland[edit]

Per Osland (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 very short article with no references, doesn't demonstrate notability. Not to say that this person isn't notable, they very well could be, but it it's current state this article doesn't demonstrate that DirkJandeGeer (щи) 14:28, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 Talk Work 14:49, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Olimpia Smajlaj[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Olimpia Smajlaj (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)

Moved from draft twice avoiding reviews, so bringing here, fails WP:SINGER. Theroadislong (talk) 14:28, 6 January 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) 14:09, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Aminoff Entropy definition of Human Happiness and Suffering[edit]

Aminoff Entropy definition of Human Happiness and Suffering (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 first two sources in the article are by the creator of this theory, and the third source[6] doesn't seem to mention Aminoff at all. This definition seems to be only used in publications by Aminoff [7]. Google Scholar reinforces the image that this definition has not been picked up by many others[8]. The other articles around this editor (Aminoff Suffering Syndrome and Bechor Zvi Aminoff) need some care for puffery and so on as well, but these at least seem to have some notability. Fram (talk) 14:04, 6 January 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 speedy delete. Article speedily deleted before the AfD completed its course. (non-admin closure) — kashmīrī TALK 18:08, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Heer & Ranjha (2021)[edit]

Heer & Ranjha (2021) (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:NBOOKS. Just another book on the subject. No meaningful reviews available online. Article written in poor English by a new account with few edits outside of this article. IMDb has also been spammed, not only Wikipedia: [9]. — kashmīrī TALK 13:52, 6 January 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. There's a fair amount of skepticism about some of the sources, but the overall sentiment of the discussion is that there is enough acceptable sourcing to keep the article. RL0919 (talk) 00:34, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Juglans regia 'Zijing'[edit]

Juglans regia 'Zijing' (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)

Per Ganbaruby's analysis on the talk page, this appears to be a non-notable walnut cultivar. Sources are largely of dubious reliability, database listings, and there's also citation stuffing where unrelated sources have "紫京" (the cultivar name) appended to make it appear to be related. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:58, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Biology-related deletion discussions. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:58, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:58, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:58, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Looking at the analysis on the talk page, 1, 6, and 9 might count as a source if the RFC for Xinhua applies here. Source 1 and 9 appears to claim that the original publisher for the article is China Daily, while China Daily claims it's from https://eastday.com/, I am unable to find the article on the website. I was able to find an archived version of source 5, although I was unable to play the video (which is basically the whole page anyways), agreeing with Ganbaruby that source 5 is quite dead. Source 7 seems really promising but does not appear to give much coverage to the topic. Archived version of 8 (or 15) found here appears to give significant coverage. Rest seems to be governmental sources/deprecated ones. Essentially: 1, 6, and 9 might count as a source if it's reliable, 8 (or 15) might count if it's reliable. Pinging Ganbaruby for thoughts on source 8 (or 15) Justiyaya 08:14, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete Source 8/15 appear to be based on source 1, 6 or 9 with a paragraph directly copied them (word for word), this equates to one reliable source (at most) in the article right now if source 8/15 is not counted, I was unable to find other sources that contribute to GNG with a simple search. Justiyaya 08:47, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete 1, 6, 9 still look questionable in terms of reliability and independence. Looked at the archived version of 8/15 above (thanks btw) and can confirm that it's exact text copied over. A Google search turned up even more websites with the exact same text again. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (talk) 12:36, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep With this being a mundane non-political topic, Mainland Chinese articles can usually be used for notability per WP:XINHUA. Regarding the sources, I found two more sources that seem to not be derived from any sources currently in the article:
  • "紫色核桃树，绿化怎么用？". China Flower News. Retrieved 2022-01-04 – via Soha.
  • "北京国际核桃庄园成功研发紫京彩叶核桃树-千龙网·中国首都网". China Internet Information Center. Retrieved 2022-01-04 – via qianlong.com.
Jumpytoo Talk 01:14, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Also found this article:
Jumpytoo Talk 01:29, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Finally to add, I was also able to fix the link for the BTV source, however the video player gets stuck at a loading state for me. But the description & title seem to suggest WP:SIGCOV. Maybe someone else can try and see if it works for them? Jumpytoo Talk 01:57, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Jumpytoo: Thanks for the hard work looking for sources. I'm hesitant to use a source reposted on Sohu by a random person, and the video doesn't work for me either, but the other two look good to me, assuming that they're reliable sources. That brings us to basically three sources, but all read a bit promo-ey and raises questions about whether they're written independent of the subject, so I'm going to say weak keep. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (talk) 13:37, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to further evaluate sources
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwaiiplayer (talk) 13:45, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge a brief summary to Juglans regia, as it's probably just about worth a one-line mention there in the "Cultivars" section. Or half a line. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:16, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
    1. "紫京彩叶核桃树大起底" [Zijing Coleus walnut tree with big bottom]. Eastday [zh] (in Chinese). 2018-03-01. Archived from the original on 2022-01-10. Retrieved 2022-01-10 – via China Daily.

      This article extensively discusses the Zjing walnut tree. From Google Translate: "Zijing Coleus walnut tree has strong resistance, adaptability and ornamental value. The Zijing walnut tree grows on the hillside at an altitude of 800 meters. The flowering period is May and the fruiting period is September. The Zijing Coleus walnut tree is adapted to the ecological environment with deep, loose, fertile, humid, warm and cool climate."

    2. 白兆会; 朱玲 (2019-07-30). "紫京核桃，" 浑身发紫"的乡土树种" [Zijing walnut, a native tree species with "purple all over"] (PDF). 中国林业新闻网 (in Chinese). Archived from the original (PDF) on 2022-01-10. Retrieved 2022-01-10.

      From Google Translate: "“Zijing” walnut was granted a new plant variety right by the State Forestry Administration in October 2017. From 1998 to 2014, it took Wang Xiupo more than ten years to successfully cultivate the "Zijing" walnut. In 1998, in the mountains of Qingshui Town, Mentougou District, Beijing, local villagers discovered a unique wild walnut. The walnut tree, the whole plant is purple, not only the leaves and branches are purple, but also the outer skin of the walnut fruit is actually purple, after opening the hard shell of the walnut, the kernel inside is still purple!"

    3. 张博, ed. (2018-03-29). "北京国际核桃庄园成功研发紫京彩叶核桃树" [Beijing International Walnut Manor successfully developed Zijing Coleus walnut trees]. China Internet Information Center (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2022-01-10. Retrieved 2022-01-10.

      From Google Translate: "Compared with the "purple walnut" in the United States, the Zijing walnut produced in Beijing, China is very special. Because this walnut tree has five characteristics of purple branches, purple female flowers, purple leaves, purple peel and purple kernels, it is also called "five purple walnuts". Zijing walnut trees are currently mainly distributed in Beijing International Walnut Manor. ... It is reported that the Latin literary name of the Zijing walnut tree is Juglans regia Zijing, which belongs to the genus of walnut. become"

    4. "紫京彩叶核桃树 惊艳世界 特立独行" [Zijing Coleus walnut tree, stunning the world, maverick] (in Chinese). Phoenix Television. 2018-03-01. Archived from the original on 2018-03-10. Retrieved 2022-01-10.

      From Google Translate: "The Chinese name "Zijing Caiye Walnut" was named by Wang Xiupo, chairman of Beijing Zijing Walnut Technology Development Company, and on October 17, 2017, it obtained a new plant variety right certificate from the State Forestry Administration of China. The Latin name of Zijing Coleus walnut is Juglance. Because of the five characteristics of purple branches, purple female flowers, purple leaves, purple peel, and purple kernels, Zijing Coleus walnuts are also called "five purple walnuts"."

    5. "紫京核桃十分稀有 年产量只有十几个？" [Zijing walnuts are very rare and the annual output is only a dozen?] (in Chinese). Beijing Television. 2017-09-30. Archived from the original on 2022-01-10. Retrieved 2022-01-10.
    There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Juglans regia Zijing to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

    Cunard (talk) 08:48, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • I oppose a merge because there is substantial coverage of Juglans regia Zijing in the sources. The Eastday [zh] article in particular is very extensive: When translated into English in Google Translate, the article is 3,270 words. There is more than enough information to support a standalone article. Thank you, Jumpytoo (talk · contribs), for your work cleaning up the article and finding more sources. Cunard (talk) 08:48, 10 January 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 11:23, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Timberloch Tower[edit]

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

Not notable, only real coverage is of its demolition in 2017. Mvqr (talk) 11:31, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:51, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwaiiplayer (talk) 13:43, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. No notability, with only routine coverage (e.g., of its demolition). --Kinu t/c 21:27, 11 January 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 Archdeacon of Horsham#List of archdeacons. Eddie891 Talk Work 14:56, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Angela Martin (priest)[edit]

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

No evidence of notability found. Despite the recentness and this happening in England, this got no coverage in independent sources[10][11]. Fram (talk) 14:33, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:35, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwaiiplayer (talk) 13:41, 6 January 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. RL0919 (talk) 22:01, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Virtual fixture[edit]

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

This page was likely created as part of a COI campaign by Louis B. Rosenberg. Every source is authored by Rosenberg, pretty much nobody else is talking about it. BrigadierG (talk) 16:16, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Two references are not by Rosenberg. The analysis follows.-- rsjaffe 🗩 🖉 17:42, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Source assessment table:
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
Noer: Forbes Yes Yes No Only about force-feedback joysticks and patent issues; not about virtual fixtures ✘ No
Marayong et al; IEEE Yes Yes Yes Uses virtual fixtures for a study; however, this is a conference paper ✔ Yes
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting for source analysis
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwaiiplayer (talk) 13:37, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, despite this article's dubious origin, the subject does receive significant coverage in multiple, reliable, secondary sources.[1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10]

References

  1. ^ Mihelj, Matjaž; Podobnik, Janez (2012). "Virtual Fixtures". Haptics for Virtual Reality and Teleoperation. Springer Netherlands. pp. 179–199. ISBN 9789400757189.
  2. ^ Li, Ming; Kapoor, Ankur; Taylor, Russell (2007). "Telerobotic Control by Virtual Fixtures for Surgical Applications". Advances in Telerobotics. Springer Berlin Heidelberg. pp. 380–401. ISBN 9783540713647.
  3. ^ Zheng, Bin; Kuang, Alex; Henigman, Frank; Payandeh, Shahram; Lomax, Alan; Swanstrom, Lee; MacKenzie, Christine (2006). "Effects of Assembling Virtual Fixtures on Learning a Navigation Task". Medicine Meets Virtual Reality 14. IOS Press. pp. 586–590. ISBN 9781586035839.
  4. ^ Abbott, Jake; Marayong, Panadda; Okamura, Allison (2007). "Haptic Virtual Fixtures for Robot-Assisted Manipulation". Robotics Research; Results of the 12th International Symposium ISRR. Springer Berlin Heidelberg. pp. 49–64. ISBN 9783540481133.
  5. ^ T Beyl; P Nicolai; H Monnich; J Raczkowksy; H Worn (2012). "Haptic Feedback in OP:Sense - Augmented Reality in Telemanipulated Robotic Surgery". Medicine Meets Virtual Reality 19. IOS Press. pp. 58–63. ISBN 9781614990215.
  6. ^ Antonia Pérez Arias (2014). Haptic Guidance for Extended Range Telepresence. KIT Scientific Publishing. pp. 16–19. ISBN 9783731500353.
  7. ^ G Lefemine; G Pedrini; C Secchi; F Tesauri; S Marzani. "Virtual Fixtures for Secondary Tasks". Human-Computer Interaction Symposium. Springer. pp. 67–81.
  8. ^ Hager, Gregory (2010). "Human-machine Cooperative Manipulation with Vision-based Motion Constraints". Visual Servoing Via Advanced Numerical Methods. Springer London. pp. 55–70. ISBN 9781849960892.
  9. ^ Lu, Xiaomin; Zhang, Ping; Du, Guanglong (2013). "Spatial motion constraints using flexible virtual fixtures". Applied Mechanics and Materials. 427–429: 24–28. doi:10.4028/www.scientific.net/AMM.427-429.24.
  10. ^ Dewan, Maneesh; Marayong, Panadda; Okamura, Allison; Hager, Gregory (2011). "Vision-based assistance for ophthalmic micro-surgery". Medical Image Computing and Computer-Assisted Intervention -- MICCAI 2004. Physica-Verlag. pp. 50–57. ISBN 9783540301363.

SailingInABathTub (talk) 17:31, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, the sources found by SailingInABathTub seem to satisfy the GNG and to confirm that the subject of the article is notable. Pilaz (talk) 23:53, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep The entry has significant coverage of several studies. I also found mentions about the device in works from other countries in portuguese. ✍A.WagnerC (talk) 03:56, 9 January 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 Er Rahad. ✗plicit 12:01, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ar Rahad[edit]

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

This is the same topic as the better-written Er Rahad. The coordinates are the exact same, they are located in the same province (North Kurdufan); etc. I believe this is a duplicate article. Dunutubble (talk) 17:59, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwaiiplayer (talk) 13:36, 6 January 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 02:36, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Rhoemetalces Philocaesar[edit]

Rhoemetalces Philocaesar (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)

Speculative and WP:OR-ish article that appears to fail WP:V. The single source that actually mentions the subject does little more than give a transcription of a damaged inscription with the name, and does not conclusively identify the man. A high-profile person of this name did exist, but basically everything said here is uncertain, put together through WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. No information exists on this man's life or accomplishments, aside from the name itself which appears in a damaged inscription somewhere. Avilich (talk) 21:35, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Again, we don't know who his father actually was, and the idea that we do is the article creator's original research/synth. I already fixed the notices on the king's article, but there's nothing from here that can be merged. Avilich (talk) 13:21, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwaiiplayer (talk) 13:33, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, considering that the main source for this article doesn't even mention the name (Latin or Greek[15] version), it would be irresponsible to keep or merge it. The best I could find is a source where very briefly is mentioned the inscription "King Rhoemetalces, Philocaesar" (with comma!)[16]. Fram (talk) 14:11, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, it shouldn't be kept or merged without reliable sources. Suonii180 (talk) 17:42, 6 January 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 Speedy delete. Speedy deleted by admin per WP:G11. (non-admin closure) Qwaiiplayer (talk) 15:36, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Diller Dunyasi language center[edit]

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

I don't see what makes this language centre notable. Sparse sourcing on them exists, though it does exist according to [17] and their twitter though their website is dead. Mvqr (talk) 12:58, 6 January 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 13:04, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ideal ring bundle[edit]

Ideal ring bundle (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)

Prodded twice due to lack of notability and WP:DICDEF/WP:HOWTO-level content. Fails WP:GNG according to Phil Bridger (talk · contribs) and the anonymous first prodder, since all Google Scholar hits are co-authored by one V. Riznyk. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 12:25, 6 January 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 11:59, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Tannura[edit]

Mike Tannura (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 looked through the links on the notability find sources thing, and found one passing mention in a Guardian article, a few passing mentions in Google Books as far as I could tell, none from the newspapers link, none from JSTOR, and some papers he wrote in Google Scholar. I'm not too used to this area, but it seems like an article that does not have enough secondary sources to include on Wikipedia. The two sources in the article appear to be primary. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 11:34, 6 January 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) 08:39, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Life in Frames[edit]

Life in Frames (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 about this recent album is among several WP:SPA-authored articles about a young musician and his recordings. The two sources in the article were also the main references in the now-deleted biographical article about Chokamkuru Langneh: see the assessments of these sources at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chokamkuru Langneh. I don't see these sources or any other coverage as providing the coverage needed to demonstrate notability. AllyD (talk) 11:19, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: There is another leftover article for the musician at You Wouldn't Know (Chokamkuru Langneh song), which I shall nominate for speedy deletion. There may be a problem because that article (and the album article) make claims of notability, no matter how unsupported they may be. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:46, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That song article has now been speedy deleted with support from WP:A9, and more speedily than I expected, so the same can be done for this album article ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 15:42, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete per A9 as above. Now that the artist's article has been deleted, there are no good sources for this album – it's entirely sourced to an interview with the artist in his local newspaper, and a non-RS blog which promotes the artists and pays them for it. Richard3120 (talk) 22:25, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete as WP:A9. SBKSPP (talk) 05:26, 12 January 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) Neo-corelight (Talk) 03:20, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Talk (film)[edit]

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

Non-notable film RemoteMyBeloved (talk) 10:44, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2022 January 6. —cyberbot ITalk to my owner:Online 10:59, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:07, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:07, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Seems to be an abandoned article, last edited 8 months ago. U683708 (talk) 19:19, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Clearly notable. Don't judge the subject by the current substandard state of the article. duffbeerforme (talk) 22:27, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Can you expand on why it is "clearly notable"? Just saying so doesn't make it so. We need citations that prove it. DonaldD23 talk to me 01:01, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • Following the existing external links we can see that proof. The first, imdb, show it was nominated for an AFI award. The second, ozmovies, has a large collection of reviews of the film from multiple reliable sources. Three have links to the actual sources. Others have a scan of the reviews. I've expanded the article with some of those reviews so there could be a snow close now. duffbeerforme (talk) 04:36, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – Article quality doesn't affect whether the subject is notable, and in this case it seems to be. Notability guidelines for films state that a film that "is widely distributed and has received full-length reviews by two or more nationally known critics" is likely to be notable. It may not have been widely distributed, but the article includes a review from the LA Times, NY Times, and Variety, which certainly seems to fill the second requirement (and meets the GNG anyway). Since the film was nominated for an award at the AFI, I would say that puts it over the line. 5225C (talk • contributions) 08:27, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The additions by Duffbeerforme do seem to show that the film indeed is notable. Withdrawing my nomination. --RemoteMyBeloved (talk) 09:38, 7 January 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 12:07, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jayanta Narayan Choudhury[edit]

Jayanta Narayan Choudhury (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 indication of notability. available references do not claim the notability of the subject. Creator removed notability tag. fails WP:GNG DFXYME (talk) 10:29, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep The promoter seems unknown about the Director of NSG (India, and an IPS with Director level. Action is appealed against the promoter. --Arunudoy (talk) 10:35, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Being an IPS doen't mean subject passes Wikipedia's General Notability Guidelines. DFXYME (talk) 10:38, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You should get some knowledge about ADG, DG of IB, NSG etc. --Arunudoy (talk) 10:41, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Dear friend, I have enough knowledge of all ranks in police job. You should focus on the significant coverage. We are here on Wikipedia not for fight with each other, we should follow it's guidelines strictly. DFXYME (talk) 10:44, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
So you have seen this too-> https://www.google.com/search?tbs=bks:1&q=%22Jayanta+Narayan+Choudhury%22+-wikipedia --Arunudoy (talk) 10:50, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article isn't great, but the subject appears to have been the chief of police for Assam, a region with a population of about 30 million, and as such he has appeared frequently in news articles commenting on major policing events/crimes/problems. We don't have a great policy for police officers, but there's a useful precedent at Talk:David_Allan_(police_officer). BIO suggests that someone with state-wide political office (WP:NPOL) is probably notable, and this is the closest we have to a chief of police. Given his frequent appearances in news (there's no point in me citing them all individually; a click on the Google news link associated with this AfD will do it) and his high-level position, I think he's a keep. Elemimele (talk) 13:38, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Dear Elemimele, Please note that the person in the article was the Chief of India's Highest Commando branch National Security Guard. Moreover, before I expand the article, the user nominated the article for deletion. A Wiki article can not be completed within minutes. Give me time, but keep it. --Arunudoy (talk) 08:31, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I wouldn't blame the nom as he's named differently in sources and there's a similarly named General, but based on this, this, this, the Indian Express one in the page now, couple of long interviews/speeches covered at length and quotes in WSJ, Reuters etc I think WP:BASIC can be said to be passed. --Hemantha (talk) 18:12, 6 January 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 12:01, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Khazar University Department of Political Science and International Relations[edit]

Khazar University Department of Political Science and International 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, very Advertisement-like, and it seems fairly pointless to have an article on a single department of a fairly minor university. Yes sure, Harvard has articles on its departments, but Harvard is Harvard, and this is not Harvard. The article relies entirely on sources from the university itself. If anything of this article is to remain, it should be merged into the main article on the university. Anything useful from this article was already merged into the main article by Dr.Wiki54. This is also an unlikely redirect, so that wouldn't be suitable either, and redirecting also runs the risk of what happened last time it was redirected, simply having the redirection reverted. Mako001 (C)  (T) (The Alternate Mako) 10:25, 6 January 2022 (UTC) edited 10:58, 6 January 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 Landing Ship Medium. I am concurrently closing the AfDs for LSM-422, LSM-479 and LSM-316 because the subjects, the AfD participants and the arguments are essentially the same.

The "keep" arguments are particularly weak in the light of applicable guidelines and must be discounted. They assert that all commissioned warships are notable, and make reference to WP:MILUNIT #4. But they overlook that MILUNIT is an essay, which by its own terms purports to reflect "consensus within the Military history WikiProject", that is, not consensus in the community at large. Moreover, MILUNIT explicitly refers to the community-accepted guideline WP:GNG, and says that subjects like warships are merely "likely, but not certain, to be suitable for inclusion".

For these reasons, arguments to the effect that warships are inherently notable have no basis in documented community consensus and must be disregarded. The arguments for deletion (failure to comply with WP:GNG) are not seriously contested. But many arguments are made that redirection to the ship type page, Landing Ship Medium, is an appropriate alternative to deletion. These arguments, in turn, are not contested by the "keep" or "delete" side, who are mainly concerned with the notability of the individual ships. Accordingly I am of the view that redirection is the most consensual outcome of this discussion. Sandstein 11:11, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

USS LSM-422[edit]


USS LSM-422 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No evidence of notability. The awards are generic ones, handed out by the thousands, and were not awarded especially to this ship. That a military ship was used in military actions is not a claim to notability, nor that it was used by different countries (or else many thousands of military airplanes would be notable as well I suppose?). The sources are either not independent, or not reliable (like the mypaper.pchome.com blog, or the postenavalemilitaire forum), or not really indepth. Nothing remarkable about this and many hundreds similar ships. Fram (talk) 08:25, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 08:25, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Taiwan-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 08:25, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 08:25, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:57, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. We have long considered that all commissioned military vessels are notable enough for articles. See WP:MILUNIT #4. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:57, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Nobody cares what an unaccepted essay on notability claims, and similar landing vessels have already been deleted at AfD recently. Fram (talk) 14:27, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • Nobody? Really? Let's see, shall we. And not that I recall, they haven't. Some barracks ships have. But they're no more than floating buildings. Which warships have been deleted at AfD? -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:01, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • (written before you changed your post to change the goalposts) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/USS APL-42, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/USS APL-32, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/USS APL-29... If you feel free to use the royal "we" to give your opinion as if it is a generally shared one, then I feel equally free to use the royal "nobody" to do the same. Obviously somebody will have thought that that essay was a good idea, but a notability essay that is not accepted by the community at large is usually given very little weight in these discussions. Fram (talk) 15:10, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
          • @Necrothesp: Actually, quite a few ships have been deleted. This is the 15th ship to be put up for deletion in just the past 2 weeks. - wolf 15:13, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
          • I did not change my post to change the goalposts, so please do not make baseless accusations. This is what I originally wrote. You claimed landing ships had been deleted at AfD. That was clearly an incorrect statement. I said barracks ships had been deleted at AfD, but no actual warships. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:19, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
            • You claimed that "We have long considered that all commissioned military vessels are notable", and as shown, quite a few have been deleted. Obviously, even if none had been recently, that wouldn't matter, as there is always one the first. Now, if there had been recent AfDs for many similar ships which all ended in keep, then it might be interesting to see if anything here is different or not. But a lack of precedent on its own is not a reason to oppose an AfD. Fram (talk) 15:23, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
              • Three floating barracks are not "quite a few" military vessels! I would agree with deleting them as well (which is why I didn't oppose). They're clearly not warships. These are. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:28, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
                • And yet they meet your "long accepted standard"... Fram (talk) 15:36, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
                  • No, actually, they don't. Warships, including submarines, commissioned in recognised naval forces. Italics mine. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:04, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
                    • Your definition, as given above, is "We have long considered that all commissioned military vessels are notable enough for articles." Apparently you now disagree with your previous statement? Fram (talk) 11:23, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
                      • If you consider that a floating building is a genuine military vessel then fine. I don't happen to. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:23, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Necrothesp: I'm afraid to say this still remains an essay and does not override guidelines such as WP:COVERAGE. If you want all commissioned military vessels (current and former) in existence to be automatically notable then you would have to go through WP:VPP. This is a discussion for another venue though as it needs to be Wikipedia-wide consensus. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:30, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Agree with Necrothesp above. - wolf 15:13, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • As his "keep" is basically meaningless, so is yours. If you would like this to be kept, it would be better to argue how it actually meets the GNG than to point to some essay. Fram (talk) 15:15, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thank you for your advice. - wolf 18:02, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      As his "keep" is basically meaningless, so is yours. Whoa, please simmer down the tone. WP:GOODFAITH should apply here. Please keep it civil. Just because somebody disagrees with your position, doesn't mean you need to invalidate what they say.  — sbb (talk) 02:54, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Sadly this style at AfD has been ongoing from some editors for quite a while. Agree with us or be shouted down and sneered at. Wikipedia is not becoming a very pleasant place. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:02, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      @Necrothesp: To be fair, its frustrating when editors throw out broad statements for their keep/delete rationales. Wolf has been around Wikipedia since 2011, he/she/they should know better. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 05:14, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Actually, I've been around longer than that, (since the mid-oughts), and that's why I know it's common, and commonly accepted, that some !votes are "as per editor 'x' above". I'm pretty sure you know that as well. - wolf 05:41, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Precisely. And there is no excuse for rudeness, hostility and aggression. You can disagree without resorting to these tactics. No editors are the "true guardians" of Wikipedia, whatever they may believe. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:17, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - the two "keep" opinions are broadly citing an essay rather than showing how it applies to this particular article. If there are problems with the sources, then can it be fixed by adding more and citing them properly? The WP:ONUS are on the ones who want to keep this article to fix this article up so it can gather more support. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:17, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - for the record I would also support a redirect to Landing Ship Medium. Maybe a section can be created there in prose describing the overall history and purpose of the ships? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:22, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • I actually proposed a similar idea after all the barracks ship articles that this same editor created were nom'd. Meanwhile, I've also suggested they maybe go thru AfC for awhile as they now have 18 pages nom'd in the past 2 weeks. - wolf 18:02, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP - the ship served with four navies. Article would benefit from the addition of a "Description" section, but needing improvement is not a reason to delete. Sourcing is solid enough. Mjroots (talk) 16:34, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • This doesn't really answer the nominator's concerns as your statement is a bit too broad. What sourcing in particular do you consider to be solid? If the ship has served in four navies can you find additional sourcing? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:36, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Also agreeing with Necrothesp here. U683708 (talk) 19:21, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – While this LCM-1–class ship's article is longer than most of the articles for LCM-1s (that weren't renamed as "USS" ships and reassigned roles), there really is nothing notable about the ship having served in combat operations (as far as the article notes). I know the WP:SHIPS project generally considers 100 ft/​100 tons (modern era) as default notable enough for an article, but considering that only about 43 of the nearly 560 {{LSM-1-class landing ship medium}} have articles (< 10%), this one doesn't really speak highly of the rest of the class's ability to hold a notable article.

    I disagree with the reasoning to delete re: the 2 sources not being reliable. That is, the mypaper.pchome.com blog and the postenavalemilitaire forum refs should be replaced by WP:RS, but the rest of the sources, including general references, are enough by themselves to satisfy sourcing requirements. But regardless of the minor (IMO) sourcing issues, I don't think the ship is notable enough to warrant its own article. I believe the threshold for LCM-1 articles is higher than this ship's article.  — sbb (talk) 03:14, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment The opening paragraph of the so-exalted WP:MILUNIT essay says The key to determining notability is ultimately coverage in independent sources per the general notability guideline. I fail to see how the keep votes demonstrate that this this ship passes WP:GNG. -Indy beetle (talk) 08:26, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The "keep" votes as I said above appear to be broadly citing this essay without giving examples on how it applies. WP:LOTSOFSOURCES is also not a solid basis to make an argument on as we need to know what sources exactly are "solid enough". - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:40, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The ship passes the GNG, and long standing consensus is that commissioned vessels are all notable. "It's only an essay" as Fram argues above is on the very edge of good faith when the WP:ONLYESSAY serves to spell out an established consensus. - The Bushranger One ping only 07:12, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • How is it nearly bad faith to indicate that a local consensus of project editors is not an accepted guideline and not an indication of actual community consensus about something? If it really has consensus, then start an RfC and make it into an actual guideline. But having an essay that claims that these are notable, and then trying to keep an article at AfD (for lack of notability) because you have as a project written an essay that claims, out of thin air, that these are notable, sources be damned, is circular reasoning. How this passes the WP:GNG is completely unclear, simply stating that it does is hardly convincing. Fram (talk) 08:23, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Saying a ship passes GNG because it does, doesn't automatically make it pass GNG. If we were going by an argument basis then I would want to see how the ship passes GNG through the sources that are present. The nominator has pointed out that the sources used " are either not independent, or not reliable (like the mypaper.pchome.com blog, or the postenavalemilitaire forum), or not really indepth." can you counter this argument? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:15, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep LSMs are warships, moreover even commissioned into warfare and by several countries, aren't that notable enough? Delta (talk) 07:50, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Has there been some canvassing to get the Milhist editors suddenly out in droves (on all these AfDs) after so many days? Anyway, a lot of people from a project parrotting that these meet GNG (without evidence) and that they have a local consensus to keep these, doesn't make these true or valid of course. Fram (talk) 08:23, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • What, they disagree with you so it must be canvassing? And they're members of a project on a subject in which they have an interest so their opinions aren't valid? Priceless! -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:23, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • Have you actually read your own post from, uh, just 6 minutes earlier[18]? Fram (talk) 09:29, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • Strangely, I have. No rudeness here. Just amazement that any editor has the gall to say such a thing and to think that dismissing the opinions of other editors in this way is in the spirit of Wikipedia. You never cease to amaze me. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:42, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
          • I guess you're better in recognising hostility and aggression in the comments made by others than in your own comments then. But I'm glad that I bring you amazement, we wouldn't want life to become too boring. Fram (talk) 09:46, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak redirect per my comment here in a related AfD. Much of the newspaper coverage amounts to puffery - we don't need to pad articles with that sort of junk. There's a bit more coverage than most of the others in this batch (hence why my !vote is "weak") but I don't think it's enough to pass muster. Parsecboy (talk) 14:11, 13 January 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. Geschichte (talk) 08:36, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of My Big Fat Greek Wedding characters[edit]

List of My Big Fat Greek Wedding characters (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:NLIST. If there is usable content, it belongs in the film's article. Paradoctor (talk) 08:07, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment: Tagging Popoki35 who originally PRODed the page. TartarTorte 15:47, 7 January 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) 08:37, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

DJ Qian[edit]

DJ Qian (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:SOAP. Almost all sources are poor press releases or just irrelevant. Cryptocurrency-related. 虹易 (talk) 06:58, 6 January 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 12:04, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hu Jiaqi[edit]

Hu Jiaqi (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:SOAP Most sources are just press releases or irrelevant (WP:CITEBOMB). Created by Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/123Aristotle. See also the relevant: Save_Human_Action_Organization. 虹易 (talk) 06:48, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Since no one has participated in the discussion yet and it seems not to be worth discussing much, I request a G5 instead.--虹易 (talk) 02:29, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The sockpuppet wasn't the only contributor to the article so I have removed the CSD tag. Many articles are nominated in AfDs, you need to give this one more than two days. Liz Read! Talk! 03:59, 8 January 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 05:01, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

AYM Syntex Limited[edit]

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

Sources do not meet WP:ORGIND, topic is therefore not notable. ––FormalDude talk 04:32, 6 January 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. Star Mississippi 16:33, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Atul Auto[edit]

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

Sources do not meet WP:ORGIND, topic is therefore not notable. No significant coverage in reliable sources either. ––FormalDude talk 04:35, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Based on the below sources, I consider it to be in WP:ORGCRIT borderline. The news item noted in the table has been widely covered by local media. I don't know the language, so I presume there may be more to be found there plus it's WP:LISTED, which pushes me to vote keep. Hemantha (talk) 14:21, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    2/5 passing sources is a pretty weak justification for a keep vote. Also, you make no mention of why you think the sources meet WP:ORGIND, which is the reason that I am saying is why the topic is not notable. All you did for was make a chart with an independence column and put 'y'. The sources are too promotional. ––FormalDude talk 06:32, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    All are well-established publications (I've linked to their wiki pages for exactly that reason) and have no discernible relation to the subject. I haven't checked for authorial independence per ORGIND because it's impossible. I can only say that their hiring by reputed media houses hints at their independence. The other 3/5 are partial; WP:BASIC allows for combining multiple sources. Hemantha (talk) 08:22, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ref Notes Significant Independent Reliable Secondary Result
Hindu Business Line Profile in-depth coverage with history, mkt share, products y y y WP:THEHINDU y pass
profile from Forbes India Forbes India is messy now, but this is from 2014, covers history, ops, previous failures y y y y pass
profile of CEO from Chitralekha (weekly) history from a regional perspective y y maybe maybe, author uncredited, promo/interview tones partial
News from Dainik Bhaskar covers their most famous product, its cultural impact y y maybe, author uncredited y partial
News from Sandesh coverage of same event as DB before y y maybe, author uncredited y partial
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 05:01, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dan Steinberg[edit]

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

Not notable WP:JOURNALIST Yousef Raz (talk) 04:31, 6 January 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. Star Mississippi 16:33, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Four–Mod[edit]

Four–Mod (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)

May not be notable. Band claims to have multiple #1 hits, but according to WP:GOODCHARTS, Thailand does not have a reputable singles chart. Prod removed due to possibly worthwhile sources on Thai Wikipedia, but this does not guarantee the possibility of notability. If someone is able to translate the Thai sources and determine their credibility, then this might be salvageable Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 03:22, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Khaosod newspaper source [20] but too bad it can only go back 2 years. Daily News (Thailand) newspaper source [21] - this site lacks tagging so have to rely on Google's site search, total 187 results found (some hits are unrelated to the band). --Lerdsuwa (talk) 10:46, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, the more I look at this. The Thai language is particularly barrierful to finding sources, but what I see in at least some Thai press indicates that the band, even after it's disbanded, is considered to be pretty notable in that country:
  • "PRESS DIGEST - Thai newspapers - Sept 25". Reuters. 25 September 2008. Police believe three suspects who admitted secretly filming singing duo Four-Mod taking a shower in a hotel are not telling the truth (BANGKOK POST)
  • Limited, Bangkok Post Public Company. "One-night reunion". Bangkok Post. When the popular pop duo Four Mod disbanded over conflicts in 2015, nobody expected they would reunite. But showbiz is always full of surprises. The organiser Archive BKK is bringing the former top duo back. (The article then continues.)
  • "Mod Napapat To Get Married To Her Boyfriend Soon". Thai Update. 25 March 2019. Mod Napapat, who is a former duo-singer Four-Mod, to get married to her boyfriend soon according to her mother's post on Instagram. (Though I find it difficult to assess whether this is a WP:RS.)
  • "หายใจเป็นโฟร์-มด". Four Fanclub (in Thai). (As a apparent fan site, fourfan.com itself seems not to be a WP:RS; but it is (infringingly) here copying an article from the Thai edition of Seventeen (American magazine), and coverage in Seventeen, as an RS to me supports notability.)
    • The add'l links at the footer of this article show add'l coverage in the Thai edition of Cosmopolitan (magazine), as well as in several what appear to be in-country magazines (Student Weekly, Spicy, ขวัญเรือน, Oops!, In magazine, Sweety and Love Love).
I doubt that much of the content above is worth putting into the article (and given that all of the articles on the Four Fanclub site are a) in Thai, so most of us won't understand them and b) are apparent copyvios that would violate WP:COPYLINK to link to anyway, referencing them would be difficult in any event); but they do indicate notability which is the question for AFD.
The article is indeed in dire need of clean-up, however. TJRC (talk) 05:24, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Consensus is that he is not notable. Star Mississippi 01:18, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Anand Mishra[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Anand Mishra (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)

He is just a district-level police officer. Every state of India has more than 250 SP-level officers. If created Wiki for a Superintendent of Police level officer, Wikipedia will be spammed. The sources are too local and for a Superintendent of Police, it's his duty to do whatever is mentioned in the article. Every Superintendent of Police does his job and such is published in the newspaper. Why Anand Mishra should be listed and not the more than 150 officers of the same rank or above? - Arunudoy (talk) 03:01, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment The page creator cleverly created the page after another page with the same name is deleted. Hence, I, couldn't create AfD page as it redirects to the duplicate page that was deleted, and then this page was created. - Arunudoy (talk • contribs) 04:47, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 04:56, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 04:57, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Moved page to proper title. @Arunudoy: There was no need to move the previous discussion page from 2019. This is the proper nomenclature for a second discussion of an article with the same title, even if the articles in question were about different people. No comment (yet) about the current iteration of the article. --Finngall talk 16:54, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: All senior police officers are not notable. Only the chief of the entire org can have an article. Fails WP:ANYBIO Venkat TL (talk) 10:43, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Again. Does not meet WP:GNG. Onel5969 TT me 11:29, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Eddie891 Talk Work 02:55, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Angel Digital Pvt. Ltd.[edit]

Angel Digital Pvt. Ltd. (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:ORGIND and WP:SIGCOV. ––FormalDude talk 03:11, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 Talk Work 02:55, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Rosalind Baker[edit]

Rosalind Baker (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. WP:BEFORE reveals no reliable, independent sources documenting Rosalind Baker's (née Neville) notability. Article relies solely on websites from a connected company and links to her three published books. WhinyTheYounger (WtY)(talk, contribs) 03:02, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - it's clearly promotional and written or dictated by the subject. I don't understand how it has survived so long. Deb (talk) 16:11, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Agree. No where close to satisfying Fails WP:GNG. MaskedSinger (talk) 20:18, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Can't find reliable and independent sources to meet WP:GNG nor book reviews to help meet WP:NAUTHOR. Samsmachado (talk) 21:58, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails WP:BIO. LibStar (talk) 00:31, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete agree with nom. Fails WP:GNG, WP:BIO. Cabrils (talk) 01:34, 11 January 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 02:39, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of X-Men (TV series) video releases[edit]

List of X-Men (TV series) video releases (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:NOTDIR. Sources are just directory listings. The video releases are not notable on their own, nor are the episodes contained therein Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 01:50, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Completely disagree; so many of these releases are just the first two-four episodes over and over again and would be finite fanon in that article. There's also fan snobbery in the article such as "Unfortunately, Buena Vista Home Entertainment decided to release the episodes on Volumes 3 & 4 in airdate order instead of the correct production order, no explanation has been given for releasing episodes in airdate order instead of production order" that shouldn't be anywhere near Wikipedia (again good lord, just use the list of episodes to order things the way you want to watch, it's not against the law to watch episode 12 followed by episode 37!). Nate • (chatter) 22:12, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not saying it should be copied over verbatim - just that the existence of VHS releases should be mentioned. Argento Surfer (talk) 13:38, 10 January 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. Weakly. I don't see any evidence that an additional relist would attract additional participation or change the outcome. Star Mississippi 16:31, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Martin Reimann[edit]

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

This was already deleted once, in a version just different enough to not warrant speedy deletion. To repeat: non-notable academic, passes neither GNG nor NPROF, COI/promotional creation. Drmies (talk) 16:16, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:11, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: No reliable, independent sources are cited. Peer-reviewed journal articles are not reliable or independent sources because they are self-published by the subject. The page is practically self-promotional/PR. Reliable sources need to be added for inclusion. Multi7001 (talk) 02:00, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure you'll be aware of the supplementary information at WP:NPROF which refutes your argument: For documenting that a person has held such a position (but not for a judgement of whether or not the journal is a major well-established one), publications of the journal or its publishers are considered a reliable source. Modussiccandi (talk) 08:51, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Modussiccandi, yes, the vast majority of journal articles are reliable, only some are not, depending on retractions or refutations made by scholars. But in general, peer-reviewed journal articles cannot be used to establish notability about a subject because the subject themselves submit their own body of work for publicity and often get published with minimal oversight. In short, while most journal articles are reliable, they are neither independent or able to establish notability. Multi7001 (talk) 03:02, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Are we talking about two different things? My point was in support of Russ Woodroofe's discovery that this subject was the co-editor of a scientific journal. If you consult WP:NPROF, you'll see that editorship of a journal is one of the criteria that may make an academic notable. In the supplementary notes that I cited above, it says explicitly that the journal itself is all the proof needed for this criterion. In short: notability is established by the editorship of the journal with the journal itself as verification. Modussiccandi (talk) 09:08, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Multi7001, I don't think anyone is suggesting that the subject meets WP:BASIC. The question is whether he meets WP:NPROF, which is an independent notability guideline. Being editor-in-chief of a major, well-established academic journal in their subject area is Criteria 8 of NPROF, which specifically says that publications of the journal or its publisher are reliable for determining who has held this position. Now, the journal has been picked up by the APA as publisher, which does suggest it is major. Reasonable people could differ on whether a journal started in 2008 is well-established, and as to whether it is still a little WP:TOOSOON. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 10:50, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Modussiccandi and Russ Woodroofe, what you both are referring to involves subjects who are at the highest capacity of a notable academic journal. Generally, subjects who are editor-in-chiefs or founders of reputable journals tend to have organic mass media coverage just from obtaining such a role. I don't believe just being a co-editor of a journal is sufficient notability for its own page in the articlespace, however. Wiki is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Multi7001 (talk) 16:10, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I believe criterion 8 is based on a different idea: mass media coverage is non-existent in most disciplines. In my own discipline, even the editors of the most prestigious journals have no coverage whatsoever in mainstream media. In fact, NPROF tries to address this very lack of mass media coverage. (This point is explained by the introductory section of NPROF.) Academic impact can be measured in different ways and the editorship of a good journal is one of them. So it seems that you are trying to bring this discussion back to the coverage-based WP:GNG, which circumvents the application of NPROF. In short, I feel you're questioning the validity of NPROF as a gauge for notability, for which an RfC would be a more suitable venue. Modussiccandi (talk) 16:31, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Russ Woodroofe, this seems like a case of WP:TOOSOON. It looks like all users in favor of the page are actually making a case of notability for the journal that the subject co-edits and not the co-editor itself. From many pages of this sort that I've looked at, notability looks like this: A subject with at least one or two mass media articles; or award coverage in their academic journal or by their affiliated university or academic institution; or mentions in other journal articles independent of the subject's byline as an author in it. In my opinion, the co-editor should be merged into the page of the academic journal with its own subsection for the time being. Multi7001 (talk) 00:35, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very weak keep. I question whether the founded journal is exactly well-established yet, and I basically think it's a bit WP:TOOSOON. But the journal was picked up by the APA, which indicates something, and it now appears to be (mostly) independent of the subject. The citation record (while a bit short of what I'd look for in a very high citation field) helps support somewhat. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 17:48, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Russ Woodroofe, while the APA inclusion of the journal is impressive, it only strengthens the case of notability for the journal itself and not the co-editor. Notability is not inherited. I am in agreement with you that it is a case of WP:TOOSOON. Multi7001 (talk) 00:35, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Multi7001, you appear to be disregarding WP:NPROF C8, even after having it pointed out to you. That guideline is clear that chief-editorship is indeed a pass of notability, provided the journal measures up to "major" and "well established." Russ Woodroofe (talk) 01:43, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Russ Woodroofe, I just checked WP:NPROF C8; it fails to meet any of those guidelines. First, the page states "Martin Reimann helped found," this does not necessarily mean the individual is an editor-in-chief or of any top capacity of the journal. The person may have contributed very minimally to the creation of the journal but received no credit due to minimal contribution. Second, the APA has the journal in its website as Samuel M. McClure as the editor of the journal. In the editorial board, there is no mention of the subject. There is almost no evidence from a reliable, independent source without a byline of the subject, that shows the subject is even directly affiliated with the journal. [23] The subtle passing mention of only the last name and first initial of the subject in reference three is not grounds for inclusion in the encyclopedia. Multi7001 (talk) 02:11, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That Reimann was co-editor-in-chief appears to be well supported by sources: in addition to the "from the editors" piece in the opening issue, another source from when the APA took over publishing is [24]. He does not hold this position any longer, but held it for a non-trivial length of time (according to his CV 2007-2010, the journal sources support at least 2007-2009). Notability is not temporary. Again, WP:NPROF C8 specifically says that a source from the journal or from the publisher suffices. Note also that the NPROF guideline is an independent alternative to GNG (per the NPROF lede). Russ Woodroofe (talk) 04:17, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Leaning keep based on journal role, and a reasonably substantial number of news sources quoting Reimann for his subject matter expertise. BD2412 T 03:36, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep As per BD2412. MrsSnoozyTurtle 22:13, 14 January 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 Sports in South Central Pennsylvania. Eddie891 Talk Work 02:54, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sports teams in the Central Pennsylvania Area[edit]

Sports teams in the Central Pennsylvania Area (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)

Similar, more developed page already exists (Sports in South Central Pennsylvania) Penndyl (talk) 00:06, 6 January 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 12:07, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lilly Bollekens[edit]

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

No evidence that she received any significant coverage in non-database reliable sources. I found one newspaper article where one result is given (as "Mevr. Bollekens"), nothing else. Fram (talk) 21:09, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:01, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: No reliable sources. Multi7001 (talk) 01:56, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It can be recreated if sources (probably offline) turn up. As it stands there isn't enough to base an article on. Pawnkingthree (talk) 13:36, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: For all the reasons outlined above. MaskedSinger (talk) 20:19, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Belgian Chess Championship. It's not much but I found a full sentence here. It adds the amazing biographic detail that she was from Brussels ;-) Sufficient for a redirect. Should help later on keeping Pawnkingthree's excellent point in mind. Creator makes the same point on the talk page (and I made the same, e.g. in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robert Nevens). gidonb (talk) 10:20, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please don't redirect. The target article doesn't mention her, and it's better to let people know "we don't have an article on this person" than "she may have something to do with the Belgian Chess Championship, but you won't find out what!". Fram (talk) 08:16, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Doesn't meet GNG. Avilich (talk) 15:52, 10 January 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_January_6&oldid=1065541961"