Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2022 March 10

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< March 09	March 11 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. Article Speedy Deleted under G11 by User:Jimfbleak. PerryPerryD 16:14, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Budge Studios[edit]

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

I don't know if this article fails WP:NCORP or not. Vitaium (talk) 23:45, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Vitaium (talk) 23:45, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Entertainment-related deletion discussions. Vitaium (talk) 23:45, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Vitaium (talk) 23:45, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Vitaium (talk) 23:45, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Vitaium (talk) 23:45, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Changing Deletion type to G10 Speedy Deletion, It is extremely clear that the aritcle is written with a very VERY biased point of view. PerryPerryD 15:13, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

g11* PerryPerryD 15:13, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 23:45, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yumino Toyoda[edit]

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

No real indication of notability. PepperBeast (talk) 23:35, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Japan. Shellwood (talk) 23:49, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no indication of decent sourcing that suggests notability at this time. Tony Fox (arf!) 23:58, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG lacks third party sources.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 19:59, 16 March 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. A third relist is inadvisable. Sources are listed as "good" but as they are YouTube, it is not explained why they could be considered so. This meets "no consensus" instead of delete, because a the argument Yerevan Music Awards are notable and therefore BASIC is met is credible. I would suggest those with knowledge of the topic significantly improve the referencing, or make it clear the youtube videos are produced by independent reliable sources (and for copyright reasons uploaded by rightsholders). Bringing this back to AfD in a month or two would not be unreasonable. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 00:42, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Arsen Grigoryan (Romance)[edit]

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

despite the bold claims here, none of it can be verified by independent reliable sources and I can find nothing better in English or any other language. This also appears to be a blatant attempt to spam Grigoryan via a hijacked DAB. (and the Armenian article is also unsourced...) CUPIDICAE💕 00:32, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Armenia. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:33, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, want to mention that the article has already been renamed to Arsen Grigoryan (singer, born 1978), also it has good sources and well written. Ssatenik (talk) 22:25, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep, seems well sourced and well written to me. Archives908 (talk) 01:03, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Can you elaborate on what those sources are? Because I only see two and none of those are particularly compelling, Archives908. CUPIDICAE💕 18:21, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

For real? This is a celebrity from a small country with the same name as multiple other artists. What do you expect for such an article, a plethora of tertiary sources? I don't see anything wrong with what is present and, in my opinion, there are far better alternatives (as seen below) to improve the article, then deleting it. Archives908 (talk) 19:05, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There are no attempts below to improve the article. And the fact that he's from a small country is irrelevant, Wikipedia requires independent reliable sources, especially for WP:BLPs. Those simply don't exist. If you think the article can be improved, do it by adding sources instead of speculating that they exist when they can't be found. Further, no one is arguing about any other article here and frankly, other bios are irrelevant. In fact, even in Armenian Wikipedia, there are no sources. CUPIDICAE💕 19:14, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm well aware of notability guidelines. For the third time, I see no issues with the sources provided. Not to mention the article itself is pretty well written. I think you are misunderstanding what I am trying to convey. Granted, this singer isn't a common household name, but that is relative. What is notable to one person, may not be notable to another. This artist has created several well known songs in Armenia. Again, maybe not well known to you, but is well known to others. Therefore, this comes down to sourcing. Naturally, a "C or D list celebrity" won't have as much coverage as an A-list celebrity would, but that isn't justification for deletion. Just because you can't find sources- doesn't mean they aren't there. It doesn't help that Arsen Grigoryan is a very common name (akin to a "Bob Smith") and going through sources will take time. If you read the comments below, you will see other suggestions including re-drafting the article/changing the name of it. Re-drafting would allow us more time to do the research required to verify his notability. I don't mind helping, if you've exhausted your search. Archives908 (talk) 20:11, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Why is "(Romance)" used as a disambiguator here? It's never mentioned in the article. With three different Armenian singers named Arsen Grigoryan having articles, I don't know how we can properly disambiguate them other than by birth year, per WP:SINGERDAB. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:07, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (or possibly draftify), as this appears to be an attempt to create an article in mainspace by a devious route. Restore disambiguation page to its state before recent edits, and move it back to its correct title of Arsen Grigoryan with its history rebuilt. If this article is kept, Rename as Arsen Grigoryan (singer, born 1978), compatible with existing article. PamD 10:23, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I straightened out the Arsen Grigoryan disambig page and moved the article title for one of the other guys so everyone's formatting is consistent. That should take care of PamD's concern above, except for rebuilding some old history. Meanwhile I am undecided on this Arsen's notability as many of his sources are in Armenian and I am unsure of their reliability. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 18:34, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:08, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – AssumeGoodWraith (talk | contribs) 23:20, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and improve. At one time he was a very popular singer in Armenia who won many awards. The article really needs to be improved to meet Wikipedia's criteria for notability. Sincerely, Գարիկ Ավագյան (talk) 09:05, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
So does it meet the criteria for notability? – AssumeGoodWraith (talk | contribs) 04:14, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, as a composer, he was awarded the "Best Composer of the Year" award at the 2007 Yerevan Music Awards in Moscow, which is a notable award [1]. We can't find many references as the artist was popular in the early 2000s. Sincerely, Գարիկ Ավագյան (talk) 08:36, 18 March 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 11:55, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Division Of Blood (Suicidal Angels Album)[edit]

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

fail to see how this meets WP:NALBUM. doesn't appear to have any major coverage or critical reception that I can find. No objection to a redirect but the creator insists on a standalone article, so here we are. CUPIDICAE💕 16:17, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs and Greece. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:18, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music and Germany. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:18, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Suicidal Angels#Discography. Fails WP:NALBUM per nom. SBKSPP (talk) 01:42, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Album meets criteria #2 of WP:NALBUM. Apperaed on German national music chart, the source linked in the article is among WP:GOODCHARTS. PineappleZoidberg (talk) 14:47, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merely charting alone isn't enough for a standalone article. A redirect with a sentence about it charting on the main article is suitable given there is no actual coverage or reception of said album. CUPIDICAE💕 16:36, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Added some album reviews to the article which confirm coverage and reception. PineappleZoidberg (talk) 11:15, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@PineappleZoidberg: Sputnik Music and Rock Hard are reliable. But, Rate Your Music and Discogs? Nah. They're user-generated. Needs more secondary sources. SBKSPP (talk) 01:15, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've deleted those two sources - as SBKSPP says, they are user ratings and are unreliable. Richard3120 (talk) 15:43, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 02:22, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:49, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, there are also other good reviews such as this, maybe also this and this. Geschichte (talk) 20:00, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above, passes WP:NALBUM. Jeni Wolf (talk) 11:27, 14 March 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 11:57, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Neil Maternick[edit]

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

Not clear how they pass WP:NMUSICIAN? Theroadislong (talk) 19:57, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Theroadislong (talk) 19:57, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Theroadislong (talk) 19:57, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Theroadislong (talk) 19:57, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Poetry, Colorado, and Virginia. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:15, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 01:37, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:47, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is an interesting dilemma. Reading the article and looking through the references provided, there's definitely an interesting story here - the subject has quite a background, has faced some fascinating challenges, and totally deserves the attention he gets from local media in his region. Having said that, his music itself has very little external attention that I can find. I don't know that any level of work could lift this to a level at which it would meet notability guidelines for musicians, unfortunately. Regional notability in this case doesn't hit the mark. Delete. Tony Fox (arf!) 00:07, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Why???? Was the article deleted? 2601:6C0:C107:9E70:51B2:70B3:3A01:78E8 (talk) 03:49, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Draftify. WP:ATD. (non-admin closure) – AssumeGoodWraith (talk | contribs) 04:22, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Chargers–Rams rivalry[edit]

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

The article is on a non-existent rivalry that has only comprised 12 total games, with only 1 game in the last 8 years. Sources do not support the existence of a true rivalry and thus fails WP:GNG. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 22:47, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 22:47, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, found this from UPI. BeanieFan11 (talk) 22:51, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And here's (part 2) an article describing how its not a rivalry. BeanieFan11 (talk) 22:54, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Though it seems to be suggesting that the Giants–Jets rivalry is also a "fake" one. But that has a 14-game "same city" history, rather than a one-game one. If kept the lead section should try to be clearer as to whether it's discussing the "fighting to establish a strong fanbase" portion, or their entire franchise history. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 00:34, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports and California. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:05, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The Chargers spent most of their existence in San Diego & the Rams spent a good chunk of their existence in St. Louis. That makes their co-existence in Los Angeles pale in comparison. GoodDay (talk) 23:30, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – This isn't an article about a rivalry, it's an article listing a hand full of games in a very non-meaningful way. Hey man im josh (talk) 02:32, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Sources given are very weak. There was a punchup, offhand comments in a player interview, and a clickbait list, which itself admits it was struggling to pad out its own content. Scope is itself confused. Presumably we'll eventually have the basis for an article on the lines of the Jet-Giants one -- unless one or both do another runner out of LA. But that could take quite a while, at one game every four years and some general chatter betweentimes. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 00:02, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The sources are existent, it makes matters better for the topic now that they play each other this year, the rivalry does exist regardless of your personal bias. There are multiple rivalries with FAR worse sources cited eg: saints-vikings, 49ers-Raiders, and rivalries that are far less relevant eg: bears-cardinals, steelers-titans, titans-jaguars. The intercity rivalry makes sense to have a page exist on the basis of consistency, you seem to not have any issue with the Giants-Jets rivalry, the 49ers-Raiders example is less relevant to exist than Rams-Chargers and you have to consider the current fight for a presence within the fickle LA sports market as a whole since the league returned. please leave my article alone PontiacAurora (talk) 09:38, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
What "personal bias" are you supposing might exist here? Please WP:AGF and try to conduct yourself in a WP:CIVIL manner. I only "have to consider" that insofar as it's sourced, and it's not sourced to any degree worth speaking of. And I'm afraid it's not your article. If you're looking for a hosting service what whatever you wish to write on sports, then many are available. This is (purportedly) a collaboratively written encyclopedia. The Giants-Jets article is, as I specifically pointed out, much better sourced, and documents a much longer-standing city rivalr: 14 games as opposed to one. See WP:OTHERSTUFF. If you want to argue that any of those other articles are as poorly scoped and poorly sourced as this one, you're fully entitled to nominate them for deletion. As for a game that's not even been scheduled yet vastly increasing the viability of the article: your WP:CRYSTALBALL must be much better than mine. Until that game's played, or at least until there's coverage in reliable sources talking about the rivalry in anticipation of it that being played, that's entirely moot. If and when that happens, you can recreate the article (including from draft-article space or user-page space if you wish). 109.255.211.6 (talk) 20:20, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
your personal bias is very evident given your history of edits and pretty obvious support for the 49ers, the same fanbase who tried to cite and claim Sofi stadium's nickname was 'levi's south' based on multiple sources dealing with a far bigger lack of legitimacy than you're blaming of here. I advise, if you want to appear professional, create a wikipedia account instead of using an unreistered IP address [REDACTED]. The threat of this deletion is severely questionable considering your own lack of establishment in the WP:AGF. That immature reaction to my counter argument is further proof in favor of this page's legitimacy, you are no longer relevant to this argument. PontiacAurora (talk) 07:15, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

your reply violates WP:NPA PontiacAurora (talk) 07:21, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have warned PontiacAurora about their conduct and ask that this thread stop here. I have also redacted part of their comment as an implicit doxxing. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 15:55, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No opposition to recreation if a rivalry can be demonstrated (presumably at a much later date).-UCO2009bluejay (talk) 05:29, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I feel like things will grow much further as the two teams compete for dominance of the fans in the city, also I added multiple other sources to the page adding onto it as to address your claim of them being weak PontiacAurora (talk) 09:51, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ignoring any bias: I have multiple sources and fan websites pointing to this as something that will indeed evolve, compared to other pages currently within the Wikipedia portal, I feel like this intercity rivalry will have it's place especially as the two teams are set to face off this coming season. PontiacAurora (talk) 05:33, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

PontiacAurora, as a reminder, fan websites are not reliable sources and should not be used as citations or to establish notability of a topic. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 15:56, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Sources don't appear to be independent, and Wikipedia isn't a crystal ball. This may be relevant in the future, but not now. I understand the impulse to create this article given teams proximity, but it's too soon for article space. SPF121188 ^{(talk this way)} ^(contribs) 16:01, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify or delete. This might become a notable rivalry but it's WP:TOOSOON. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:29, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't appear to be notable now. Could be notable in the future. Toa Nidhiki05 20:38, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify or delete. As others have said above, this is simply WP:TOOSOON to determine if this will end up being any kind of significant rivalry or not. While the Rams have an extensive history in the greater Los Angeles metro area, the Chargers do not. Let's revisit this in a couple of years and see if things have changed enough to move the needle here. Ejgreen77 (talk) 11:03, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
We might want to revisit it as soon as (say) September, if a second 'city rivalry' game produces a fresh slew of significant coverage of the topic. Or even in May, if the mere announcement of when they'll play in the 2022 season occasions such. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 01:10, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify' This could potentially become a notable rivalry fairly soon, but I think it makes sense to wait until there are more sources. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 15:42, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a case of WP:TOOSOON the rivalry is not notable at this point.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 20:02, 16 March 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 11:57, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Missing (awareness campaign)[edit]

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

As per the maintenance tags, this article is mainly a promotional piece for this organization. Appears to be a worthy cause, but not particularly notable. Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 21:49, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and India. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:03, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Sexuality and gender. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:13, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The sources in the article and available online appear to satisfy WP:NONPROFIT, i.e. 1. The scope of their activities is national or international in scale. 2. The organization has received significant coverage in multiple reliable sources that are independent of the organization. e.g. in the article: India's 'missing' women cast shadow over national art fair (Guardian/AFP, 2014), India's Missing art project offers stark reminder of girls taken into sexual slavery – in pictures (Guardian, 2015), Girls paint town black with a cause (Telegraph India, 2015), Girl, cut out (Hindu BusinessLine, 2015), and a BBC link that is currently inaccessible (and the Internet Archive is down). An online search includes: India’s ‘dark holes’ where millions of girls disappear (Al Jazeera, 2015), Child trafficking: The sky is her canvas (Hindustan Times, 2015), 'Missing' Women Paint the Town Black (The New Indian Express, 2015), Girls without a face (Bangalore Mirror, 2016), Approaches for NGO Funding (CSR Journal, 2017), Artist Leena Kejriwal On ‘Missing’: Video Game For A Cause (SheThePeople, 2017), Missing: The Complete Saga puts spotlight on child sex trafficking (VentureBeat, 2017), The row, row, row theory of life (Mint, 2018), She’s Out to Save India’s Missing Girls Using Art and a Digital Game (eShe, 2020), Hewlett Packard Enterprise, ARMEDANGELS and Missing Link Trust amongst winners of the Stop Slavery Award (Reuters, 2021), From the Shadows: Miriam Chandy's docu on trafficking victims and their pursuit for justice is compelling (The New Indian Express/EdExLive, 2021), Missing: The story behind the Indian game tackling sex trafficking (Eurogamer, 2022). Beccaynr (talk) 16:03, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Week Keep I agree that it does look like WP:NONPROFIT is satisfied. However, the article is pretty cringeworthy and suffers from being mostly promotional material, as pointed out above. It needs work. As an example - under "History" we hear about someone named "Leena" whose work as a photographer is emphasized. Who's Leena? Well, in the infobox we see that Leena Kejriwal is the founder. That information belongs in the body of the article, not buried in the infobox. I could go on...it's just badly written and poorly structured. But there probably should be a page for it; I had heard of this campaign independently before coming here. KeeYou Flib (talk) 01:59, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete Almost all of the sources are about a single public art campaign, and much of the article is unreferenced. There is very little about the organization that is referenced, so unless I missed something I don't see wp:nonprofit being fulfilled. The game gets some attention although I don't know if Gamesauce is a good source - I can't find anything on their site about writers nor editorial policy. Is it a blog? They don't say. It is possible that if all of the unreferenced material was removed there could be enough about the public art campaign and the game to keep, but I don't see enough about the organization itself. Lamona (talk) 02:16, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment With the identification of multiple in-depth reliable sources covering the organization over 8 years, including a documentary, cleaning up the article appears to be a surmountable problem. And WikiProject Video games offers a list of sources established as reliable in the field of video gaming per past consensus, and it includes Eurogamer and VentureBeat, which are cited in this discussion. Beccaynr (talk) 03:11, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Sourcing is far from the only problem here. The whole article reads like a press release (WP:ADVOCACY), which is even cited in policy as one of the most common reasons for deletion. "Copyright violations, extensive cases of advocacy, and undisclosed paid sock farms are frequently blown up." Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 05:34, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Deletion is a last resort. It is appropriate for articles which cannot be improved, and based on the sources in the article at the time of the nomination and identified in this discussion, it seems clear that this article can be improved with information from the sources. If editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page. For this article, multiple independent and reliable sources exist that cover this organization over a sustained period of time, so even very poor writing and referencing within a Wikipedia article will not decrease the subject's notability. Beccaynr (talk) 06:12, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Even if the subject is notable, I don't believe this article can be improved in its current form. It needs to be rewritten from the ground up. Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 06:38, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:HEY, the article has been rewritten, with sources in the article at the time of the nomination more clearly incorporated, and information from sources identified in this discussion added, which helps show the history of the organization, multiple art campaigns that have received coverage over time, as well as the development of the video game, other projects of the organization, and its awards. Beccaynr (talk) 20:12, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the article has been improved. KeeYou Flib (talk) 23:24, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That (the link to WP:TNT) is a link to an essay, not policy. Phil Bridger (talk) 11:57, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:42, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Reported on by BBC...won a Thompson Reuters Foundation award...seems notable to me. CT55555 (talk) 01:31, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The organization won the Stop Slavery Award, a Thompson Reuters Foundation award. I also noticed significant coverage in several different newspapers. The article was improved. It still has promotional features, but nothing serious enough to warrant deletion. ✍A.WagnerC (talk) 03:31, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Beccaynr and found enough siginificant coverage about the topic. Jeni Wolf (talk) 11:39, 14 March 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. After a few relists, views are still split between keep, delete and merge / redirect. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:15, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Eton College controversies[edit]

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

This page contains mainly tabloid newspaper stories of sensationalism, the content is not that used by an encyclopedia and is not noteworthy. The institution is centuries old but the article contains several stories (mainly in recent decades) and does not constitute an article page on an encyclopedia. If allowed then it opens it up for multiple other articles listing pupil achievements, staff achievements, school stories etc.) Racingmanager (talk) 13:53, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:02, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:02, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I expected to be disappointed that it was all recentism and didn't mention Oscar Browning or Richard Langley, and I was right. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 15:36, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Fair point, Uncle G, and shouldn’t we have an up-to-date spin on the little matter of Nicholas Udall? Moonraker (talk) 10:14, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. These controversies are of encyclopaedic interest because many of them are type-specimens of the long-running debate in the UK of unfair privilege and its preservation through a system of education that is alleged to have extreme social bias. Some go to the integrity of the exam system, and its ability to deal robustly with pressure to make the rich pass. These are subjects of huge interest across UK society. It would normally be unfair to give great weight to them in connection with a single school, but if you went out and asked people in the street to name a posh public school, Eton would be on everyone's tongue. Eton is quite robust enough to stand up next to its reputation, and the article can be made neutral while still handling these socially difficult questions. The individual controversies were subject of national press coverage and are properly sourced. This article is a completely different kettle of fish to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Abingdon School controversies, and should not be read in the same light. Elemimele (talk) 17:20, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:15, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTNEWS and the fact that all of the "controversies" seem to be linked to trivial news stories that don't really analyze the subject in any meaningful, in-depth way. It's not like the broader topic can't be a summarized subtopic in the Eton College article either if there's anything notable about it. In the meantime, maybe some could argue the subject of "the long-running debate in the UK of unfair privilege" is notable enough to justify an article about it, but that doesn't mean every specific minor incident of privilege in the United Kingdom school system deserve ones. Let alone that every school in the United kingdom (32,163 btw) deserves to have it's own "controversies" article, which would happen if it's really a systemic issue in the school system and we allow for each school to have it's own fork article about the problem. --Adamant1 (talk) 05:54, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is not a page about controversies in any old school. Eton College occupies an extremely prominent place in the culture and history of the UK. It is without doubt the most famous school of its type anywhere in the world. The controversies are notable and the parent article is too big to accommodate them. Nangaf (talk) 04:44, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- So you are asserting the contrary to Elemimele's argument, that these are not type-specimens but are specific to this school? Both arguments for keeping, neither really based in Project:deletion policy, cannot be true as they are mutually contradictory. Fame and importance were soundly rejected as inclusion/exclusion criteria in 2004. What is relevant is the provenances, depths, and relevance of sources. Where is any argument, in this whole discussion, that "controversies" is a way that good sources address the subject of this school? Because "its a grab-bag collection of recentist news coverage entirely removed from the main article" is not that argument, and that's pretty much what we have as valid source-based argument so far. One would think that if this school's "controversies" truly were notable, at least one editor would be able to pull out and point to one of the several history books for this school that has a "controversies" chapter or something. Uncle G (talk) 22:19, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - Books aren't the only sources acceptable in WP. When I do a simple Google search for "Controversies at Eton school" my top hits (amongst many, many pages) are The Guardian [2], a national newspaper of enormous prominence and high reliability, this being an in-depth article by the Guardian's staff education writer on how the dismissal of a particular teacher reflects the influence of Woke society on the school, and the current aims of its head; an article from der Spiegel [3], an extremely influential and important German publication, entitled "How Eton College perpetuates problems in the UK", followed unfortunately by something from the Daily Mail along the same lines, and then the Times newspaper, with an in-depth discussion of the role of controversy in education, particularly in relation to the sacking of an Eton teacher [4]. These would probably be enough to render just that one controversy "notable", but similar coverage is available on many of the other controversies too. It really doesn't need some historian to discuss the issue in a book; a huge selection of (quite serious) newspaper journalists the world over have already made the point. In fact, it's unlikely a book would be financially viable unless it adopted a fairly dramatic viewpoint or had some sort of sponsoring. Now let's look at Eton: no, notability isn't inherited. But before we stick too firmly to rules, let's think about our readers. Don't they have a legitimate interest in a school that has given them 20 of their prime ministers? Don't they have a legitimate interest in questions raised by legitimate journalists about whether the education those 20 people received explains tensions in society today, and the role of in-born privilege in allocation of power? And anyway, haven't encyclopaedias always taken an interest, on behalf of their readers, in school scandals? Why else do the public have a ghoulish interest in cane-wielding tyrants of the past? This article is encyclopaedic at so many levels I don't really know where to start. Given that its subject matter matches what an encyclopaedia reader expects to find, and that it's supported by the highest possible standard of journalistic sources, to delete it based on the lack of a book source would be extraordinarily weird. Elemimele (talk) 07:01, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Interestingly, when I do the Google search you mention I do not get The Guardian articles until after quite a bit of scrolling. This is probably a function of location, location, location. (I'm in the US) This search: ""Eton College controversies" -wikipedia" gives all of 7 results, none from the Guardian. (I do have access to the Guardian and there is indeed a lot about Eton, but not all of it is encyclopedic, IMO.) That tells me that this title isn't helpful, and I do wonder why this can't be reduced in size and merged to the Eton College article. There are few sections here that seem actual controversies ( Farm subsidies? an unconfirmed rumor about Tallulah Bankhead in 1928? - which is not much about Eton and more about Ms. Bankhead). The significant ones could be added to the Eton College article which is where one would logically find it. Thus Merge, after considerable reduction, to Eton College. Lamona (talk) 02:51, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

- - And on the same note, to clarify: in saying that Eton is a "Type specimen", I am indeed saying that this isn't just any school as per Nangaf. And fame may not be sufficient to confer notability, but fame does get things written about independently by widely-read sources, and that's a major requirement for a WP article. I would, however, endorse a similar article about a school that was not famous or a type-specimen if, through its activities, it achieved a similar level of press coverage. Elemimele (talk) 07:07, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:44, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/Redirect All of the coverage seems to be rather trivial news coverage of the kind that usually doesn't go in an encyclopedia, and there is not anything presented to support a broader analysis of the subject this article purports to be about. Collating different and mostly unrelated news stories together to make an article on some topic is a violation of both WP:NOTNEWS and WP:SYNTH (since whatever the connection between these events is, if there are no sources commenting on it, it is essentially something that came out of the head of some Wikipedian or another). The article as it stands is really a "list of Eton College controversies", and per this lack of sources making a connection about the topic, fails WP:LISTN, and it is full of lots of INDISCRIMINATE details which are of very little interest to most persons. It should not be merged to the target, because then it would leave it open to the same kind of NOTNEWS issues (on top of not solving the existing ones). If there is something pertinent to be said about the controversies at Eton, that should be first covered in the main article, in a proper encyclopedic manner (which would require, very probably, starting essentially from scratch. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 14:35, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Eton College: Per Lamona and RandomCanadian. If there is a proper article to be had on this topic, it would have to be rewritten from scratch anyway. 15 (talk) 21:47, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:39, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this is well-referenced information on a notable subject, and we have sub-pages like this — Eton College Chapel, Eton College Collections, Eton Boating Song, and so on — because merging them into Eton College would make that page too big. On the other hand, delete the page and the neutrality of the overall coverage is gone. Moonraker (talk) 10:01, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per Adamant1. GorgonaJS (talk) 10:15, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 23:46, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Brianna Wiest[edit]

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

Article currently has one reference. I cannot find anything to add - this writer appears to have been very little covered in reliable sources. Possibly WP:TOOSOON? Tacyarg (talk) 20:43, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Adding that article has been tagged for notability since March 2021. Tacyarg (talk) 20:44, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Tacyarg (talk) 20:43, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Tacyarg (talk) 20:43, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Tacyarg (talk) 20:43, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. Tacyarg (talk) 20:43, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors and Poetry. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:03, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete one local news source is not enough to show that a person is notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:22, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment she appears to be a writer for Forbes, but there are several hits using her name in Google. Oaktree b (talk) 00:04, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oaktree b, are those hits about her, or things that she's written? Only the first can be used to support a claim of notability. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 03:19, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, I've had this on my watchlist as "to-delete" for awhile but haven't gotten around to it. I don't think it's TOOSOON - the article has existed since 2017 and presumably she's been writing before that. I didn't find anything substantial when I searched, aside from the one local source already cited. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 03:22, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The sources that have been added to the article just now don't push past GNG IMO. The Etownian isn't independent as she was its editor-in-chief, and the second LNP Always Lancaster is by the same author as the first (per GNG, "Multiple publications from the same author or organization are usually regarded as a single source for the purposes of establishing notability") and is still local. The NBC source is...basically instructional filler-esque content that's not so much about her as it is from her. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:00, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per the sentiments above. Additionally, Wiest appears to be a part of the Contributor program at Forbes (albeit a "senior contibutor") and not part of their writing staff. Best, GPL93 (talk) 20:01, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The notability of the person is Questionable as the sources given are not enough. Foodie Soul (talk) 12:01, 13 March 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 Alleged Saudi government role in the September 11 attacks. ✗plicit 23:47, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Saudi role in the September 11 attacks[edit]

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

It's not a very helpful disambiguation that would best serve as a redirect to Alleged Saudi role in the September 11 attacks. Not all of the 19 hijackers were Saudi and I don't think that readers who want to search up "Saudi role in the September 11 attacks" are intending to learn about the hijackers, which are anyways covered in the article on the alleged theory. Dunutubble (talk) (Contributions) 20:22, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Dunutubble (talk) (Contributions) 20:22, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. Dunutubble (talk) (Contributions) 20:22, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Dunutubble (talk) (Contributions) 20:22, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Dunutubble (talk) (Contributions) 20:22, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Saudi Arabia-related deletion discussions. Dunutubble (talk) (Contributions) 20:22, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Dunutubble (talk) (Contributions) 20:22, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect Not sure you even need to have an AfD about it. —Tom Morris (talk) 18:39, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. Agree completely with Tom Morris. I don't see the point of this "article" at all. Bishonen | tålk 09:49, 12 March 2022 (UTC).[reply]
Redirect to Alleged Saudi government role in the September 11 attacks. This article is little more than a dabpage and not a useful one. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:03, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect or delete The title is problematic as it sort of presupposes that there was a Saudi role in 9/11 which is over simplistic. Pichpich (talk) 19:29, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Alleged Saudi government role in the September 11 attacks would be the best solution. TH1980 (talk) 01:40, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Alleged Saudi government role in the September 11 attacks. Jeni Wolf (talk) 11:41, 14 March 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. It's snowing, and nom is sock blocked. Star Mississippi 14:06, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Türk Kadinlar Birligi[edit]

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

~~Not enough coverage to meet notability. MartinWilder (talk) 19:49, 10 March 2022 (UTC)~~ - Blocked sock. Beccaynr (talk) 16:40, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. MartinWilder (talk) 19:49, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. MartinWilder (talk) 19:49, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and History. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:08, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The notability is made clear in the article. The main women's suffrage organization of any country is automatically notable. I have a hard time imagining how it could not be. It has sholarly references, and coverage on other language versions of Wikipedia. Of course, the article could be longer, but an article on Wikipedia is never finnished, and can be edited and expanded for years to come, by anyone. Wikipedia even allows the creation of stubs, and shorter articles than this has been allowed to remain if the subject is notable, which this obviously is. Is it not enough covered in English language sources online? That is hardly a criteria for notability. In that case many notable subjects from non English speaking countries would have to be deleted. I have a hard time describing why this article is notable, since its difficult to understand why it should not be. The most important (it may in fact be the only one, though the references does not spell it out) women's suffrage organization of a nation is not notable? Its difficult to understand why it would not be. I am astonished that the main suffrage organization of a country is not regarded notable. --Aciram (talk) 21:36, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I’ve added three references and there are plenty more. The organisation is well documented and its history discussed in numerous academic publications. Mccapra (talk) 21:56, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. An important historic organization. As Aciram and Mccapra explain, no case whatsoever for deletion. This nomination is disruptive. gidonb (talk) 21:58, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep My Turkish isn't what it should be, but this is clearly notable. A very cursory Google Books search shows half a dozen English-language monographs discussing it and Turkish coverage seems far more extensive. Atchom (talk) 01:48, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - via the Wikipedia Library for Türk Kadinlar Birligi: An Evaluation towards the Teaching of History of Women in Turkey in the 20th Century: Turkish Women's Union and Activities. By: BELENLİ, Tuğba; KİRİŞ AVAROĞULLARI, Ayten. Afyon Kocatepe University Journal of Social Sciences. Dec2017, 19(2), p287-310. Language: Turkish. DOI: 023469120045477 (Abstract: The activities of the Turkish Women's Union in the framework of women's issues in Turkey in the 20th century constituted an important area of influence...); and there are several database-only records; On Proquest, sources include for Türk Kadinlar Birligi: Nicole A N M Van,Os. (2000). Ottoman women's organizations: Sources of the past, sources for the future. Islam & Christian Muslim Relations, 11(3) (includes discussion of "the Turk Kadinlar Birligi, which was founded in February 1924 by, amongst others, again Nezihe Muhittin", in historical context); Terzi, E. G. (2015). Ulus-devlet insa sürecinde kadinlarin siyasal haklari: Türkiye'de seçme-seçilme haklarina iliskin tartismalarda sömürgecilik sonrasi söylemin Izleri/The relationship between nation-state and women's political rights: The parliament discussions on political rights in 1934 and post-colonial discourse. Akademik Incelemeler Dergisi, 10(2) (appears to be the same); via the WP Library for Turkish Women's Union: Kaftan G. The Turkish Women's Movement in Abeyance. Journal of International Women’s Studies. 2020;21(6):184-195 (includes an overview of history and criticism of the group); this journal shows an alternative spelling of the group name is Turk Kadin Birligi, with a history of the group: Libal, Kathryn. “Staging Turkish Women’s Emancipation: Istanbul, 1935.” Journal of Middle East Women’s Studies 4, no. 1 (2008): 31–52 (JSTOR). On Proquest, results for Turkish Women's Union include: Turkish women's union wins special films for children. (1926, Feb 04). New York Times (1923-), and another English translation of the name of the group: zak, U., & de Smaele, H. (2016). NATIONAL AND TRANSNATIONAL DYNAMICS OF WOMEN'S ACTIVISM IN TURKEY IN THE 1950S AND 1960S: The story of the ICW branch in ankara. Journal of Women's History, 28(3) (...By 1926, Muhittin's Türk Kadinlar Birligi (TKB, Union of Turkish Women) formally joined the International Woman Suffrage Alliance...). Based on this initial search, it appears ample references exist to support this article and its development, per WP:NONPROFIT and WP:ORGDEPTH. Beccaynr (talk) 16:11, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article justifies the information given about the organisation and the sources which are given make it notable. Foodie Soul (talk) 12:05, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Nominator is blocked as sock. And as per above topic clearly passes notability criteria. Jeni Wolf (talk) 11:45, 14 March 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. Modussiccandi (talk) 08:19, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Standards-compliant[edit]

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

There are hundreds if not thousands of standards in use around the world (see Standard). This article simply talks about Web standards. Furthermore, the article is wrong- the W3C doesn't maintain the HTML standard anymore. Finally, why bother having an Anything-compliant article at all? If there's a standard, then I think we can assume anything relevant to that standard is compliant or not. Sean Brunnock (talk) 18:19, 3 March 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 March 3. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 18:43, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:45, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The noun form would be standards-compliance in any case. A rename to standards-compliant WWW browser would solve the "But what standard?" question. But quirks mode seems to cover the subject better. Uncle G (talk) 20:00, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:49, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete To begin with, there are lots of standards to which one must/should comply that are not web standards, as per Uncle G. Oddly, the article on web browser is pretty thin - I expected to see more there about standards and compliance. In any case, I would suggest adding some text and sources to that article before creating a stand-alone article on compliance. Lamona (talk) 17:03, 11 March 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, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ameya Mathew[edit]

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

Non notable actress fails WP:ACTRESS. Had minor roles and no significant film roles and coverages. Got fame only for a cameo appearance in Karikku web series, WP:TOOSOON Onmyway22 talk 17:25, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Women, Television, India, and Kerala. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:38, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:49, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Consensus is that LEvalyn has improved the article sufficiently to show it meets the criteria for inclusion. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:16, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Swain (game designer)[edit]

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

Only references are him talking. Rathfelder (talk) 16:51, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Rathfelder (talk) 16:51, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Rathfelder (talk) 16:51, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep [5], [6], both look promising. I suspect there's more, will look for it later. Jclemens (talk) 02:07, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Indicated by Myself and Darth_Mike below, the sources listed appear to be invalid. PerryPerryD 19:49, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:48, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Academics and educators, Authors, Businesspeople, and Video games. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:50, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete Citations are all directly from the websites that they mention, instead of actual sources. The article is written like a resume, No photo of the person is attached, Citations are not listed on the bottom of the page ¨ He is the founder of two venture-backed game companies.¨ What are these companies? where are these companies? Lack of an infobox containing information like DOB, Place of Birth, And other information in regards to him. This article has had 14 years to resolve this basic issues. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PerryPerryD (talk • contribs) 20:54, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

+ Head is not clearly defined. Certian claims are mentioned once without citation, article does not go into detail about who Chris was as a person, only his career. I believe we need to WP:TNT @Sandstein PerryPerryD 21:06, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Issues i have listed appear to either have been resolved, or have been confirmed to not be issues that justify an AfD, Changed to Keep. PerryPerryD Talk To Me 14:22, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I cannot find any significant coverage from reliable sources that indicate notability. Of the two sources linked by Jclemens[7], I cannot get the first one to work and the second one is a blog (and isn't significant coverage, anyhow). -- Mike 🗩 15:34, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Looking into the first one, it requires an account to view, which kind of falls into original research i believe, so it looks like both of these sources are invalid. PerryPerryD 15:50, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Reading paywalled articles in EBSCO is not original research. I was not able to follow Jclemens' first link either, but I found other very promising coverage. The trick is to subtract "NFL" and other keywords that clutter you with information about the other Chris Swain. He has keynoted IGC twice (newspaper coverage the first time too, but archived in Factiva which isn't linkable). He's discussed as a "well-known game designer" and "a gaming industry pioneer". For WP:NAUTHOR, his book, Game Design Workshop, not only has 600+ citations (supporting WP:NPROF?), it has WP:NBOOK reviews [8][9]. If we went through all of his individual games and hunted down their reviews, too (like this one, that would add up to quite a lot for NAUTHOR. The current state of the article is pretty bad, but that is not a reason for deletion. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 05:52, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am currently improving the article and would like to note that it actually has quite a lot of very sensible independent, reliable sources -- they were just included as external links rather than proper footnotes, disguising them. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 07:11, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, having finished my polish of the article, there was less sigcov of him as a person readily to hand than I would have liked, but he is consistently mentioned in coverage of his widely-covered works over a career of many decades, for a pass of WP:CREATIVE criteria 3. Note that this SNG does not require biographical coverage of the creator if their works have significant coverage. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 07:41, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This does not change the issues i stated above. PerryPerryD 01:10, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@LEvalyn "Well Known" Unfortunately, Chris Swain would not fall under this catagory as he is not well known enough for a WP:CREATIVE#3 PerryPerryD 01:12, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? I literally quoted RS calling him “well-known”. Anyway, WP:CREATIVE#3 does not require him to be “well known”. The criteria actually states that someone is notable if The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant … collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of … multiple independent periodical articles or reviews. I have provided RS reviews for many of Swain’s works to support this criteria, here and in the article. Many, many more reviews are available, including for works not currently mentioned in the article. These sources address the issues you raised: the works are no longer cited only to their own websites, and these sources are more accessible and more reliable than the 2 provided by Jclemens. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 01:32, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, are you referring to the criteria that it could be a significant or well-known work or collective body of work? That is about the work, not him. Usually it's reviews that demonstrate a work is significant or well-known. In this case, I think his three most significant works are probably the book, The Redistricting Game, and Ecotopia, all of which have lots of reviews. Probably lots to find for NetWits too, as one of the first online multiplayer games, but it's so early coverage is likely in print. Technically someone can pass this criteria with just one important work, but I prefer to show there is a substantial body of works (otherwise you might as well just have an article on the work.) ~ L 🌸 (talk) 01:54, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There are now enough independent references to keep this, thank you. Rathfelder (talk) 23:15, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This doesnt quite fix the issues i stated above. @Rathfelder PerryPerryD 17:49, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This is a deletion discussion, not a GA nomination. It doesn't matter that there is no photo or infobox, no matter how old the article is. -- asilvering (talk) 07:53, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
in that case ignore my comment. Keep PerryPerryD Talk To Me 13:18, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@PerryPerryD You should probably strike your Delete vote in your initial comment to make that clearer for the person closing this AfD. -- asilvering (talk) 01:12, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
thanks for the advice! @Asilvering PerryPerryD Talk To Me 01:18, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This seems as well referenced as many academics. Rathfelder (talk) 17:55, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
References arent everything. PerryPerryD 18:09, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:18, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Andrey Melnichenko Foundation[edit]

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

There is no substantive RS coverage of this charity in English-language sources. Even if there turns out to be RS coverage in other languages, I don't see why this organization merits its own WP article and why it cannot be covered on the Andrey Melnichenko article. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:37, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The page was very likely created by a WP:COI sockmaster account.[10] Snooganssnoogans (talk) 13:42, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Education, and Russia. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:41, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:47, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as advertisement/COI. No reliable sources provided. --Tsans2 (talk) 10:00, 14 March 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 List_of_windmills#Channel_Islands. Three options have been discussed, deletion, redirect, and disambig. Deletion is discouraged because of the attribution issues.Reirect and disambig are, in principle, both fine, redirecting seems to have slighly more support and contains the same info anyway.--Ymblanter (talk) 14:05, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Windmills in the Channel Islands[edit]

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

"Channel Islands" are an archipelago, not a political unit. Just as we do not need a list for the British Isles together, we do not need one Guernsey and Jersey together. All information here (extremely little) is already contained (i.e. rehashed) in the "country" articles. gidonb (talk) 01:39, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. gidonb (talk) 01:39, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. gidonb (talk) 01:39, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. gidonb (talk) 01:39, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
What you mean to say is that per Special:Permalink/549564624 it was all originally written here in this article and then the article was split. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 03:38, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That's how this useless article came into being. Now suggesting to drop it! gidonb (talk) 05:08, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Gidonb: - did you not read what I wrote below when you edited this AfD not long ago? Mjroots (talk) 15:25, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mjroots, I did. Only specified something that was already out there. I respect you and your opinion and am not in the habit of arguing under my AFDs. We'll see if and what others will want to add to this discussion and something will roll out. Not worried. gidonb (talk) 15:42, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Gidonb: Thanks for that. Nothing worse than an arguer at AfD. I appreciate the reason you nominated it. If it weren't for the attribution reasons I would not be objecting, but it would seem that we have to keep it now. I'm also out of this unless asked to comment further. Mjroots (talk) 15:48, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

IT CANNOT BE DELETED FOR ATTRIBUTION / COPYRIGHT REASONS - when the article was split, the {{copied}} template was not placed on the talk pages of the two split articles. I have now taken care of that. Additionally, not everyone realises that the Channel Islands isn't a country, but two separate sovereign states, the Bailiwick of Guernsey and the Bailiwick of Jersey. Having this list helps direct them to the correct articles. Mjroots (talk) 06:33, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, though perhaps in some modified form. Essentially this is a disambiguation page in that it provides readers with navigation to actual articles. It does not seem obvious how it could be redirected (because redirect to which one of two targets?). Simply keeping is fine. --Doncram (talk) 04:29, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:05, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It's basically a list, with two other lists as the only components. I don't see why we need this. Oaktree b (talk) 14:18, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- @Oaktree b: - WP:ATTREQ applies here. Mjroots (talk) 18:02, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - though I'm not happy with it, it's really the only option as there are no reasonable redirect targets (maybe List of windmills#Channel Islands, but that section only has the same two links, so wouldn't be helpful) and attribution needs to be kept. eviolite (talk) 16:04, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:45, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Why has this been relisted yet again. I've made it crystal clear that it cannot be deleted for WP:ATTRIBUTION reasons. This is something that cannot be negotiated over, it's the rules. Mjroots (talk) 13:49, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Question How about converting it to a disambig page? --SuperJew (talk) 13:58, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List_of_windmills#Channel_Islands per Eviolite's suggestion above; if it's a question of "useless article" vs "redirect to the same content" I fall on the side of redirection to avoid duplication. Primefac (talk) 13:59, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 23:49, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Isaac Ofori-Kore[edit]

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

WP:BLP of a local politician, not properly sourced as passing WP:NPOL #2. The notability claim here is that he's chief executive of a district, which is not an "inherently" notable role that guarantees a Wikipedia article -- politicians at the local level are notable only if you can write a genuinely substantive and well-sourced article that contextualizes their political significance, such as by addressing specific things they did in the job, specific effects they had on the development of the district, etc., and are not automatically entitled to have Wikipedia articles just because you can minimally source the fact that they exist.
This one is marginally different than the others I've nominated so far, in that he's been categorized as having previously been a member of the Parliament of Ghana -- but the article as written fails to say or source that he was ever an MP, and I haven't been able to verify that he was ever an MP via a Google search either. So I'm willing to withdraw this if somebody can actually find better verification that he was ever actually an MP than I've been able to -- but we have seen articles created which falsely asserted that the subject had served in an NPOL-passing role when they actually hadn't, so just categorizing him as an MP doesn't automatically get him to NPOL #1 all by itself without adequate verification that the category is actually correct. Bearcat (talk) 19:39, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 19:39, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ghana-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 19:39, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not meet our inclusion criteria for politicians and clearly fails GNG. I am wondering if it would have made sense to group all these Ghanaian distirct level leader nominations together, but I do understand why you chose to do a broad variety of seperate nominations. group nominations often get opposed on principal even if there is nothing of substance backing any of the individual articles.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:03, 10 March 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. Overwhelming community consensus is that elected national politicians are notable. Closing early per WP:SNOW, no other outcome is possible. (non-admin closure) Goldsztajn (talk) 05:19, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Meir Talmi[edit]

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

He doesn't seem to meet WP:POLITICIAN. MartinWilder (talk) 19:32, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. MartinWilder (talk) 19:32, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. MartinWilder (talk) 19:32, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Israel and Poland. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:35, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep. The Knesset is the legislature of Israel and the "supreme state body" of the country. He easily passes WP:POLITICIAN, which considers "Politicians and judges who have held international, national, or (for countries with federal or similar systems of government) state/province–wide office, or have been members of legislative bodies at those levels" notable. The subject held national-level offices. A trout might be in order. --Kbabej (talk) 20:17, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep Clearly meets WP:NPOLITICIAN as he served in the Knesset, the Israeli parliament, for seven years. Number 5 7 21:00, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. Per above. Sorry but this is a disruptive nomination. It serves no legitimate purpose. The intro of the nomination is demonstrably false. gidonb (talk) 21:31, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. He very obviously meets WP:NPOLITICIAN. Since we are all here, OP has created like 25 AfDs of politicians in one day. Can we all make sure we aren't deleting anything else we shouldn't through the sheer number of nominations? Atchom (talk) 01:50, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 23:59, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Seth Birikorang Ofosu[edit]

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

WP:BLP of a local politician, not properly sourced as passing WP:NPOL #2. The notability claim here is that he's chief executive of a district, which is not an "inherently" notable role that guarantees a Wikipedia article -- politicians at the local level are notable only if you can write a genuinely substantive and well-sourced article that contextualizes their political significance, such as by addressing specific things they did in the job, specific effects they had on the development of the district, etc., and are not automatically entitled to have Wikipedia articles just because you can minimally source the fact that they exist. Bearcat (talk) 19:30, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 19:30, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ghana-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 19:30, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete holds a political postion that is not default notable, and we lack adeaute sources to show that he is notable otherwise.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:12, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 23:59, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Samuel Kwasi Negiri Mahama[edit]

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

WP:BLP of a local politician, not properly sourced as passing WP:NPOL #2. The notability claim here is that he's chief executive of a district, which is not an "inherently" notable role that guarantees a Wikipedia article -- politicians at the local level are notable only if you can write a genuinely substantive and well-sourced article that contextualizes their political significance, such as by addressing specific things they did in the job, specific effects they had on the development of the district, etc., and are not automatically entitled to have Wikipedia articles just because you can minimally source the fact that they exist. Bearcat (talk) 19:29, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 19:29, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ghana-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 19:29, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete politicians at this level are not default notable, and we lack adequate sourcing to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:10, 11 March 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 00:44, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Richmond Amponsah Agyabeng[edit]

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

WP:BLP of a local politician, not properly sourced as passing WP:NPOL #2. The notability claim here is that he's chief executive of a district, which is not an "inherently" notable role that guarantees a Wikipedia article -- politicians at the local level are notable only if you can write a genuinely substantive and well-sourced article that contextualizes their political significance, such as by addressing specific things they did in the job, specific effects they had on the development of the district, etc., and are not automatically entitled to have Wikipedia articles just because you can minimally source the fact that they exist. Bearcat (talk) 19:29, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 19:29, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ghana-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 19:29, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Info - Note to closer for soft deletion: This nomination has had limited participation and falls within the standards set for lack of quorum. There are no previous AfD discussions, undeletions, or current redirects and no previous PRODs have been located. This nomination may be eligible for soft deletion at the end of its 7-day listing.

Logs: 2022-02 ✍️ create

--Cewbot (talk) 00:02, 18 March 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 00:45, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Rashida Mahama[edit]

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

WP:BLP of a local politician, not properly sourced as passing WP:NPOL #2. The notability claim here is that she's chief executive of a district, which is not an "inherently" notable role that guarantees a Wikipedia article -- politicians at the local level are notable only if you can write a genuinely substantive and well-sourced article that contextualizes their political significance, such as by addressing specific things they did in the job, specific effects they had on the development of the district, etc., and are not automatically entitled to have Wikipedia articles just because you can minimally source the fact that they exist. Bearcat (talk) 19:27, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 19:27, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ghana-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 19:27, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:54, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Info - Note to closer for soft deletion: This nomination has had limited participation and falls within the standards set for lack of quorum. There are no previous AfD discussions, undeletions, or current redirects and no previous PRODs have been located. This nomination may be eligible for soft deletion at the end of its 7-day listing.

Logs: 2022-02 ✍️ create

--Cewbot (talk) 00:02, 18 March 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. Snow keep. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 22:51, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher Campbell (painter)[edit]

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

Campbell was in the Olympic Arts competition. Being in such a competition is not a default sign of notability, the sourcing is just a database not significant coverage, so there is no way to justify keeping this article. John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:25, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists, Visual arts, Sports, and Ireland. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:36, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep You did a WP:BEFORE right, Lambert? Clicking on the one source in the article prior to your nom would have shown a mini-bio detailing his work across Ireland, including stating that his work was used in stained glass windows across churches in Ireland. (Does that count as "articles on religion or religious figures, broadly construed"...?) Five seconds of searching found bios such as this and this, along with details of his work being sold here and here. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 19:50, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The coverage in reliable/independent/biographical sources, including the entry in the Dictionary of Irish Biography, would seem to support a WP:GNG claim. Guliolopez (talk) 20:15, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep-meets NBIO (the relevant guideline, not GNG). Newimpartial (talk) 20:55, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep meets WP:ANYBIO. Curiocurio (talk) 20:58, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. Meets WP:ANYBIO 3 through article in a national biographical dictionary. Atchom (talk) 01:52, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep meets WP:GNG WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 02:43, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep meets WP:GNG. Thanks to Lugnuts for expanding the article. Jevansen (talk) 05:22, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep meets WP:ANYBIO, the fact that he's featured in the Dictionary of Irish Biography means that he was important in his time, and thus more offline sources probably do exist to complement the current online sources listed here. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:21, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:ANYBIO. Why was a well known artist nominated? gidonb (talk) 23:26, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article meets the necessary guidelines. Foodie Soul (talk) 12:09, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article of the subject includes reliable sources to show notability and passes WP:BASIC and meets WP:BIO. -AuthorAuthor (talk) 21:30, 13 March 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 00:45, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Isaac Kwadzo Buabeng[edit]

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

WP:BLP of a local politician, not properly sourced as passing WP:NPOL #2. The notability claim here is that he's chief executive of a district, which is not an "inherently" notable role that guarantees a Wikipedia article -- politicians at the local level are notable only if you can write a genuinely substantive and well-sourced article that contextualizes their political significance, such as by addressing specific things they did in the job, specific effects they had on the development of the district, etc., and are not automatically entitled to have Wikipedia articles just because you can minimally source the fact that they exist. Bearcat (talk) 19:19, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 19:19, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ghana-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 19:19, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete at this level politicians are not default notable and the sourcing is not enough to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:52, 15 March 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 00:46, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Isaac Appaw-Gyasi[edit]

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

WP:BLP of a local politician, not properly sourced as passing WP:NPOL #2. The notability claim here is that he's chief executive of a district, which is not an "inherently" notable role that guarantees a Wikipedia article -- politicians at the local level are notable only if you can write a genuinely substantive and well-sourced article that contextualizes their political significance, such as by addressing specific things they did in the job, specific effects they had on the development of the district, etc., and are not automatically entitled to have Wikipedia articles just because you can minimally source the fact that they exist. Bearcat (talk) 19:18, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 19:18, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ghana-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 19:18, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete government leaders at this level are not default notable and the sourcing does not show notability otherwise.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:55, 10 March 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 00:46, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hajia Ayishetu Seidu[edit]

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

WP:BLP of a local politician, not properly sourced as passing WP:NPOL #2. The notability claim here is that he's chief executive of a district, which is not an "inherently" notable role that guarantees a Wikipedia article -- politicians at the local level are notable only if you can write a genuinely substantive and well-sourced article that contextualizes their political significance, such as by addressing specific things they did in the job, specific effects they had on the development of the district, etc., and are not automatically entitled to have Wikipedia articles just because you can minimally source the fact that they exist. Bearcat (talk) 19:16, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 19:16, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ghana-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 19:16, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Info - Note to closer for soft deletion: This nomination has had limited participation and falls within the standards set for lack of quorum. There are no previous AfD discussions, undeletions, or current redirects and no previous PRODs have been located. This nomination may be eligible for soft deletion at the end of its 7-day listing.

Logs: 2022-02 ✍️ create

--Cewbot (talk) 00:02, 18 March 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 00:46, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Benjamin Yaw Gyarko[edit]

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

WP:BLP of a local politician, not properly sourced as passing WP:NPOL #2. The notability claim here is that he's chief executive of a district, which is not an "inherently" notable role that guarantees a Wikipedia article -- politicians at the local level are notable only if you can write a genuinely substantive and well-sourced article that contextualizes their political significance, such as by addressing specific things they did in the job, specific effects they had on the development of the district, etc., and are not automatically entitled to have Wikipedia articles just because you can minimally source the fact that they exist. Bearcat (talk) 19:15, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 19:15, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ghana-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 19:15, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Info - Note to closer for soft deletion: This nomination has had limited participation and falls within the standards set for lack of quorum. There are no previous AfD discussions, undeletions, or current redirects and no previous PRODs have been located. This nomination may be eligible for soft deletion at the end of its 7-day listing.

Logs: 2022-02 ✍️ create

--Cewbot (talk) 00:02, 18 March 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 00:47, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fuseini Salifu Issifu Moshie[edit]

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

WP:BLP of a local politician, not properly sourced as passing WP:NPOL #2. The notability claim here is that he's chief executive of a district, which is not an "inherently" notable role that guarantees a Wikipedia article -- politicians at the local level are notable only if you can write a genuinely substantive and well-sourced article that contextualizes their political significance, such as by addressing specific things they did in the job, specific effects they had on the development of the district, etc., and are not automatically entitled to have Wikipedia articles just because you can minimally source the fact that they exist. Bearcat (talk) 19:15, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 19:15, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ghana-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 19:15, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Info - Note to closer for soft deletion: This nomination has had limited participation and falls within the standards set for lack of quorum. There are no previous AfD discussions, undeletions, or current redirects and no previous PRODs have been located. This nomination may be eligible for soft deletion at the end of its 7-day listing.

Logs: 2022-02 ✍️ create

--Cewbot (talk) 00:02, 18 March 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 00:49, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Evans Kyei Ntiri[edit]

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

WP:BLP of a local politician, not properly sourced as passing WP:NPOL #2. The notability claim here is that he's chief executive of a district, which is not an "inherently" notable role that guarantees a Wikipedia article -- politicians at the local level are notable only if you can write a genuinely substantive and well-sourced article that contextualizes their political significance, such as by addressing specific things they did in the job, specific effects they had on the development of the district, etc., and are not automatically entitled to have Wikipedia articles just because you can minimally source the fact that they exist. Bearcat (talk) 19:14, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 19:14, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ghana-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 19:14, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete politicians at this level are not default notable and the sourcing is not enough to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:43, 10 March 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 00:50, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comfort Asante[edit]

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

WP:BLP of a local politician, not properly sourced as passing WP:NPOL #2. The notability claim here is that she's chief executive of a district, which is not an "inherently" notable role that guarantees a Wikipedia article -- politicians at the local level are notable only if you can write a genuinely substantive and well-sourced article that contextualizes their political significance, such as by addressing specific things they did in the job, specific effects they had on the development of the district, etc., and are not automatically entitled to have Wikipedia articles just because you can minimally source the fact that they exist. Bearcat (talk) 19:11, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 19:11, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ghana-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 19:11, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:52, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete heads of government bodies below the first tier sub-unit in a Federal Government system are not default notable, and the sourcing is not enough to show notability otherwise.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:33, 10 March 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 00:50, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Barima Awuah Asiedu-Larbi[edit]

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

WP:BLP of a local politician, not properly sourced as passing WP:NPOL #2. The notability claim here is that he's chief executive of a district, which is not an "inherently" notable role that guarantees a Wikipedia article -- politicians at the local level are notable only if you can write a genuinely substantive and well-sourced article that contextualizes their political significance, such as by addressing specific things they did in the job, specific effects they had on the development of the district, etc., and are not automatically entitled to have Wikipedia articles just because you can minimally source the fact that they exist. Bearcat (talk) 19:10, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 19:10, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ghana-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 19:10, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Cursory search did not yield any significant coverage and too low level to qualify for NPOL 2 crit. 1. 15 (talk) 22:07, 10 March 2022 (UTC) (Amended 22:28, 10 March 2022 (UTC) with rationale as original reason did not go through for some reason)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 00:50, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Asamoah[edit]

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

WP:BLP of a local politician, not properly sourced as passing WP:NPOL #2. The notability claim here is that he's chief executive of a district, which is not an "inherently" notable role that guarantees a Wikipedia article -- politicians at the local level are notable only if you can write a genuinely substantive and well-sourced article that contextualizes their political significance, such as by addressing specific things they did in the job, specific effects they had on the development of the district, etc., and are not automatically entitled to have Wikipedia articles just because you can minimally source the fact that they exist. Bearcat (talk) 19:09, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 19:09, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ghana-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 19:09, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete politician at a level that requires better sourcing to show notability than we have here.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:05, 11 March 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 00:50, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ahmad Yusuf Abubakar[edit]

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

WP:BLP of a local politician, not properly sourced as passing WP:NPOL #2. The notability claim here is that he's chief executive of a district, which is not an "inherently" notable role that guarantees a Wikipedia article -- politicians at the local level are notable only if you can write a genuinely substantive and well-sourced article that contextualizes their political significance, such as by addressing specific things they did in the job, specific effects they had on the development of the district, etc., and are not automatically entitled to have Wikipedia articles just because you can minimally source the fact that they exist. Bearcat (talk) 19:08, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 19:08, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ghana-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 19:08, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Abubakar is not even a district chief executive: he is a municipal chief executive, which is a lower-level position that certainly does not afford inherent notability under WP:NPOL. Since I was unable to find coverage of him that would satisfy the GNG, it seems that he is non-notable. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:35, 17 March 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 00:51, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ahmed Abubakari-Iddrisu[edit]

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

WP:BLP of a local politician, not properly sourced as passing WP:NPOL #2. The notability claim here is that he's chief executive of a district, which is not an "inherently" notable role that guarantees a Wikipedia article -- politicians at the local level are notable only if you can write a genuinely substantive and well-sourced article that contextualizes their political significance, such as by addressing specific things they did in the job, specific effects they had on the development of the district, etc., and are not automatically entitled to have Wikipedia articles just because you can minimally source the fact that they exist. Bearcat (talk) 19:07, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 19:07, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ghana-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 19:07, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Info - Note to closer for soft deletion: This nomination has had limited participation and falls within the standards set for lack of quorum. There are no previous AfD discussions, undeletions, or current redirects and no previous PRODs have been located. This nomination may be eligible for soft deletion at the end of its 7-day listing.

Logs: 2022-02 ✍️ create

--Cewbot (talk) 00:02, 18 March 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 00:51, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Anane Adabor[edit]

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

WP:BLP of a local politician, not properly sourced as passing WP:NPOL #2. The notability claim here is that he's chief executive of a district, which is not an "inherently" notable role that guarantees a Wikipedia article -- politicians at the local level are notable only if you can write a genuinely substantive and well-sourced article that contextualizes their political significance, such as by addressing specific things they did in the job, specific effects they had on the development of the district, etc., and are not automatically entitled to have Wikipedia articles just because you can minimally source the fact that they exist. Bearcat (talk) 19:06, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 19:06, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ghana-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 19:06, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this is not a default notable position, and we do not have enough sourcing to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:08, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 23:51, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Kenneth Addo[edit]

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

WP:BLP of a local politician, not properly sourced as passing WP:NPOL #2. The notability claim here is that he's chief executive of a district, which is not an "inherently" notable role that guarantees a Wikipedia article -- politicians at the local level are notable only if you can write a genuinely substantive and well-sourced article that contextualizes their political significance, such as by addressing specific things they did in the job, specific effects they had on the development of the district, etc., and are not automatically entitled to have Wikipedia articles just because you can minimally source the fact that they exist. Bearcat (talk) 19:05, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 19:05, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ghana-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 19:05, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete government heads at this level are not default notable and there is not enough sourcing to show notability otherwise.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:35, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I agree that WP:NPOL does not confer inherent notability on occupants of these local positions, and my search for GNG-qualifying coverage was not successful. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:27, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Draftify. (non-admin closure) – AssumeGoodWraith (talk | contribs) 04:35, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Henry Heng Lu[edit]

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

WP:BLP of an artist and writer, not properly referenced as passing WP:CREATIVE. The strongest attempted notability claim here is that he won a minor regional art award that isn't "inherently" notable in the absence of a demonstrated WP:GNG pass, referenced to alumni content on the self-published website of his own alma mater rather than any evidence that it's an award that gets media coverage in order to establish the notability of the award -- and almost everything else in the article is also referenced to primary sources that aren't support for notability either, such as his writing for art magazines being referenced to his contributor directory on the website of one of said magazines.
The only reliable or notability-supporting source present here at all is a short blurb announcing his hiring as curator of an art gallery, which is not "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to have a lot more than just one legitimately reliable or notability-supporting source.
You don't establish a person as notable by citing his work to directly affiliated sources (employers, alma mater, etc.) as evidence that the work exists, you establish a person as notable by citing his work to independent third-party analysis of his work by established art or literary critics in media, as evidence that it's been externally validated as significant by people other than himself and his friends. Bearcat (talk) 18:51, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 18:51, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 18:51, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify The page creator moved this to Draft space (before it was later moved back to main space) so I think the article should be moved to Draft space where it can be improved over time. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:40, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I would have thought that in these circumstances, where the recent creator has moved the article to draft space and there have been no "keep" opinions at AfD, the thing to do per WP:NOT#BURO would be to simply close the Afd and let the creator work on it in draft rather than move it back to main space. Phil Bridger (talk) 12:18, 11 March 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:22, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

PhpED[edit]

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

Does not appear to meet WP:GNG and WP:NSOFT. Provided sources are very superficial and really only support the first sentence of the article. This AfD is a follow-up to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/NuSphere. Anton.bersh (talk) 17:51, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Anton.bersh (talk) 17:51, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Anton.bersh (talk) 17:51, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Anton.bersh (talk) 17:51, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Anton.bersh (talk) 17:51, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Environment and Computing. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:38, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 23:51, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kyell Gold[edit]

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

While he has won an Ursa Major Award, this has historically not been considered a "major" award to meet WP:NAUTHOR (especially after Ursa Major's article was deleted). Most of the sources are interviews, unreliable furry fandom blogs, the publication company of his books, or other wikis. A search for reliable sources found nothing whatsoever, just the same blogs and interviews already in the article. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 17:42, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 17:42, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 17:42, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics:Sexuality and gender, and California. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:00, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Finding nothing about him in independent sources. Both of the publishing houses that publish his books are his own. Lamona (talk) 17:17, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete? Or move? The interview in Slate should be considered notable, right? But we need two notable sources for inclusion. If the article is not deleted, it should be moved to Tim Susman. Kawayama (talk) 12:36, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete ~~Comment~~ With so many books, and apparently more Ursa Major Awards than anyone else, it seems possible to me that at least some of these books pass WP:NBOOK. If there are a handful of books with 2 RS reviews each, that would substantiate WP:NAUTHOR. Deletion feels premature until someone tries all these titles at Kirkus, Publishers Weekly, Booklist, etc. It also would be worth determining if there are any specialist magazines that quality as RS, like Asimov's Science Fiction, which might also carry reviews. (I don't mean that Asimov's might have reviewed them-- but is there such a thing as an RS furry magazine?) ~ L 🌸 (talk) 07:28, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I gave it my best try, but I couldn't turn up any reviews that weren't clearly user-generated content. It looks like the RS coverage is just the handful of interviews, plus an "author spotlight" (which is also an interview) in Lightspeed. It's my understanding that interviews don't count toward notability. It seems like a shame, since he seems like a prominent figure within his subcommunity, but that doesn't appear to translate into external coverage of the sort wikipedia seeks. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 14:59, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 23:52, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of actors with most Awards[edit]

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

Too broad a scope for a stand-alone list. What awards? Is there a limit to the type of award considered? How is "most Awards" defined? ~~(Article creator has used 50 awards as the cut-off, but why?)~~ (I'm also unsure how this article will be maintained and updated properly, but I don't think that's a deletion policy.) Singularity42 (talk) 17:31, 10 March 2022 (UTC) (Article's creator has removed the 50 award cut-off and has started including any number, which just furthers my concerns. Singularity42 (talk) 19:54, 10 March 2022 (UTC))[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Singularity42 (talk) 17:31, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Singularity42 (talk) 17:31, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Awards-related deletion discussions. Singularity42 (talk) 17:31, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no clear criterion, pure trivia. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 17:51, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is just compiling top-line numbers from pages like List of awards and nominations received by Cate Blanchett and List of awards and nominations received by Viola Davis, but that's not actually comparable. Reywas92^Talk 18:21, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I think top 100 actors with most awards is a good criteria. Here are similar articles such as Footballers with 50 or more international goals. Abbasulu (talk) 19:00, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: trivia, no valid rationale as to why the list should exist — DaxServer (t · c) 19:05, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ Article with strong references and the topic is also rational. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abbasulu (talk • contribs) 19:12, 10 March 2022 (UTC) (stricken off duplicate !vote — DaxServer (t · c) 19:36, 10 March 2022 (UTC))[reply]
Delete. Trivia list and borders original research. Ajf773 (talk) 19:51, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing suggesting that there are any reliable sources that consider these people as a set. We would also need to source every entry, and to have much better explainations of what awards do and do not count, an explanation of which reliable sources support such a descision and so on. Also, is this limited to acting awards, or if a person who is an actor wins an award for singing (such as the Grammy) does this count towards number of awards. I assume if you win the Academy Award for Best Supporting Actress and Later win for Best Actress, that counts as 2. However if you win a specific award, maybe Teen Actor Awards Favorite Actor, twice, does that count as 2 awards because you won that award twice, or does that count as one? What reliable sources would support however we answer this question? On what basis do we end the list, when we get to a certain amount of top winners, or when we get to to a certain number of awards won? What reliable sources support such a cutoff?John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:30, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - this is an original piece compiled by the article creator rather than based on information from reliable sources so the list is contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia. I also fully agree with JPL above me. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:06, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – there's no good way to define what awards merit inclusion without delving into OR, and sourcing award totals would be nearly impossible – the only place I know of that does that is IMDb, which is not reliable. RunningTiger123 (talk) 17:05, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article does not provide proper defined awards and is lacking criteria, just looks like a compilation. Foodie Soul (talk) 12:13, 13 March 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, non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 18:14, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Murder of Austin Smith[edit]

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

Initially I was going to remove all the BLP violating material, but then I realized we're left with 3 sentences which make no sense. This doesn't appear to be a notable crime and it's sourced largely to local news with no lasting impact. Further, the sourcing is poor and to court documents and a violation of several policies including WP:BLPPRIVACY CUPIDICAE💕 17:01, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Might as well just Delete — October me was different from January me, which was different from March me. — 3PPYB6 — TALK — CONTRIBS — 17:02, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ping @Inexpiable as you accepted this draft. — 3PPYB6 — TALK — CONTRIBS — 17:04, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This absolutely should be deleted but it doesn't address the massive WP:BLP violations which you've both created. If you're different now, I suggest going through your edits between then and now and making sure they comply with BLP. CUPIDICAE💕 17:05, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Praxidicae — Nearly all of my edits comply with BLP, but that is because I have largely been focusing on editing existing articles, that don't add too much content—reverting vandalism and copy-editing. I don't create articles that frequently, out of the fear that they would be AfD'd like this. — 3PPYB6 — TALK — CONTRIBS — 17:25, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

UPDATE: I suggest closing this as I have requested G7. Happy editing. — 3PPYB6 — TALK — CONTRIBS — 18:05, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Crime, Events, and New York. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:30, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. While there is an assertion of sources, no one has provided evidence of significant coverage in independent, reliable sources to meet the GNG leaving those arguing delete in a stronger position. No objection to a merger should someone ID a viable target and I'd be happy to provide the information under a redirect for it to be selectively merged. At the time, there is no target. Star Mississippi 00:46, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Cashion London[edit]

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

Contested WP:PROD. Subject meets WP:NFOOTY by virtue of 3 international appearances for Guyana 5 years ago, 1 of which being a non-FIFA match. Subject has just 1 non-professional club game played, and 0 matches in a fully professional league, which doesn't meet NFOOTY. Per WP:WINNEROUTCOMES, NFOOTY does not supersede WP:GNG, which subject comprehensively fails. The only articles I could find that even mention the subject are WP:TRIVIALCOVERAGE and are here, here, here, and here. GauchoDude (talk) 15:50, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, South America, and California. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:53, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:55, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - international players notable. Giant Snowman 16:31, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I noted that the subject met NFOOTY with their international appearances. However, and the basis for this AfD is, NFOOTY doesn't supersede GNG, and I wasn't able to find any significant coverage for them. Can you help to satisfy this? GauchoDude (talk) 16:43, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

there is likely to be offline sources. Please pay for me to go to Guyana to research it. Giant Snowman 16:49, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Because you assume them to exist doesn't, in fact, mean they do, which is not the argument we should be having per WP:MUSTBESOURCES. Unless someone can demonstrate GNG, this should result in delete. GauchoDude (talk) 17:54, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No, just no. The idea that every player that has ever even just substituted for every micro-nation in the world is notable is laughable.T v x1 18:10, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no sources providing substantial coverage have been identified. We build articles by using such sources, we do not build them by guessing such sources exist and then slapping together what little we can. Until we find actual substantial sources we should not have the article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:25, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, however also Q4 in the FAQ atop WP:NSPORT shares the following:

"Q4: What is considered a "reasonable amount of time" to uncover appropriate sources?

A4: There is no fixed rule, as it may differ in each specific case..."

It feels like we'd have sources sooner rather than later as the subject is relevant at a time when information is widely available versus the 1930's when print was much moreso the way. That said, "time" is fairly vague here. The article was created in 2018, is that enough "time"? GauchoDude (talk) 17:04, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes GNG and NFOOTY.--Ortizesp (talk) 22:00, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with the latter, the question is regarding the former. Can you share where the subject passes GNG? GauchoDude (talk) 17:00, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
[11] Nfitz (talk) 23:35, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Instead Coach Jamaal Shabazz has invited USA-based schoolboys, winger Cash London, who plays for Cal Poly San Luis in California, goalkeeper Andrew Nestor, who plays for St. Francis in Brooklyn, New York and Anani Mohammed, who recently signed with Mexican Second Division team Atalante. The only mention of London is in a list with two other players - not WP:SIGCOV. BilledMammal (talk) 23:50, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, here comes the WP:BLUDGEON. Or is it WP:LASTWORD. It's immaterial though given NFOOTBALL is met, and GNG and SNG are given equal weight in WP:N. Nfitz (talk) 00:07, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I really should make a WP:CRYBLUDGEON, like with WP:CRYBLP. Making a short, factual reply to note the deficiency of a source is not bludgeoning. If you don't want it to happen, then get actually acceptable sources, don't complain when your substandard coverage is pointed out as such. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 01:40, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I should really make a WP:TAGTEAM - do you all take shifts? Nfitz (talk) 06:08, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Now that's borderline WP:ASPERSIONS if not outright WP:NPA stuff. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 06:15, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep International footballer who represented his country at senior level. A dangerous precedent is going to be set if articles like this are deleted. As I've mentioned at a previous AfD, you could probably get rid of 1/3 of the 6 million+ articles on Wikipedia if you rely solely on GNG from online sources - a lot of countries will still have written news articles that don't make it online, and it is somewhat disrespectful and condescending to negate these simply because we do not have access to them. Davidlofgren1996 (talk) 03:12, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This fallacy gets repeated endlessly in defence of content-deficient articles about obscure sportspeople, and not once has evidence of this mythical offline coverage ever been presented. The project needs to look at finding a valid ATD and cleaning up these "articles" if they wish to avoid deletion. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 13:42, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No significant coverage provided; fails WP:GNG. If editors believe sources exist, then the onus is on them to find and provide them - otherwise, their !votes must be given little weight. Note that we are not limited to news sources; other reliable secondary sources are also suitable. BilledMammal (talk) 06:35, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep NFOOTY does not supersede GNG, but it is parralel to it, per the first bullet point at WP:N. Thus, as this passes NFOOTY, keep. NemesisAT (talk) 12:15, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe correct? Maybe incorrect? It feels like there are conflicting areas all over Wikipedia, this being one of them. The FAQ at the very top of WP:NSPORT seems to disagree with this, specifically A1 and A2.

"Q1: How is this guideline related to the general notability guideline?

A1: The topic-specific notability guidelines described on this page do not replace the general notability guideline...Wikipedia's standard for including an article about a given person is not based on whether or not they have attained certain achievements, but on whether or not the person has received appropriate coverage in reliable sources, in accordance with the general notability guideline..."

"Q2: If a sports figure meets the criteria specified in a sports-specific notability guideline, does this mean they do not have to meet the general notability guideline?

A2: No, the article must still eventually provide sources indicating that the subject meets the general notability guideline..." GauchoDude (talk) 16:59, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Personally I prefer to go with the guideline itself rather than the FAQ but I see how you could argue it either way. NemesisAT (talk) 17:11, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Fair, although it's on the guideline's page as an easy way to digest the huge amounts of text. That said, I don't know if there's a right answer? Here's a passage from WP:SNG that I think may specifically address this AfD's issue:

"Therefore, topics which pass an SNG are presumed to merit an article, though articles which pass an SNG or the GNG may still be deleted or merged into another article, especially if adequate sourcing or significant coverage cannot be found, or if the topic is not suitable for an encyclopedia." GauchoDude (talk) 18:31, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment international players notable (and the comments of a similar nature) are essentially variants of WP:ITSIMPORTANT or WP:ILIKEIT; and fall squarely foul of WP:NRVE, which is quite explicit that no matter what somebody has done or who they were, notability requires verifiable evidence. Now, if this were a player from half a century ago, a minimal amount of leeway could be understood (although, the article in that case would still not be fit for mainspace and should be draftified). However, given this is a recent player (apparently, still active, although their last games with the national team date from a few years ago), that Guyana isn't exactly the top country in football, and if indeed nothing can be found on them, then this would be a prime example of someone not meeting GNG, in which case the article would not meet the inclusion criteria and either deletion or an alternative should be sought. Holding off from giving a final view since I haven't looked for sources on the matter. Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 22:50, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG due to lack of significant coverage. There are no significant sources in the article and a search, including in Guyanese sources, did not turn up a single significant coverage on the subject. All I could find are brief mentions that somebody with that name came in as a substitude in three matches for Guyana. This is not a historical player who played in the World Cup fifty years ago we are talking about, this is a modern day athlete originating from two english speaking countries whose extremely short career coincides with the golden age of internet coverage yet there is absolutely nothing of any significance written about him. I understand the reasoning with historical players, they are valid, but I could not in any good conscience make claims that this player had even the tiniest bit of notability. Alvaldi (talk) 23:29, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete NFOOTY merely says that "Significant coverage is likely to exist" if the criteria are met, but significant coverage is not available here. Avilich (talk) 00:12, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not enough reliable sources are given and it fails GNG. Foodie Soul (talk) 12:16, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per NFOOTY, a player that has played in an international match between 2 FIFA-recognized countries is presumed notable. If this ends up being deleted, we might need to change that guideline and start deleting every international footballer with no online coverage. ArsenalGhanaPartey (talk) 14:40, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Articles without any supporting significant coverage are not sustainable. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 13:42, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per NFOOTY and GNG. Nfitz (talk) 23:35, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The subject does not pass GNG, unless there are some sources which have not been presented yet, and NFOOTY is not a criterion for automatic inclusion but merely an indication that "significant coverage is likely to exist" (despite you edit warring otherwise). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 01:38, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved discussion about editor behaviour

~~Note Nfitz has been edit warring (and was blocked for it) over changing the wording of the guideline from the new consensus to the old one. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 01:38, 15 March 2022 (UTC)~~[reply]
How has that got any relevance, User:RandomCanadian - not only disengenous as it is simply a restriction for one page, but also exaggerated given all are now blocked. I'd argue that the edit has no impact on this AFD - but I haven't actually checked what the difference I made was - I was simply returning the page to the previously frozen version. Surely WP:GRAVEDANCING is a greater sin, violating a pillar, and should receive a more serious block. Besides User:Wugapodes violated WP:INVOLVED. Nfitz (talk) 06:08, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The sole purpose of the comment was to avoid any ambiguity about what the guideline was (is presumed to be notable and significant coverage is likely to exist essentially express the same idea, but the newer variant is more explicit what it is referring to). Given that it's now resolved with the new consensus implemented, I'm happy to strike my previous comment. Being unapologetic about the edit-warring isn't going to gain you my sympathy either, but that's off-topic here. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 06:12, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There was no edit-warring, I don't think I've ever even edited that page in decades; and I was very careful not to violate 3RR. What would have been edit-warring is if I waited to the 24-hour mark and made it again, or I'd tried to make the same changes a week ago - trying to have spurious discussions pretending it was, in a completely irrelevant forum - clearly to try and gain some advantage, is both WP:BATTLEGROUND and WP:STALKING, both of which are uncivil. Nfitz (talk) 06:38, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As you should well know, edit-warring can be disruptive even if you don't breach 3RR. Says so quite explicitly: The three-revert rule is a convenient limit for occasions when an edit war is happening fairly quickly; it is not a definition of "edit warring", and it is absolutely possible to engage in edit warring without breaking the three-revert rule, or even coming close to doing so.. But all of that is off-topic and if you wish to have a chat about that we should continue on your talk page (after a good night's rest, I'd suggest). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 06:41, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's a bright line for short-term issues. Otherwise edit-warring isn't something that happens in a few minutes. It's not like it wasn't back office. I again ask you to please not violate WP:CIVIL. Nfitz (talk) 06:46, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; merge/redirect to an appropriate list would be a good ATD but it does not appear that such a list currently exists. The presumption of notability offered by NFOOTY is very weak for many countries, even for internationals, and this is one of them. Per NSPORT, the guideline that ultimately needs to be met is GNG and this fails because we simply do not have any significant coverage, which we need in order to write an article (per WHYN). Without it, we have a one sentence directory/statistical listing stub that violates NOTDIR/NOTSTATS. It has been claimed that local offline sources may exist, but there is simply no reason to believe that to be true because there are many local sources available online covering the entire time period of his career to date, and no significant coverage has been found. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 13:29, 15 March 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. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) VdSV9•♫ 15:11, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Max Pulver[edit]

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

Article remains unsouced (since 2017) for all its content except for the existence of two of his books. Recently added sources are one article discussing one his novels - not of him -; and one is a two paragraph mention of one of his books on a list of books. WP:BEFORE could not find any significant coverage in secondary sources. Looked for refs used in the articles in other languages, nothing meets WP:GNG. VdSV9•♫ 15:47, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. VdSV9•♫ 15:47, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. VdSV9•♫ 15:47, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors and Switzerland. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:51, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
What do you see see when you click on "books" above? Phil Bridger (talk) 15:53, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Pretty much the same list of books that given in the article. We need to see that he's covered in other, non-related workds. Oaktree b (talk) 16:02, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Really? We must get something different then, because none of the books that I see are by Max Pulver, but by other people writing about him. I hope that this discussion is not motivated by a dislike of graphology. That the whole basis of the field has now been shown to be bunkum has nothing to do with the notability of someone who was writing about it when it was still considered to be a respectable scientific endeavour. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:09, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- I concur with this. The Google Books link takes me to books, in various languages, which mention Pulver, not (initially, at any rate) any books by him. Jclemens (talk) 17:31, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Clicking on "books" I see some passing mentions of him. Nothing I would call significant coverage, which is a GNG requirement. VdSV9•♫ 18:34, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:NAUTHOR, which (unusually) allows a person to derive notability from their works even without direct biographical coverage. Conventionally, 2 or 3 wiki-notable books are sufficient for NAUTHOR. I found 2 reviews each for Pulver's books as follows, stopping my search after 2 because that's all WP:NBOOK needs:
- Himmelpfortgasse: 1, here, and 2, here
- Symbolik der Handschrift: 1, here and 2, subscription-only without a non-institutional link, a review by Bally (1930) Imago, 17(4): 531-533.
- Trieb und Verbrechen in der Handschrift: 1, here, and 2, subscription-only without a non-institutional link, a review by Marseille, W. (1937) Imago, 23(3): 386.

I didn't see much need to keep going with his later books because this is plenty, but I expect the next 2 also pass NBOOK. Additionally, Pulver appears frequently in a 1963 book which was reprinted in 2019 (indicating some ongoing relevance), Die moderne Handschriftendeutung. I can't read German but this book may have useful information about the extent to which Pulver is now discredited. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 18:39, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I also think there's a good case for a WP:NPROF criteria 1 pass, which also does not require direct biographical coverage, due to his influence on graphology as captured in statements like "These Freudian analyses ultimately result from the work of a Swiss graphologist called Max Pulver" here. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 18:43, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Of course it would be much better to have sources that tell us his pet dog's name or his inside leg measurement, but, in the absence of those, we will have to put up with sources about the writings that make him notable. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:53, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And in fact, I've just realised that he is included in the German Dictionary of National Biography! Which is also a clear-cut pass of WP:ANYBIO criteria 3 -- and could have been determined directly from the authority control box on the article at the time of nomination. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 00:42, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you all for your input, especially LEvalyn. I'm withdrawing the nomination. VdSV9•♫ 15:10, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 23:53, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pete Elliott (UK politican)[edit]

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

Doesn't seem to qualify per WP:NPOL. I removed a section with sources of which only two mentioned the subject. PerpetuityGrat (talk) 15:35, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. PerpetuityGrat (talk) 15:35, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. PerpetuityGrat (talk) 15:35, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:05, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NPOL. Atchom (talk) 01:43, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment While passing NPOL provides presumed notability, failing NPOL does not prove the opposite, ie a lack of notability. A rationale for deletion needs to be provided. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 23:38, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Elliott is an elected local politician with average media coverage.

When I raised the issue that this article had no media coverage, I got told she met the notability criteria? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marina_Ahmad DrGonzalezRojas (talk) 23:57, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not commenting on whether this person is notable. I'm emphasising that grounds for deletion are absent in the nomination and in the contribution from Atchom; asserting that the subject fails NPOL is not grounds for deletion as it does not establish a general lack of notability, it only indicates a lack of presumed notability in the context of NPOL's specific criteria. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 01:37, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a local level politician lacking sufficient coverage to show that he is notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:16, 15 March 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 Trainwreck.. Creator is a sock. Nominator is a sock. Any editor in good standing is welcome to bring an AfD should they deem it necessary. Star Mississippi 00:47, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sayali Chandsarkar[edit]

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

last two time (AfD 1 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sayali Sanjeev, AfD 2 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sayali Sanjeev (2nd nomination)) This time the name has been changed. I don't see how she manages to pass our notability guideline. Near rubbish-sourcing.Probable paid-promo-spam.Nothing resembling non-trivial coverage in RS can be discovered. Cinzia007 (talk) 15:24, 10 March 2022 (UTC) struck confirmed, blocked sockpuppet, Atlantic306 (talk) 11:43, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Cinzia007 (talk) 15:24, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Television, and India. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:31, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt. The creator of this article was indeffed for socking, and clearly the name was changed to avoid the last two rounds of community consensus in an effort to game WP. I would strongly encourage other !voting editors to consider salting along with their !vote, as this is the third time the article has been created by ban-avoiding editor(s).

A note on sourcing for sources 1-6:

1. Zeenews "has been involved in several controversies and has broadcast fabricated news stories on multiple occasions" according to our WP article on it and multiple sources on the page;
2. The TV9 Marathi source is not in-depth and just gives a broad overview of the subject's credits, along with speculation she is dating a sports personality
3. The DNA India source (listed twice) doesn't have a byline and is about the sports personality with one paragraph about Sayali
4. See #4
5. The "Sayali Sanjeev: Movies, Photos, Videos, News, Biography & Birthday | eTimes" on the TimesofIndia website isn't even an article - it's like an IMDB entry
6. The first Loksatta piece is a re-post of six of the subjects Instagram pictures, again without a byline.

I can post my assessment about the rest of the sources later (if needed), but they're of similar quality. --Kbabej (talk) 20:52, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep based on number of TV series and films, she would seem to qualify based on guidelines of WP:ENT. Several of the TV series she has been in have Wiki pages, so they would seem to be notable TV series, hence it establishes notability. I don't disagree with source assessment above, but that should not be the only factor. If someone is popular for being in several popular TV shows, they meet the notability Guidelines per WP:ENT. Jupiteralien (talk) 21:45, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Jupiteralien: I'm not actually convinced that some of those series are notable. Shubhmangal Online, for example, was also created by an indeffed editor who was socking, then carried on by IPs. It has three sources: the first is actually about the actor, not the show. The second is mostly an interview. The third offers no analysis and is not even four paragraphs long. Perfect Pati doesn't have a WP article. And Kahe Diya Pardes was created by yet another blocked editor. A thorough review of all three of these shows should probably take place as well. --Kbabej (talk) 22:23, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There are 5 films and 2 TV series that have Wiki pages. Only one of them with 3 citations seems that it may not be notable. The rest have plenty of citations. Keep in mind, Indian publications are not like US, so you should not view them as unreliable. They all look crappy. This doesn't mean subject is not notable. The fact is she has been in multiple films and TV series. Jupiteralien (talk) 22:53, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - not only was the article creator a sock, but the nom is also a sock of user:Chatarpatar2020. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 10:27, 17 March 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)} 22:42, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of naturalized international footballers[edit]

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

The scope of the article is (1) confusing and (2) too wide. It's unclear whether the criteria for inclusion is "footballers, who played for a national team, who happened to have gained a second nationality in their lifetime" or "footballers who obtained a citizenship with the specific intention of representing a national team".

If it's the first case, too many players would be included, and it would just be an WP:INDISCRIMINATE list linking two unrelated topics (footballers and naturalization). If it's the second case, it's often difficult to find a source that proves that the player gained a nationality with that specific intention.

Another issue is with how different countries define naturalization. Some have jus soli laws, other jus sanguinis, others strictly a paternal jus sanguinis law. Players from different countries coming from the exact same circumstance (e.g. born abroad to a foreign mother, and obtained the mother's citizenship) are deemed "naturalized" or not based on the country's specific law.

A further point (pointed out by Joseph2302) is that FIFA nations often differ from actual sovereign countries (England vs UK, American Samoa?, Hong Kong?), so the argument about gaining nationalities doesn't apply to certain nations. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 15:12, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 15:12, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 15:12, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 15:12, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 15:15, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. The scope is quite confusing and unclear with either scope suggested above being problematic. I'll note also that we have lists of "List of X international footballers born outside X", such as List of New Zealand international footballers born outside New Zealand (and more can be found via Category:Change of nationality in sport or {{International footballers}}. Perhaps it is worth working this style of lists and adding to those and having them in an appropriate category (and in such a case might be worth redirect the discussed article to said theoretical category). --SuperJew (talk) 15:41, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, similar to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of association football players with dual nationality. Giant Snowman 16:30, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't think it's clear what this distinction is and how it merits its own list. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 17:27, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree with the comments above. Bduke (talk) 02:06, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as I said at WT:FOOTY, this is a confusing list which mixes up people's actual nationalities and sports nations that they play for. List of association footballers who have been capped for two senior national teams covers this is in a clear and logical way, whereas this article does not. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:16, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The list mainly covers "footballers who obtained a citizenship with the specific intention of representing a national team" (or those who happen to pbtain second citizenship for other reasons who were later tapped to play for the national team). I do acknowledge that finding source for naturalized players might be proven more difficult as per WP:SYSTEMIC especially in European nations where the original nationality of naturalized migrant footballers are less relevant and is more of a subject of interest in certain countries like China and QatarHariboneagle927 (talk) 09:52, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think that pages such as List of Chinese naturalized footballers are fine, as they are dealt with in-depth by multiple sources. Also, the nationality law + immigration situation in China make the entries in the list more limited, as opposed to countries such as Australia. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 14:26, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lack of distinction of players which is making it confusing, the article needs more clarity and depth. Foodie Soul (talk) 12:19, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, borderline snow delete. SPF121188 ^{(talk this way)} ^(contribs) 13:51, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is just going to be too large a list to be useful.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:54, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 14:20, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Laredo bus crash[edit]

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

hate to say it but this is a run of the mill accident but not notable as far as i can tell, received only temporary coverage with no lasting impact. CUPIDICAE💕 14:15, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Transportation, and Texas. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:17, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Drafity. There is every possibility that this could have been a notable event, there is very little evidence of such at present. It should be moved back to the user's draft space, and be put through the proper AfC processes before publishing onto mainspace. Ajf773 (talk) 20:25, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

it happened 6 years ago. How is it going to somehow gain traction now? I object to any draftification. CUPIDICAE💕 22:57, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at two comparable categories [[Category:Road incident deaths in the United States]] and [[Category:Road incident deaths in Texas]] those articles all list some notable public figure that lost their life in the accident. In this one, noone was involved. There was a tragic loss of lives, but not encycloped relevant. Camp0s (talk) 13:56, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think we are both in agreement that this does not belong in article-space. Ajf773 (talk) 09:21, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Tragic but not notable event....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 12:56, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable event. --Kinu ^t/_c 16:45, 13 March 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. Modussiccandi (talk) 08:35, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Manpreet Sidhu[edit]

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

Fails WP:NCRIC and WP:GNG. The Tribune India source is tagged "Brand Connect" which makes it a sponsored article. The Times of India article is an announcement of him being selected as coach in a local cricket academy in UAE which is not a credible claim of notability. All the other sources used are from unreliable, low-quality sites. M4DU7 (talk) 14:07, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. M4DU7 (talk) 14:07, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. M4DU7 (talk) 14:07, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. M4DU7 (talk) 14:07, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable cricket figure. Doesn't play and hasn't coached at a notable level, a lot of the article seems promotional for himself or his business. No suitable redirect here either. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 20:53, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per Rugbyfan22. StickyWicket (talk) 21:51, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Added one more reliable news article which is from Outlook India. They have done the coverage on Manpreet Sidhu — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iamsilax (talk • contribs) 06:26, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Kandy Warriors Wikipedia page also mentioned Manpreet Sidhu as Strategy Analyst. So Manpreet Sidhu Wikipedia article is not an orphan article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iamsilax (talk • contribs) 06:32, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Being linked somewhere else in Wikipedia is not a demonstration of notability. Joseph2302 (talk) 14:27, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG, as per the source evaluation by the nom. Joseph2302 (talk) 14:27, 17 March 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. This is a difficult discussion to close. The article defines "Russian fascism" as "the political ideology and social practice of the ruling regime of the Russian Federation". While it is not really disputed here that many policies and actions of the current Russian government are (a) deplorable and (b) resemble those of fascist (and other totalitarian) regimes, the question at the core of this AfD is whether we can neutrally, verifiably and without original research define these practices as "Russian fascism". To arrive at a consensus about this question, this discussion would have had to analyze the sources in the article with a view to their reliability and their pertinence for defining a concept of "Russian fascism". But this discussion falls far short of doing this, mostly merely asserting that the article is a POV fork or that the topic is important. Only a few people on both sides of the argument really discuss the sources, and they don't agree with each other, leading us to no consensus. I suggest that interested editors organize a structured RfC on how to organize the various articles related to the intersection of fascism and Russia, which might result in consensus to merge this article into existing ones. Sandstein 12:32, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Russian fascism (ideology)[edit]

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

This is a WP:POVFORK of Russian nationalism. The sources I've skimmed through on this article are generally either discussing Russian nationalism, or discussing whether the term "fascism" should or could be applied to Putin/Russia, rather than discussing a distinct and coherent ideology by the name of "Russian fascism". Endwise (talk) 10:51, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and Russia. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:00, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete to WP:TNT. The subject seems notable (see here), but the page is clearly OR and WP:FICTREF.

Unfortunately, other WP versions have already translated the English version of the article in their language. I think those should also be deleted. Veverve (talk) 11:06, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have come to doubt the notability of the subject. See my comments at this AfD and here. Veverve (talk) 01:07, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

CU blocked/topic banned editor. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 12:55, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Keep This is not just Russian nationalism, it`s fascism, and as it carries the ideas of the cult of personality, militarism, totalitarianism and Russian imperialism. The term "rashizm" is too well known in the post-Soviet space to remove it. You can search in Google "рашизм". Against the background of some Russians sincerely supporting the actions of their government using the letter Z in social media, it is cynical to delete an article about what is now common in Russia. Jafaz (talk) 11:19, 3 March 2022 (UTC)Topic banned, CU banned for sockpuppetry. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 12:43, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, it seems there is such an article on the Ukrainian Wikipedia: https://uk.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A0%D0%B0%D1%88%D0%B8%D0%B7%D0%BC Maybe translating that would be a better start? Endwise (talk) 11:30, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Jafaz: the only real argument of yours is [t]he term "rashizm" is too well known in the post-Soviet space to remove it; I argue that there is Wiktionary if you believe an expression or term is important. WP:Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a dictionary.

By the way, you are the main contributor to this article, and thus are responsible for the dire state it is in; this includes accusations of WP:POVFORK, WP:FICTREF and OR by @Endwise: which you have not even attempted to rebuke. The second main contributor is @Tsans2: who has so far not responded to the AfD nomination. Veverve (talk) 12:02, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your accusations about the horror of the article are completely unfounded, as I understand it, you are guided by your Russophilia. By that logic, you should delete the article about the ghosts of Kyiv. I am not the author of this article, dear.Jafaz (talk) 12:33, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Jafaz: Those are gratuitous and baseless accusations, as well as personnal attacks. Those are not allowed on Wikipedia. You have once again not made any attempt at rebuking the norminator's arguments or mine. You have written 52% of this article which has been created less than a week ago. Notability does not prevent a TNT, especially on such a recently created article. Veverve (talk) 15:30, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I initially reviewed the article and added the maintenance tags. I had a quick scan of Google Scholar and JSTOR to try and determine whether this is a notable stand-alone topic, and I think it is. I put the (Western) academic sources I found on the talk page. It doesn't look like a POVFORK to me, but I agree with Veverve it's currently a borderline TNT case as it's written in a non-neutral argumentative essay-like style (no doubt motivated by a desire to document the ideology driving the current invasion, as Jafaz sees it). However, a significant portion of the text is attributed to Russian political scientists, which may be hard for non-Russian speakers to access if this was recreated in the future. It looks to me as though much of the content is potentially valuable, and a heavy rewrite may be all that's needed? The sources look concerning (YouTube and lots of Ukrainian media which I'm unfamiliar with), but as I can't read Cyrillic I can't be certain whether the expert statements quoted in the text are properly supported. Draftifying could also be an option. Jr8825 • Talk 14:37, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I assure you that this term exists in Central and Eastern Europe and is very common. If the user @Veverve: did not constantly delete files from the article with unfounded accusations of their unjustified use in this article, you would see a protest in Moscow with a poster "Stop rashism". The term rashism is much older than the "Ghost of Kyiv". Thank God the page of the ghost of Kyiv has not been nominated for removal yet. As I said, those who are about to remove this article are Russophiles who want to hide the existence of this kind of fascism. Due to recent events, they probably do not want to cover their position. Against the background of Russian troops now killing civilians (I already have a murdered family of acquaintances of a classmate from Kharkiv.) and trying to seize Ukrainian cities, all those who try to justify the Russian regime or hide their ideology for English-speaking people are also participants in this genocide. I can no longer control my emotions.Jafaz (talk) 16:52, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep due to the relevance of the topic against the background of the Russo-Ukrainian War. LMAO. The fact of russicism, ruscism, rashism, or how to write it correctly in English, is recognized even by the Russian opposition. I also agree with the comment above. Adam Darque (talk) 17:09, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note that this user is a sock of Jafaz.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:18, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Mild keep. Page can definitely be improved and citations fixed. It really needs to talk about groups and organisations which will put the ideology in context. The fact that there are articles in 8 other languages also gives some sense of notability. Gusfriend (talk) 11:04, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Gusfriend thanks. I try to develop and improve it. I agree it's need to be rearranged. I added a few significant authors into preamble who describe current Russian political regime as fascist. Tsans2 (talk) 09:49, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Further to my mild keep there are some interesting links to organisations at the disambiguation page Russian fascism and the template Template:Russian fascism which has a bunch of prior to 1945 links. I think that there is potential for an interested person.Gusfriend (talk) 11:17, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If there are enough articles to warrant a separate template, Template:Russian fascism, to hold their titles, then I daresay there’s potential to keep expanding this independent article. If it needs improvement, that is a reason to not delete it. —Michael Z. 22:35, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Spam crosswiki, and Adam Darque is a sock of User:Jafaz, see it:Utente:Adam Darque.--Kirk39 (talk) 09:41, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: @Gusfriend and Mzajac: almost all the versions of this article on other WProjects have been created by the same user, Jafaz, who has been recently banned from editing pages about Eastern Europe; see the article creations at WP es, be-tarask, bg, pl, pt, tr, ro. The only exceptions seem to be articles from WP yi (creation by an IP in 2015), uk (created by an IP in 2014), ca (created by Kvitka Cvit in 2014), and en (created 26 February 2022‎ by User:Tsans2); however, since Jafaz is a kown sockmaster it is possible those were created by them, especially the one on WP en. Indeed, Jafaz has also used his sock @Adam Darque: (see here) to vote twice to keep the article in this AfD. Veverve (talk) 15:14, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it sounds like Jafaz’s violations are being dealt with elsewhere. I don’t care much for speculation without evidence that other edits are theirs. Here we are voting about the article, including contributions by others. Like I said, this is an encyclopedic subject, mentioned in over 7,500 books and 950 scholarly works, and if the article is lacking it deserves to be improved. —Michael Z. 17:46, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The deletion argument isn't so much notability as TNT, and I'm on the fence myself. The article's certainly in a dire state right now, particularly if there are no editors willing to clean it up to a presentable state (given that the creator is now blocked, and had competence issues). Jr8825 • Talk 19:43, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete being "mentioned by Google" does not equate to "notability". The overall approach of this article is closer to an original research mixing together various propagandistic ideas, biased sources, superficial clichés, some forced correlations all stitched together to pretend being a "scientific description of a political ideology". Unfortunately, we are far from something that can be seriously considered worth an encyclopaedia article, written in this form and with this (rather questionable) contents. We should at least need some more reliable sources: real political studies, not just a personal arrangement of mixed things presented as "description of an ideology".--L736E (talk) 22:14, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Rename to Ruscism (per sources like [12],[13],~~[14]~~,[15]) or Rashism (per sources like [16],[17]). In the case of renaming, both words mean exactly same thing, hence this should be one page. The contemporary Ruscism/Rashism is a variety of Great Russian chauvinism or Russian imperialism. This is not a nationalism. Nationalists are seeking creation of an independent nation-state like Ukrainian nationalists, whereas Russian imperialists are building an empire which is a prison of many nations. But nothing prevents from keeping this page as it is right now, i.e. a page about Russian fascism as a specific variety of fascism in general, during the entire 20th century and possibly before. As Andrey Piontkovsky pointed out, "The authentic high-principled Hitlerites, true Aryans Dugin, Prokhanov, Prosvirin, Kholmogorov, Girkin, Prilepin are a marginalized minority in Russia."[[[18]. But this minority is vocal, and the subject is notable. This page now exists in 10 other wikiprojects. No, these pages were not created by a single account, for example here. My very best wishes (talk) 05:36, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

But yes, this page is poorly written. Here is good version in Ukrainian WP [19]. My very best wishes (talk) 19:14, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@My very best wishes: the Ukrainian version of the article is unacceptable, it contains what I have removed from the English version, which is: OR, FICTREF, unsourced claims, and non-RSs (most notably the People's Movement of Ukraine website) used as sources. Veverve (talk) 19:26, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No, you are wrong. Sure, it could be improved. But the content was mostly sourced. I reverted it back to this version prior to the AfD. This is because me and other contributors above voted for that version, not for the ridiculous verrion that you created. My very best wishes (talk) 19:36, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No, the Ukrainian article is terrible.

The idea the "Z" is a Russian Fascist symbol is unsourced, the sources include blogs such as a dead livejournal, or FICTREF such as a direct quote from Dzhokhar Dudayev disguised as a ref supporting the idea that "Herzen in his novel The Past and Thoughts (1868) in the form of 'Russianism' to denote the extremist trend in Muscoviteism. The term owes its revival to the President of the Chechen Republic of Ichkeria, Dzhokhar Dudayev".

And the list goes on and on! You just need to have a look at all I have removed from the English version of the article in the edit history to know how bad the Ukrainian article - from which the English article was translated - is terrible and not worthy of a WP article. Veverve (talk) 19:47, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

~~Apparently, you simply do not know Russian and Ukrainian?~~(My apology. I did not realize that user knows Russian and Ukrainian[20]) Here is your edit with edit summary "none of those sources are related to or about the topic of this Wikipedia article!" This is wrong. As one can see even from titles of sources you removed. For example, "Рашизм і фашизм" (Ukrainian) exactly on the subject. "Ідеологія рашизму має бути засуджена світом, як нацизм і фашизм" - same thing, and so on and so on. But some of the English language sources you removed are also arguably on the subject. My very best wishes (talk) 20:03, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@My very best wishes: None of the sources Tsan2 had added in the edit I reverted mentioned the topic.

Every reference I have removed was removed with a clear justification in my edit summary. I admit other sources in the article mention or discuss Raschism or Russian Fascism. However, they are mostly used as FICTREF or non-RS.

As I have noted numerous times: what is even the topic of this article? Is it Russian Fascism, Putinism, Russia under Vladimir Putin, or the alleged Raschism ideology? Veverve (talk) 20:12, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No, if anyone looks at sources you removed (diff), most of the sources are clearly RS. Some others might be disputable, but it does not justify such large-scale deletions, especially during the standing AfD. I could check everything more carefully, but do not have time right now. My very best wishes (talk) 20:25, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, I provided a rationale in the edit summaries for each of my removal of each source. Being a RS does not mean the source is not a FICTREF. Nothing prevents me from improving an article while it is being AfDed by removing what does not comply with WP's policies and standards, WP:HEYMANN. Veverve (talk) 20:40, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep as the article is not just a shorterm phenomenon. it's a lasting thing in Russia. It was heavily edited and expanded by many others. It has problems, like possible original research, or something else, however deletion process is not devoted for improving the article. And vice versa. Notability is visible. More efforts should be placed here to make the article more neutral and well sourced. --Koraduba (talk) 15:23, 7 March 2022 (UTC) — Koraduba (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 12:39, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, and move to 'Rashism'. --Olchug (talk) 17:43, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seems like it is distinct and notable enough to warrant an article. We can clean it to make it good quality. Tradedia^talk 04:07, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I translated this article from Ukrainian. And it is now much better than its original. Russian fascism is right now bombing Ukraine. It's not the same as Russian nationalism. It has more in common with Nazism. Especially letter "Z" symbol which is put on all the weaponry invading Ukraine. Tsans2 (talk) 13:37, 10 March 2022 (UTC)— Tsans2 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 12:41, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Needs more discussion of sources and fewer pure votes or unsourced assertions.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 13:44, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Original research and POV pushing (just look at the concluding part of the introductory sentence, an explicit characterization of the ruling regime) in part work of a sock puppet. Virtually none of the reliable sources use the alternate terms in the opening line of the article. Rascism returns as racism to me, rashism similarly seems to have no meaningful footprint either while Russism and Russicism are synonymous with Russianism, a term with a completely different meaning. Much has been written about Vladimir Putin, his ideology and characteristics of the political system he has overseen but all those interpretations are covered under Russian nationalism or the Putinism article. Remember, this conflict has existed even before the invasion and Putin has been in power for even longer. If this article was a serious characterization it would have been covered in reliable sources and more explicit terms years ago. This reads like a neologism buzzword that's being pushed in response to the invasion. The keep voters who compare it to Nazism are even more silly, another overused ideological term. It's understandable that people are upset but the keep votes will have to be more policy grounded and sober analysis grounded. --Killuminator (talk) 22:32, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
nope, the russian fascism term is at least 15 year old. It's not so often used at West, but still quite live in Ukraine, Georgia, and even Russia. It's definitely not a neologism. Tsans2 (talk) 08:51, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: it appears some have been attempting to create this article on WP ru for more than 10 years, see here and here. I have contacted an admin on WP ru in hope they can provide some mor insight. Veverve (talk) 06:11, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: from what I see, the article seems to confuse fascism in Russia (akin to Fascism in Europe, Fascism in Asia), Putin's rulership being considered as fascist, and the "Raschism" (Russian fascism) ideology (akin to National-socialism, Strasserism, Maoism or other defined, distinguishable sub-ideologies). Thus it muddies the water as to whether or not the topic of the article is notable. Veverve (talk) 06:43, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
FYI russian fascism or russicism is not something new, or originally researched here. It's not about racism, or just fascism. It's about rashism as it is. Tsans2 (talk) 08:48, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The article seems politically agitated more than anything else. Seriously, want to gave some fun writing about Putin and his regime? Have a go at Putinism, instead of creating a separate article.Floatline (talk) 13:28, 11 March 2022 (UTC)— Floatline (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment - Quick google search yielded about 50 results before 01\01\2022 on Rashism. The term has never been used in academia, it seems Floatline (talk) 13:28, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: the admin I said I had asked in my previous comment has answered:

Hello. The problem is that at different times and by different authors, the rather rare word "Rashism" was used in different meanings. No scientific sources have been cited and are not yet cited that give a clear definition of "rashism". At the same time, not a single generalizing source was given that considers the use of this word in the Russian language - the whole range of concepts denoted by this word at different times and by different people. Thus, an article on political science is impossible due to the lack of a single concept of rashism shared by the scientific community. An article about the term (similar, for example, to the article en:Vatnik (slang)) is impossible, since there are no sources from the field of linguistics and sociology.

I think it is an argument worth giving, so I decided to make a new comment instead of putting this answer below my previous one. Veverve (talk) 19:53, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A WP:POVFORK which includes nothing new about the subject that we can't find at Russian nationalism and Putinism. Georgethedragonslayer (talk) 09:22, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not convinced by the WP:ILIKEIT-based comments above to support retainment of this WP:POVFORK. NavjotSR (talk) 09:28, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a POV fork per nom. The subject of the article is ostensibly the ideology of the current regime in Russia, something also covered more neutrally by Russian nationalism and Putinism. I can entirely understand why people in the Ukrainian Wikipedia are using the term, and it might even be the most common term to use in Ukrainian, but that doesn't make it neutral. Hut 8.5 12:09, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. While I think that all decent people agree that what is going on in Russia is fascistic, in the colloquial sense of the term, that should not drive us to assume a distinct, named fascist ideology is at work here without much better evidence. This is similar to the situation with Francoism except that that has the benefit of having had a longer time for scholarship, debate and consensus making it easer for us to describe the ways in which Francoism is and is not related to strictly defined Fascism. If terms like "Rashism" really do have any currency, then I have no objection to them being redirected to whatever article is most appropriate. If there is anything here worth merging then I have no objection to that either. --DanielRigal (talk) 14:46, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

absolutely so, the article is very truthful, straightforward and helpful to understand why this war in Ukraine started. Romesea (talk) 18:11, 12 March 2022 (UTC) — Romesea (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete. POV fork, agree with OP. Also guilty of WP:RECENTISM. — Czello 22:51, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Weak sources, truly borderline arguments.--Mhorg (talk) 12:47, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep This article is about an ideology of modern Putin's Russian Federation, which is indeed best described as fascism, given its features during Putin's 23 years in power (in his many wars in Ukraine, Syria, Georgia, Chechnya, and his regime's crimes in Russia):
- the idea of the supremacy of the “Russian world” (“ruskiy mir”) over the world;
- the desire to rewrite history with blood;
- intention to change the world order of international relations;
- changing borders through war;
- readiness to strike at peaceful cities with nuclear weapons;
- denial of the right to exist of entire peoples, including Ukrainians;
- the cult of personality of the state leader;
- mass imperial hysteria of the Russians;
- new totalitarian symbols and rituals;
- repression against a minority with alternative views of the world;
- a sense of complete impunity for the regime's actions that have ruined millions of lives.

The term “ruscism” was invented and has been used by Ukrainians for many years as a synonym for “Russian fascism”. This is not the same as Russian nationalism (I know that Putin differs in many ways from nationalists) and is more reminiscent of Salazar's regimes in Portugal, Franco's in Spain, and, to a lesser extent, Mussolini's in Italy. Written but not signed by 176.108.108.55

Indeed, the article has many drawbacks. It is clearly written by the author under the influence of his own experience (perhaps he is from Ukraine, where Russians are now committing genocide against the local population). The article definitely needs to be corrected, made more objective and scientific. Also more trusted links are needed. However, the article does not need to be removed, because it describes an existing phenomenon that has existed for decades, but today is proving to be the most active. Therefore, the article is very relevant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.108.108.55 (talk) 22:17, 13 March 2022 (UTC) — 176.108.108.55 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Veverve (talk) 01:00, 14 March 2022 (UTC) |}[reply]

IP, you have not provided a single reliable source to prove the subject is notable. From what I get, "Russian fascism", "Rachism", "Russicism", etc. seem to be Ukrainian buzzwords with no clear meaning(s) used to refer to perceived negative traits of Russia and Putin's government; this is similar to how the word wikt:Macronie is used in French to basically refer to 'whatever I do not like about Emmanuel Macron or his policies or both'. Veverve (talk) 00:56, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

please read the sources already provided in the article. at least Alexander Motyl, Timothy Snyder Tsans2 (talk) 09:50, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment new scientific source which ultimately describes what is Russian fascism is here: http://www.ji-magazine.lviv.ua/engl-vers/2016/motyl.pdf Tsans2 (talk) 00:12, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This is some material for Russia under Vladimir Putin and not this article, as the title of the article says: "Putin's Russia as a fascist political system". There is no mention of "Rashism", "Rachism", or "Russissism" in the whole article. The two times "Russian fascism" is used, it is to claim Russia under Vladimir Putin is Fascist, not to describe a peculiar political sub-ideology. Veverve (talk) 00:49, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
the name of the article is "Russian fascism" not "Rashism". Tsans2 (talk) 09:51, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fascism is a widely applicable term. That particular scholarly publication by Motyl [21] tells about "Putin's Russia as a fascist political system" [according to author]. This is a specific political system, rather than just a political ideology (Rashism), although the ideology is a part of that political system. This scholarly RS could be used on the page either about ideology or the system. My very best wishes (talk) 02:38, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Rename as part of a larger re-org. I initially had the page as a mild keep (which I have now struck) under the impression that the page would end up talking about fascism in Russia in general but the focus is definitely towards a very modern perspective and recently defined ideology. As such keeping the name "Russian fascism (ideology)" is somewhat misleading. Ideally this page would be called something like Rashizm, the page called Fascism in Russia (also known as Russian Fascism) gets moved to Russian Fascism (disambiguation) and the page Fascism in Russia now becomes a study of Fascism in Russia for the last 150 years or so integrating the pages on historical fascism in Template:Russian fascism with links to those pages, a small section on Rashizm with a hatnote to the main article. Then we end up with a master article detailing the history and how it fits together. Gusfriend (talk) 01:49, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
interesting idea. I think that we need now to preserve from deletion this page and then with collaboration of many users make it clear. Tsans2 (talk) 09:53, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Nothing prevents from creating page Fascism in Russia as a standard page (rather than disambig. page), but that would be a very different subject. I think this page should be renamed to either Ruscism (per sources like [22],[23],[24],[25]) or Rashism (per sources like [26],[27]). Obviously, both words mean exactly same thing, hence this should be one page. My very best wishes (talk) 01:52, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep as a witness to the crimes of the Russians in Ukraine and the severe suffering of my family and millions of others --Perohanych (talk) 07:49, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry but, this is a PoV response. WP:ILIKEIT isn't enough. — Czello 08:03, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  @Czello of cource, but it's a true emotion of millions of people in Ukraine. Tsans2 (talk) 09:57, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  @Tsans2: I have no doubt, but sadly this isn't criteria for inclusion. — Czello 10:38, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  sure :( I think right now hundreds of political scientists are righting about russian fascism. Tsans2 (talk) 10:53, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, I have another argument. If it is characterized by dictatorial power like a fascism, forcibly suppresses opposition like a fascism, and strongly regiments society and the economy like a fascism, then it probably is fascism (see Duck test) --Perohanych (talk) 16:59, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  This is not an argument. You have not provided any RS to support the notability of the subject, i.e. a peculiar ideology. If you want to state that Putin's government is fascist, then you can edit Russia under Vladimir Putin. Veverve (talk) 17:15, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: This article is borderline unhinged. This goes so far beyond POV editing that it just becomes active propaganda. I also love how some of the most vitriolic claims aren't even sourced. Curbon7 (talk) 09:17, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I recently added many views into article and hope it made it more broad. thanks! Tsans2 (talk) 09:55, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note for closing admin. User Veverve started this thread at WP:AN [28] related to this AfD. The user is currently blocked from editing this page. My very best wishes (talk) 17:39, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article is still in its early stages of development and has many issues. However, the way to write an encyclopedia is to fix the issues and improve the articles instead of deleting them - for as long as the topics are notable.

While terms like "Russicism", "Ruscism" or "Rashism" might be too new and little used (at least in the West) to be used as article titles, the foremost descriptive title "Russian fascism" is much older. It was used by the Russian fascist ideologue Ivan Ilyin in 1927 already. It has also been used by some prominent scientific authors (like Alexander J. Motyl, Timothy D. Snyder or Stefan Plaggenborg) and more recently by many other authors (like Svetlana Alexievich, just to name one) as a proper name refering to the phenomenon and ideology (or sub-ideologies).

Fascism and nationalism are different enough to have separate WP articles about them, and we also have various articles about (or redirects from) country-specific forms of fascism like Italian fascism, German fascism (aka Nazism), so we should also have an article on Russian fascism, if it can be sourced reliably.

There is certainly some overlap with the Russian nationalism#Extremist nationalism subsection and with Putinism, but this doesn't mean that "Russian fascism" shouldn't be discussed in an article of its own. Time will tell if "Russian fascism" will remain the most suitable title or if another name emerges and sticks long-term to describe the phenomenon.

--Matthiaspaul (talk) 19:25, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Matthiaspaul: the article is explicitly about Russian Fascism/Raschism/Russicism (the alleged sub-ideology) as per wikidata:Q15975478; the article is not about Fascism in Russia which is covered by wikidata:Q13479496. You are asking for a complete change of scope of the article and the link to another Wikidata item. To me, this is not what a 'Keep' vote should be; you might as well vote to delete and the result would be the same, as there is nothing which can be kept or merged for a broad article on Fascism in Russia apart from the quite smalle "History" section. Veverve (talk) 20:34, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @Kseniia Idrichan: attempted to created the article in November 2020 from a redirect, but the changes were quickly reverted the same day by @Gsquaredxc:. The next day, @Robert McClenon: turned the redirect into an Template:R with possibilities. Veverve (talk) 20:41, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The WP en article was linked to wikidata:Q15975478 and @Ymblanter: unlinked the redirect from the Wikidata item after the revert. Veverve (talk) 20:48, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - What I did simply noted that there was a Draft:Rascism. I was not expressing an opinion. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:36, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: the term is really old and stable, even Dzhokhar Dudayev described it in the 90s. But it may intersect with Russian Fascism mentioned above, not Putinism. Cementium (talk) 23:14, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. While "Fascism in Russia" in general is a valid subject (I agree with several people above about that), many sources (for example scholarly RS mentioned in this discussion) say specifically that the current Putinist regime in Russia is a variety of fascism, a variety also known as Ruscism (per sources like [29],[30],[31],[32]) or Rashism (per [33],[34]). All these words mean exactly same thing, an allegedly fascist regime under leadership of Vladimir Putin. This is the subject of this page. This is a highly notable subject. Why this page should be deleted? That is what they do: [35]. People in Ukraine call these aggressors fascists [36], just as sources above. My very best wishes (talk) 03:47, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@My very best wishes:
- dic.academic.ru is not a RS but a Wikipedia mirror. From what I read at ru:Glosbe (without any source), "The Glosbe dictionary is based on the collaborative principle of the wiki, i.e. it is edited and filled by volunteers from all over the world"; so Globse is not a RS either.
- As for what Sanilovsays, it does not matter, the person is not a RS.
- Oleg Panfilovsays does not link "Russicism" to Nationalism or Fascism.
- Security Threats and Public Perception says about pro-Ukrainians comparing Putin's governement with Fascism: "Pro-Ukrainian commentators have also used the word 'Rashism' (conflation of 'Russia' and 'fascism') to emphasize the aggresive intention of Russia." No mention of 'Russicism' or any peculiar sub-ideology. This concerns Russia under Vladimir Putin.
- The Routledge Handbook of Character Assassination and Reputation Management says the word "Rashism" is used to present "the Putin regime as fascist". No mention of it being a peculiar sub-ideology. This concerns Russia under Vladimir Putin.
- That is what they do: WP:ILIKEIT, WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS + This concerns Russia under Vladimir Putin.
- It does not matter what political insults Ukrainians use at all, it is not the subject.
- It feels like we really have a case of a loaded word used to mean 'anything I do not like about Russia or which is remotely related to Russia' by Ukrainians, the same way wikt:Macronie is used in French to refer to 'anything I do not like about Macron or which is remotely related to Macron'. Veverve (talk) 09:09, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I think there are two options based on the AfD discussion. One of them is making a general page Fascism in Russia (instead of the current redirect to a disambig. page) that would cover a long period of time. Another option would be to cover only the more narrow subject of "Ruscism/Rashism", i.e. the aggressive fascist-like ideology and practice of the current regime in Moscow, starting from First Chechen war (our page Putler would be a sub-page of such page). I think one could do both pages. Someone recently suggested good sources here [37]. My very best wishes (talk) 00:59, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Notice: This morning I added the Template:R with possibilities template to the page Fascism in Russia as the first step of creating a more coherent structure for the topic area. I have just created a page Draft:Fascism in Russia which has a few page links and some section headings on with with the intention of eventually putting it there. Rather than waiting until I have written something that I am happy with I am letting people know that it exists and inviting everyone to make changes to it. I hope that this makes things easier for everybody as there is now a (draft) place for the wider context to sit. Feel free to reach out with questions or comments.Gusfriend (talk) 02:09, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Indian Army operations in Jammu and Kashmir since there is no consensus whether second-highest actually merits a keep, but neither is there consensus to delete the content. Star Mississippi 00:53, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sanjiv Kumar (soldier)[edit]

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

While tragic, simply not enough in-depth coverage outside of the action in which he was killed, to show he meets WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 11:25, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military and India. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:37, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Indian Army operations in Jammu and Kashmir as a case of WP:BIO1E would probably be a reasonable action to take, given that Operation Randori Behak does not have a dedicated article. -Ljleppan (talk) 14:06, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per User:Ljleppan, fails WP:BASIC with only local coverage of that WP:1E and award. Mztourist (talk) 14:46, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The Indian Army operations in Jammu and Kashmir seems to be a summary article and has no mention of any individuals at all, how it would fit I don't know. It fails WP:1E. scope_creep^Talk 12:17, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Here's two possible ways: Follow "In the first week of April, Operation Randori Behak (1 April to 5 April) resulted in the deaths of five para commandos from 4 Para, the same commandos which had taken part in the 2016 'surgical strikes'" with a sentence along the lines of "One of the dead commandos was posthumously awarded the Kirti Chakra". Alternatively we could add something along the lines of "Posthumous Kirti Chakra awarded to one of the security forces members." in the correct row of the table slightly after that sentence. If that's unsuitable for the potential merge target, I would suppose that just renders both the above "merge" votes to effectively "delete". -Ljleppan (talk) 08:24, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:25, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep WP:ANYBIO would kick in here. He is the recipient of the second-highest Indian peacetime award for bravery, which meets that criteria, I think ("The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor"). Atchom (talk) 22:41, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - the second-highest award in any role in life has never held up as a notability criteria. e.g. Air Force Cross (United States) recipients do not automatically pass GNG. Even before WP:NSOLDIER was deprecated, the second-highest was never a qualification. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 23:08, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
In previous AfDs, a British CBE has consistently been held to constitute sufficient for the purposes of WP:ANYBIO. Now, the comparative ranking of awards is not an exact science, but a CBE is something like 18th in the list of precedence. Treating the Kirti Chakra as evidence of notability seems reasonable. Atchom (talk) 01:09, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Please point me to the guideline or policy which specifically states that the Kirti Chakra automatically denotes notability. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 02:20, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This is a cheap strawman. The above is pari passu, as is obvious. But since we are at it, please show me that the Kirti Chakra doesn't satisfy the "well-known and significant award or honor" criterion. Atchom (talk) 04:02, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 13:42, 10 March 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. No prejudice against individual nominations for each topic. The merge suggestion later in the discussion can be discussed on various article talk pages, if desired. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:04, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Scheller College of Business[edit]

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

Cited sources do not indicate notability (which is not inherited from its indisputably notable parent organization) ElKevbo (talk) 05:45, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reason:

Georgia Institute of Technology College of Sciences
Georgia Institute of Technology College of Engineering
Georgia Institute of Technology College of Design
Georgia Institute of Technology College of Computing
Ivan Allen College of Liberal Arts
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business, Education, Schools, Technology, and Georgia (U.S. state). CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:11, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete we do not have the depth of sourcing to justify seperate articles on these sub-units of a university.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:57, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural keep It's possible that some may not be notable, but these need to be analyzed individually. Additionally, I would be surprised if the school of engineering at what is considered to be one of the best universities in the world in that field is not notable. Best, GPL93 (talk) 18:42, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's pretty unusual for individual colleges at U.S. universities to be independently notable; the onus is on those who claim that they are to substantiate that claim. ElKevbo (talk) 22:48, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete from what I can tell all of these are referenced to extremely trivial and (or) primary sources. I couldn't find any in-depth secondary coverage about them when I looked either. In the meantime it's perfectly fine to mention whatever minor bit of these might be notable in Georgia Institute of Technology. So there's really no valid justification to keep the articles. Especially considering these aren't even mentioned in the parent article at this point. If they aren't notable enough to be included in the main article then there's no way they are notable enough for separate articles. --Adamant1 (talk) 02:29, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. ElKevbo (talk) 02:31, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Here's the top 30 U.S. business schools in the United States according to the current U.S. News rankings: Stanford Graduate School of Business, Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania, University of Chicago Booth School of Business, Kellogg School of Management, Harvard Business School, MIT Sloan School of Management, Columbia Business School, Haas School of Business, Yale School of Management, Tuck School of Business, New York University Stern School of Business, Fuqua School of Business, Ross School of Business, University of Virginia Darden School of Business, Samuel Curtis Johnson Graduate School of Management, Tepper School of Business, USC Marshall School of Business, UCLA Anderson School of Management, McCombs School of Business, UNC Kenan–Flagler Business School, McDonough School of Business, Foster School of Business, Kelley School of Business, Owen Graduate School of Management, Jesse H. Jones Graduate School of Business, Goizueta Business School, Warrington College of Business, Scheller College of Business, Carlson School of Management, W. P. Carey School of Business. There's a reason every one of these is a blue link. These are prestigious American business schools. A nomination that says "cited sources do not indicate notability" simply doesn't reflect that WP:BEFORE has been followed and isn't valid for an institution like this. We have and will always have hundreds of thousands of poor articles on notable subjects. On this basis I also !vote Procedural Keep on all.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 18:19, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a few sources as well, we could add tons more if we took the time.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 18:59, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. If you can find substantive and independent sources about these schools - not specific programs at the school, not people who at one time worked at the school, and not the university of which the school is a constituent member - then please add them to the articles! ElKevbo (talk) 03:09, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Of course I could, but writing so much about American business schools might crush my soul.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 13:19, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:30, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Milowent. --Vaco98 (talk) 03:20, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge the pages Georgia Institute of Technology College of Sciences, Georgia Institute of Technology College of Engineering, Georgia Institute of Technology College of Design, Georgia Institute of Technology College of Computing and Ivan Allen College of Liberal Arts into a new page with a name like Colleges of the Georgia Institute of Technology. This has a number of advantages: (a) the colleges combined have a higher level of notability, (b) it gives a nice target for redirects, and (c) it provides somewhere for citations and information to marinate before being split off to individual pages at a later date once information warrants it. Gusfriend (talk) 02:13, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 13:41, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 14:24, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Christian Colombo[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG no evidence of SIGCOV existing, most if not all coverage is routine reporting. ♡RAFAEL♡^(talk) 12:53, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. ♡RAFAEL♡^(talk) 12:53, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. ♡RAFAEL♡^(talk) 12:53, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. ♡RAFAEL♡^(talk) 12:53, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete lacks any actual significant coverage.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:32, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's true he meets WP:NMMA with three top tier fights, but none of those were victories. His highest ranking ever was #79. More importantly, there is not enough significant independent coverage to meet WP:GNG. The best source I found was when he announced his retirement, but there are no other good ones. Papaursa (talk) 04:06, 11 March 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. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:19, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jordan A. Nash[edit]

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

Promising young actor but WP:TOOSOON applies especially this article was rejected multiple times in AFC due to the fact that he didn't appear in multiple notable productions. Hence failing WP:NACTOR. The rejected AFC draft can be found here. Chirota (talk) 18:40, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Chirota (talk) 18:40, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note from nominator: He was one of the prominent actors of Come Away, not in a precise lead role and all other appearances in other films or tv shows are in side roles. Chirota (talk) 18:44, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Bands and musicians, Television, and United Kingdom. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:49, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify I agree that this fails WP:NACTOR but I think it's likely that this article could pass in the future. The article is well done and I don't think it should just be deleted. GoldMiner24 ^Talk 18:55, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – AssumeGoodWraith (talk | contribs) 02:37, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:36, 10 March 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:36, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Net4[edit]

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

No major secondary sources talking about company history, company is now defunct and services have been transferred. Most major news articles are referencing the shutdown.

This is the second nomination, the first nomination is at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Net4 but I disagree with these findings. TheForgottenKing (talk) 07:21, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Internet, and India. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:02, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not enough news coverage to meet notability. Chelokabob (talk) 00:23, 4 March 2022 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE Extraordinary Writ (talk) 19:09, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep appears to have enough sourcing to pass GNG. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 05:53, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:30, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per nom. Sources I could find are about the company's bankruptcy and closure. The available sources doesn't look very reliable too. - SUN EYE 1 16:36, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is a company/organization therefore WP:NCORP guidelines apply and requires multiple sources (at least two) of deep or significant coverage with in-depth information *on the company* and (this bit is important!) contains "Independent Content". "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. Mentions-in-passing are not "in-depth". None of the references in the article meet the criteria and I can't find any, topic fails WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 10:42, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to 2022 anti-war protests in Russia. Opinions are split three-way between delete, merge and keep. The "delete" and "keep" arguments are relatively weak: the "delete" side does not address the sources found by the "keep" side, while the "keep" side has found only one example of in-depth coverage, the Meduza article, while the other sources appear to be passing mentions. Under these circumstances, a selective merger, as a compromise solution, is the most consensual outcome of this discussion. Sandstein 10:51, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

White-blue-white flag[edit]

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

Anti-war symbol, but the article is very WP:ORish and has problems with WP:GNG. The term "White-blue-white flag" is not widespread. There is some very recent social media exposure, but I can't find any reliable sources (even in press) discussing this symbol. WP:TOOSOON? Not sure if anything here is mergeable to 2022 anti-war protests in Russia, given low quality references. Although this is one of those cases where we may be get some journalistic coverage any moment - but until this happens, I am afraid, GNG is not met. (Also, given the current political context, Wikipedia:RIGHTGREATWRONGS and WP:ITSIMPORTANT are worth remembering). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:16, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:16, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:16, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:16, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify Unable to find significant coverage at this time, but I think this topic has the potential to be notable if it does receive coverage in the future. WP:TOOSOON to put the article in mainspace. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 13:24, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: WP:TOOSOON Dialmayo (talk) 13:37, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose deletion. If necessary, support draftification per Qwaiiplayer. Super Ψ Dro 18:02, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The subject of the article does not meet the notability guidelines. It doesn't cite any reliable and independent source mentioning the widespread use of the proposed flag at any anti-war protest on Russian Soil. -Dziego~enwiki (talk) 22:17, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge first three sentences to 2022 anti-war protests in Russia with picture, then draftify. We can always add new material to the 2022 anti war protests article, then separate it again if justified. Buckshot06 (talk) 05:00, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge this page with 2022 anti-war protests in Russia I think we should keep it, but merge it, until we have enough credible sources, and when we do, separate it again. ChrDur1 (talk) 03:09, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with the article on protests in Russia. It's obviously a real thing and it can have an article if and when it becomes big enough for its own article. The name of the article is also just a description as things stand. --Killuminator (talk) 05:36, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge this page with 2022 anti-war protests in Russia. I think the best thing to do would be to wait for a more official name for the flag to come out before it has its own article. A Google search for 'white-blue-white' flag has this article as the only outstanding result. Anoncocoa1 (talk) 14:32, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This flag is an important symbol that is becoming more and more common. It's not simply part of anti-war protests in Russia. It is being used in other countries as well. So you cannot merge it with anti-war protests in Russia. Here is it being used in Georgia, not Russia. https://twitter.com/With__Ukraine/status/1502652362971881482 Also WP:TOOSOON doesn't apply as this is an on-going event. Ergzay (talk) 14:39, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. I see this flag emerging widely in social media in recent days, notably among anti-war inclined Russians. This Wikipedia page should be kept and should grow, and certainly not be deleted. Alex Anderson, London 213.205.194.55 (talk) 15:10, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I also agree with Ergzay. Twopower332.1938 (talk) 21:41, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This flag is an important symbol that is becoming more and more common. --Panam2014 (talk) 16:08, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Panam2014 @Ergzay I appreciate your heart seems to be in the right place, but WP:ITSIMPORTANT was already linked in the nomination... _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:24, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge this page with 2022 anti-war protests in Russia per others above. Seems to be the best of both worlds. — Czello 22:46, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Czello If it is merged then the page has to be renamed as this is not IN Russia. Ergzay (talk) 17:44, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- No, it literally doesn't. Some foreign sympathizers waving the same flage doesn't change the fact where due weight should be given. Killuminator (talk) 05:50, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge this page with 2022 anti-war protests in Russia. It's notable enough to be mentioned in that article. However, the primary measurement of notability is significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. The currently cited references in the article have a strong bias to social networks and self-published sources, and that's really not good enough for an independent article. I checked the article about the same topic in the Russian Wikipedia, and the situations with references there is even worse. Maybe it will change some day, but for now it should redirect to the article about the protests and not be a separate article. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 10:53, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the flag is notable. 89.8.146.21 (talk) 21:36, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That isn’t even an argument. Provide reliable sources. Dronebogus (talk) 21:38, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge this page with 2022 anti-war protests in Russia per WP:TOOSOON. The keep votes are all blatantly just WP:ITSIMPORTANT. Dronebogus (talk) 23:13, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I do agree that over the last two weeks, this flag was only known on social media and among the narrow circles of the Russian opposition, even though it was flown occasionally. However, today there was a long publication on Meduza (one of Russian opposition's main media outlets) with its story, which explained how it became a popular symbol over such a short period. More to follow. Dmitri Lytov (talk) 04:58, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into 2022 anti-war protests in Russia, per WP:TOOSOON. It can always be split out again into its own article if it achieves independent notability. — The Anome (talk) 09:17, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete soapbox. This flag has no historical basis. Beshogur (talk) 11:01, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely agree, DELETE! Also, the information in regards to similar flags is incorrect. Belarusians flag has much deeper history, first mentioned in 15th century. See more details here=> White red white flag value. White-red and white flag and "pursuit" as true national symbols of Belarus (video) (nemelianov.ru) Litsvinka (talk) 22:49, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, now there is a large article in Meduza, which describes the history and usage of this flag. Wikisaurus (talk) 13:13, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This flag now is a huge symbol of anti-war movement in Russia and Russian diaspora worldwide. I think Meduza's article already shared above confirmes that pretty well. Meiræ 13:05, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – as others have stated, it's becoming an important opposition symbol, which means it deserves its own article. I don't see how "the flag has no history" is an argument; it does have a history, albeit a young one, as is the case with every such kind of symbol that appears at a certain time. Lupishor (talk) 13:49, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. International (English-language) coverage in WP:RS from several different countries: Irish Independent [38], Meduza [39], VOA [40]; and Russian-language WP:RS coverage: OVD-Info [41]. While this is associated with the Russian anti-war protests, flags are typically individual articles. No justification for rushing to delete: Wikipedia:RUSHDELETE. Boud (talk) 07:47, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
But still only the Medusa article has SIGCOV of the flag. GNG requires multiple sources. This is not met, but of course, a second independent sources may appear anytime... Until this does, I think merge is a reasonable option, with no prejudice to restoration once we have 2+ sources that meet SIGCOV. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:17, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per WP:TOOSOON and lack (so far) of multiple reliable secondary sources. ǁǁǁ ǁ Chalk19 (talk) 05:10, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Just came across an article about it [42] Looks like this is a thing. 78.18.49.52 (talk) 10:54, 18 March 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. Deleted by admin per WP:G3. (non-admin closure) Qwaiiplayer (talk) 15:41, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lion Boys[edit]

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

Sports team and radio station with no apparent WP:SIGCOV. I searched for sources but only stumbled upon IMDb, LinkedIn, Facebook, Blogspot, YouTube and other self-published media. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:29, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio, Sports, India, and Kerala. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:30, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete utterly non notable vanity spam. CUPIDICAE💕 13:14, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
hello. This is a verified buissness LIONBOYS00 (talk) 13:32, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete Likely a hoax. ArsenalGhanaPartey (talk) 13:21, 10 March 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 deleted per WP:G3. (non-admin closure) ASTIG️🙃 _{(ICE-T • ICE CUBE)} 23:50, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Radio Lions 96.5 FM[edit]

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

In my searches, I can only find Spotify, IMDb, iHeart, Facebook and other unreliable self-published media. No significant coverage in independent WP:RS. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:21, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio, India, and Kerala. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:21, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No This is a verified radio station LIONBOYS00 (talk) 10:23, 10 March 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) 07:59, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Andreas Mangouris[edit]

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

Similar case to Masyukur and Masato Ishiwa. Has 177 mins of football to his name (less than 2 football matches in game time) but there is no evidence of satisfying WP:GNG. Searches of Google News and DDG in the Greek language brought forth a grand total of zero reliable sources. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:51, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Cyprus. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:51, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:58, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - there is longstanding consensus that scraping by on NFOOTBALL with a handful of appearances is insufficient when GNG is failed so comprehensively, as is the case here. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 12:28, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It is high time we rid Wikipedia of sports stat pages masquerading as articles.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:21, 10 March 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. Deleted by admin per WP:G11. (non-admin closure) Qwaiiplayer (talk) 13:26, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Saeed Mohseni[edit]

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

Disputed BLP PROD. I am personally of the opinion that IMDb (per WP:IMDB) is not a reliable source and would argue that the BLP PROD was removed inappropriately but have no interest in starting an edit war. A WP:BEFORE search yields social media sites only so does not appear to comply with WP:GNG/WP:BIO. No claim within the article that would allow this to meet WP:NMUSICIAN or WP:NACTOR. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:34, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Bands and musicians, and Iran. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:35, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, the artist's Spotify account is fully approved and has a blue tick. You can see the musician's songs on Spotify. Please review the sources in the article. Thanks mahyar (talk) 09:39, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have reviewed them and I don't believe that they meet WP:GNG's requirements. The sources demonstrate self-published content and there is nothing within them to suggest a stand-alone encyclopaedia article is necessary for this person. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:46, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for your help. What do you think about the Spotify verified account? The artist's songs as well as his blue tick have also been confirmed. This artist plays and sings traditional songs in Tehran music halls in Iran and also has approved user accounts on social networks. Please advise what other topics and content to add to the article as a reference? mahyar (talk) 09:53, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A blue tick is meaningless and doesn't demonstrate WP:N. If there are professional journalists writing in reliable news media about Mohseni then please add these instead. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:27, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:47, 10 March 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 deleted per WP:CSD#G3. (non-admin closure) Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:20, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nayan Rosh T M[edit]

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

Declined at Draft:Nayan Rosh T M and copied and pasted over to mainspace. Fails WP:GNG according to my searches. All I can find are LinkedIn, Facebook, IMDb, Instagram and YouTube none of which are WP:RS or WP:IS. His alleged awards do not satisfy WP:ANYBIO. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:29, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Radio, India, and Kerala. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:29, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This is a verified person. He is popular LIONBOYS00 (talk) 09:35, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete: as per WP:A7 as there is no assertion of notability and no independent sources to be found.-- Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 10:15, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Gymnastics at the 1908 Summer Olympics – Men's team as an WP:ATD. (non-admin closure) ASTIG️🙃 _{(ICE-T • ICE CUBE)} 11:00, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Umberto Agliorini[edit]

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

Violates WP:NOTDATABASE, being sourced entirely to databases, and fails WP:GNG as a non-notable Olympian.

He competed as part of a team of 29 Italian Gymnasts in the 1908 Olympics, with his team coming fifth. Apart from that, all we know about him is his name and where he was born - we don't even know when he was born, or when he died. BilledMammal (talk) 09:21, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. BilledMammal (talk) 09:21, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. BilledMammal (talk) 09:21, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If nothing can be found on this guy, then redirect to Gymnastics at the 1908 Summer Olympics – Men's team per WP:ATD, WP:PRESERVE, WP:R#KEEP and WP:CHEAP. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 10:22, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Searching got me no additional sources. I don't see an easy solution here, especially since all of the team members at Gymnastics at the 1908 Summer Olympics – Men's team are blue links with entries like this one. I don't oppose a redirect, but I don't find that this subject needs one - in the unlikely event of a search on the person's name the 1908 Olympics article will be retrieved. The big question is: what to do with all of the others?! Lamona (talk) 22:11, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- I've tried tagging for notability, and I've tried prodding, but Lugnuts rejected all of those - despite the fact that even they aren't convinced we should keep the articles. It seems we need to go through these one by one, as nominating them as a group will be closed as "procedural close". BilledMammal (talk) 17:52, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - per Lugnuts Adamtt9 (talk) 22:28, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete We do not need a whole page of redirects, which is what we will get if we redirect this article. There are no sources providing even minimal significant coverage. There is no reason to think that this person was at all notable. There is no reason to redirect.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:28, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - per Lugnuts. See WP:R#HARMFUL, which says: "deletion of redirects is harmful... if a redirect is reasonably old (or is the result of moving a page that has been there for quite some time)" (my bolding). This has existed since 2018, which as far as I'm concerned is indeed "quite some time". Ingratis (talk) 00:31, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- That applies to redirects not to articles. It is not a redirect, and we do not keep articles just because they have existed for quite some time. We are talking about an article not a redirect. There is no redirect proposed for deletion. If we applied the policy like you suggest we would not delete any article from before 2018, and would just redirect all of them to something. This is not a wise policy. The material you quote has no bearing onwhether or not we should delete an article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:40, 16 March 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. Modussiccandi (talk) 14:46, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Henry Terry[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG through lack of significant coverage - of the current references, four are databases, and the fifth doesn't mention him.

Fails WP:NOLYMPICS, as only two teams competed in the 1900 Cricket tournament. Multiple editors, including myself, have searched for significant coverage on him, and none of us have been able to find anything. BilledMammal (talk) 09:08, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. BilledMammal (talk) 09:08, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. BilledMammal (talk) 09:08, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. BilledMammal (talk) 09:08, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. BilledMammal (talk) 09:08, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If nothing can be found on this guy, then redirect to Cricket at the 1900 Summer Olympics per WP:ATD, WP:PRESERVE, WP:R#KEEP and WP:CHEAP. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 10:21, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- If the consensus is for redirection rather than deletion, Henry Dwight Terry would probably be a better target. BilledMammal (talk) 10:24, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete being on the loosing team in a two team competition involving one game is not at all a sign of notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:55, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Redirecting to Cricket at the 1900 Summer Olympics is not a viable option as there is another Henry Terry (Henry Dwight Terry) who is the more logical target for such a redirect. Cbl62 (talk) 22:06, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Probably irrelevant, but is the Henry Dwight Terry notable? Article only has two sources?

That would be a discussion to have on that talk page, and if you felt the answer was no create an AfD on it. This AfD is only about this article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:50, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not seeing enough for a GNG pass here. Obviously he medalled so would pass the updated NOLY guidelines, but this seems to have become obsolete already. As discussed above, the redirect is confusing so no suitable WP:ATD. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 20:52, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect to Cricket at the 1900 Summer Olympics. Let's just take a look at this article, shall we? Two thirds of it isn't even about this person- it's about the circumstances of cricket being at the Olympics. The rest is just a name, DOB/DOD, and the statistics of the one match this fellow played. That's not a biography. Sorry, but it just isn't. As for the sources, one does not mention Mr Terry at all, one is behind a paywall, and the remaining three just regurgitate the same statistics. Though it's interesting that two of them disagree with each other about his age at the time. Typically for these database "biographies" the content and sourcing is distinctly underwhelming and completely inadequate. Reyk _YO! 01:15, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The person needs more notability and depth is required with more reliable sources. Foodie Soul (talk) 12:24, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. Pondered long and hard about this one, as I am very much an editor who sticks to players who played in matches of status as per WP:OFFCRIC. This guy played in a 2-day match, so no status was attached. As for finding much out about him, I couldn't really find all that much. So weighing it up, so creating Henry Terry (cricketer) and redirecting him to Cricket at the 1900 Summer Olympics seems sensible. StickyWicket (talk) 19:16, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No coverage found so fails all criteria for a standalone article. Seems clear that any redirect should be to Henry Dwight Terry (unless there is a more notable Henry Terry), so if there is any benefit (and I'm not convinced there is), creating that and adding a hatnote there pointing to the Olympics would be the way to go. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 12:31, 17 March 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) 07:58, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mohammed Shaheen[edit]

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

Fails WP:BIO. Previously draftified. Doing so again would be move warring Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 08:56, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 08:56, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:58, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance, Bahrain, and Kerala. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:00, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - press releases are never acceptable as sources (I can't find anything that isn't a press release). Aside from that, there is no actual significant coverage of this person. Article is likely UPE. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:01, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG, and I agree with Spiderone about UPE. BilledMammal (talk) 09:11, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: 100% of the references are churnalism. While this was an obvious candidate for CSD as WP:ADMASQ I chose AfD because I suspect UPE. I have placed a formal warning on the creating editor's talk page. Deletion at AfD will assist in preventing re-creation of this as another advert. Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 10:02, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Press releases do not count towards establishing notability.-- Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 10:29, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Brandlife for a well deserved block. This cannot be speeded as created by a blocked user, but I think after the prescribed time, a snow delete close might be appropriate Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 13:47, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I moved the article into draft space explaining improvements. Still it does not look satisfy WP:RS hence fails WP:GNG. DMySon (talk) 04:12, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article fails GNG and the person is not notable. Foodie Soul (talk) 12:28, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, promotional and created in circumvention of a block (G5). Pikavoom ^Talk 07:19, 14 March 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 deleted per WP:CSD#A7. (non-admin closure) Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:21, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Rao Sumit Yaduvanshi[edit]

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

This article relating to royalty and nobility is extremely confusing, unsourced and I'm struggling to verify any of it. Internet searches yield nothing at all. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:52, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Royalty and nobility and India. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:52, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete What about is? I found nothing . VocalIndia (talk) 09:09, 10 March 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. I don't see a consensus to redirect, and the point made about the utility of of disambiguated redirects is a reasonable one. (This is not a prohibition on anyone else creating such a redirect if they care to - I just don't see a specific consensus for it here.) ♠PMC♠ (talk) 07:57, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Giovanni Bonati (gymnast)[edit]

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

Violates WP:NOTDATABASE, being sourced entirely to databases, and fails WP:GNG as a non-notable Olympian.

He competed as part of a team of 29 Italian Gymnasts in the 1908 Olympics, with his team coming fifth. Apart from that, all we know about him is his name, and when and where he was born and died.

Note that I would oppose a redirect, as disambiguated redirects are not likely to be useful. BilledMammal (talk) 08:47, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. BilledMammal (talk) 08:47, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. BilledMammal (talk) 08:47, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the sum of the info that seems to be available is not enough to justify an article at this stage. Admittedly, someone better at searching through Italian sources may have more success. Happy to change my vote if significant coverage is posted here. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:21, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If nothing can be found on this guy, then redirect to Gymnastics at the 1908 Summer Olympics – Men's team per WP:ATD, WP:PRESERVE, WP:R#KEEP and WP:CHEAP. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 10:20, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is no substantial coverage. There is no good reason to preserve lists of links to non-notable people just becasue we once had articles on them. Wikipedia is not a reliable source and we have no grandfather clause so we should just delete articles on non-notable people. This is especially true because having a lot of blue linked redirects in a list may lead people to incorrectly assume that the list is a guide to what is and what is not notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:47, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No additional sources found. I also have doubts about the entire list of 1908 gymanstics Olympians since they are basically unsourced. Lamona (talk) 22:15, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Going through all articles in Wikipedia by birth year categories starting with 1927 and having made it back to 1908, that is how I feel about the vast majority of articles on Olympians. It does not help that in some cases articles on about 10 members of a team were all created by the same editor in about 10 minutes total.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:48, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article lacks coverage and the information provided is not enough, more reliable sources are required. Foodie Soul (talk) 12:32, 13 March 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:25, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Alçılı, Pazar[edit]

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

Only referenced to databases. Ymblanter (talk) 08:03, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. Ymblanter (talk) 08:03, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:07, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, violates WP:NOTDATABASE. BilledMammal (talk) 09:09, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, added non-database sources. AtheistGeorgian (talk) 11:58, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets GEOLAND. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 15:52, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This place meets WP:GEOLAND and there is no evidence of an exhaustive search required to overturn the presumption of notability per my comment in a previous AfD. Note that Index Anatolicus isn't merely a database but rather a somewhat expanded adaptation of the book Adını Unutan Ülke by Sevan Nişanyan. --GGT (talk) 00:27, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - meets GEOLAND. Ingratis (talk) 02:50, 16 March 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. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 22:36, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dağdibi, Pazar[edit]

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

Only referenced to databases. Ymblanter (talk) 08:03, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. Ymblanter (talk) 08:03, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:08, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are many non-database sources in Turkish language which are mentioning the article. source 1, 2, 3. AtheistGeorgian (talk) 08:29, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This place meets WP:GEOLAND and there is no evidence of an exhaustive search required to overturn the presumption of notability per my comment in a previous AfD. Note that Index Anatolicus isn't merely a database but rather a somewhat expanded adaptation of the book Adını Unutan Ülke by Sevan Nişanyan. --GGT (talk) 00:27, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - meets GEOLAND and as per User:GGT. Ingratis (talk) 02:52, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:28, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Galaxiki[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Not notable, with no secondary sources. The last nomination already has a consensus to delete this article, but alas. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 10:00, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance, Computing, Websites, and Luxembourg. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:04, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:56, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - it has just enough third party sources, like Yahoo News and Linux Journal to marginally make WP:GNG, but I am going to argue that it should be deleted anyway as "just not notable". It was a failed concept for a freemium money-making venture, that never got off the ground, never actually achieved any degree of success and eventually failed, was taken down and no longer exists. I know someone who was actually a user for a while, but quickly quit when she found out that you couldn't do much without paying and that almost all the existing userbase, small as it was, were just vandals and trolls bent on wrecking it, which they did. It died unloved and abandoned by everyone, even its creator who started this WP:COI Wikipedia article both times. It never attracted any fan base, was overall just a failed concept and is not an encyclopedic subject, despite some early media attention. If there were refs that detailed how and why it failed, both as a concept and a business, then I would say "keep the article" as a useful "MBA program lesson", but as it is it fails WP:NOTNEWS and WP:LASTING. - Ahunt (talk) 12:56, 10 March 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. I wouldn't have preferred giving this article a Soft Delete but it has already been PROD'd. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:26, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Xomidhan[edit]

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

The article creator himself promoted the Wiki subject i.e. @Anshumandutta: is the core member of the organisation. Fails WP:NORG. — Nang Nandini (talk) 09:20, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Nang Nandini (talk) 09:20, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:29, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:55, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no sources found in Google, Gbooks gives anything and everything using this term. Plus it appears to be likely a COI article. Oaktree b (talk) 16:06, 10 March 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. Nominated by a sockpuppet and no participation even after relisting. No prejudice against a future AFD. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:56, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Achena Uttam[edit]

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

Lack of sources. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFO AAhap³⁶ (talk • contribs) 08:13, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and India. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:14, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:54, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:09, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Audi Q1[edit]

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

I am nominating this article (which I just restored) for deletion as I primarily want the redirect deleted by it would not be eligible to delete at RfD due to having history, and having been BLARed. This seems to be a perpetually announced model, eg a more recent announcement stating that this will be a model coming out in 2020 [43]. All coverage is highly speculative and so this article, even if improved, will fail WP:CRYSTAL. There is no indication that this will ever actually be a model, and if or when that happens the article can be recreated. Keeping as a redirect to Audi (where of course there is no mention) is not suitable. A7V2 (talk) 03:56, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum: I forgot to mention, this article was first redirected in January 2012 to a section of Audi A1 which was removed shortly after [44] and then this changed to a redirect to Audi. A7V2 (talk) 03:57, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related page for the same reason. If this turns out to be a new model then an article can be created but at present the redirect serves no purpose. As the sourcing in Audi Q9 indicates this is a perpetually rumoured new model too. A7V2 (talk) 04:10, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:00, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Products-related deletion discussions. A7V2 (talk) 04:12, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Audi Q1 and Audi Q9 per WP:CRYSTAL. Letdorf (talk) 19:59, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both. I was notified of this AFD since I was the user that redirected Audi Q9, with the summary "redirect non-notable subject to parent company. We don't known that this model will ever be released, or what it will be called." Not much more more to say about it... a supposed model that some people have called by this name. Audi Q1 is similar but even worse as it has been hanging around since2008 and has no sources. Meters (talk) 04:55, 12 March 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. The contributions on both sides of the discussion are roughly even in number and neither presents especially compelling quality or policy-based reasons why they should prevail. Nothing of this closure precludes moving or cleaning up the article. Stifle (talk) 10:39, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Russo-Ukrainian Wars[edit]

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

In this form, unsourced propaganda piece, created by a problematic user, moved to draft space and restored to the main space by the creator without addressing any issues. The only source in the article is a book published by the Institute of National Memory, basically a state propaganda outlet. It possible could be brought to something acceptable, but we are not even close, and the creator does not seem to be interested. Ymblanter (talk) 19:50, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Ymblanter (talk) 19:50, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. Ymblanter (talk) 19:50, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:54, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:54, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
keep but Rename to List of Russo-Ukrainian Wars. Lists generally do not need sources, because the articles listed should be properly sourced. I am somewhat concerned at the number of redlinks. I suspect that some of these can be dealt with, but using a wider-ranging article rather than a specifically Ukrainian one, such as Great Northern War. I suspect that Swedish invasion of Russia, which ended with the defeat of Charles XII of Sweden at Battle of Poltava would be better than one of the redlinks. The foreign links for some of the redlinks appear to be to Ukrainian WP, where articles are likely to be written from a Ukrainian POV, but that is a matter to be cured by appropriate editing, not deletion. Alternatively Military history of Ukraine might fit, but that would probably require a lot of content on what were primarily wars against Russia/USSR, which would not fit well with the scope of this article. At a time when we may be on the eve of another war, which would need to be added to the list, this is not an appropriate time to consider deletion. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:06, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Russo-Ukrainian War is already in the list.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:14, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That feeling when I planned this article as a page of disambiguation, even when at one point some began to add a template about the need for sources, I specifically renamed the article by adding "(disambiguation)". However, one user canceled the rename. Separately, dear pro-Russian user Ymblanter, the history of military disputes between Ukraine and Russia is broader than the war that has been going on since 2014.--Jafaz (talk) 21:50, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You misunderstand what dab pages are. In this case, it would be for conflicts that are actually called Russo-Ukrainian Wars (which of course none are), not ones that are between Russia and Ukraine. Hence, this should properly be renamed List of ... Clarityfiend (talk) 06:56, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

... if kept. Clarityfiend (talk) 21:45, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not before reliable sources have been found.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:54, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And, no, I am not a pro-Russian user. Which is easy to figure out by checking my contribution. But I am used to such baseless accusations.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:59, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The creator has been topic-banned in the meanwhile.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:06, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Rename List of Russo-Ukrainian wars (l.c. wars). These are all encyclopedic topics, and this is a natural grouping: a cross of List of wars involving Russia and List of wars involving Ukraine. Are there other such articles, with a naming pattern to follow? Alternative: List of wars involving Russia and Ukraine, which might describe a slightly broader set, for example including the Russo-Polish War (1654–1667), where the Tsardom and Hetmanate fought on the same side. —Michael Z. 02:06, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – This is a WP:OR grouping of conflicts with a specific revisionist historiographical agenda. There is no justification for this article's existence. RGloucester — ☎ 21:47, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:58, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:04, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Waddles 🗩 🖉 02:35, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwaiiplayer (talk) 13:45, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Rename as a list of wars between Russia and Ukraine. Keepcalmandchill (please ping in responses) (talk) 04:26, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This is no different to articles such as List of wars between Russia and Sweden or List of armed conflicts involving Poland against Russia. Keepcalmandchill (please ping in responses) (talk) 04:28, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Even if this is going to be a list, we still need such disambig. page. Therefore, I would be inclined to keep. I do not think this should be a list because we already have List of invasions and occupations of Ukraine and List of wars involving Ukraine. My very best wishes (talk) 05:42, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Disambig per Very Best Wishes. Pious Brother (talk) 02:42, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:50, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: problematic original research. --K.e.coffman (talk) 07:45, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but clean up. This is a reasonable disambig, but it is suffering from way too much extra information. Prune to links, remove the article-like "lead", etc. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:55, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Disambig WP:NOTESSAY historical revisionism or whatever. Dronebogus (talk) 23:28, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Rename into something like History of Russo-Ukrainian military conflicts. There are obvious wars like Soviet–Ukrainian War 1918-1921, war of 1658-1659 (a lot of sources, i.e. To the 350th anniversary of the Konotop battle of 1659. The Ukrainian-Russian war of 1658–1659: causes and preconditions (2009)), and of course current war 2014-2022. There are also a number of other conflicts like Poltava battle (1709), Sich demolishing (1775), UPA insurgency (1945-1957) etc. It is not "revisionism" in any case, but part of mainstream Ukrainian research historiography, and nowadays moving from academic usage to nationwide narrative. There are, of course, critics of this historiography mainstream and national narrative, and they should be mentioned in the article. --Brunei (talk) 13:16, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Brunei. --Микола Василечко (talk) 16:12, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The war between Russian and Ukrainian states has long story and have to be presented in Wikipedia. --Sakateka (talk) 21:29, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Textbook WP:ITSIMPORTANT Dronebogus (talk) 07:22, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguate, this is very clearly a piece of historical revisionism and a textbook example of WP:OR, but it would serve as a useful disambiguation page. This should most certainly not be kept in its current form, as it currently does not portray academic consensus. Devonian Wombat (talk) 06:02, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Original research WP:FORK of List of wars involving Ukraine. Current title is also confusingly similar to Russo-Ukrainian War (i.e. the current war). MrsSnoozyTurtle 08:26, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and go to List of Russian-Ukrainian conflicts, because it's about the history. Thingofme (talk) 10:59, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as OR. Srnec (talk) 18:00, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:58, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Anchal Singh[edit]

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

Lacks sources per WP:GNG to indicate if the roles played are significant enough to meet WP:NACTOR. ManaliJain (talk) 12:12, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ManaliJain (talk) 12:12, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. ManaliJain (talk) 12:12, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. ManaliJain (talk) 12:12, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ManaliJain (talk) 12:12, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:22, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:26, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:48, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Evans Creek (Rogue River tributary). North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:00, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pleasant Creek (Oregon)[edit]

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

No indication of notability; subject is noted within parent topic (Evans Creek (Rogue River tributary)) Headphase (talk) 00:46, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Headphase (talk) 00:46, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. Headphase (talk) 00:46, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Going by the article alone can be dangerous. There are some states in the U.S. where the creeks, along which settlement grew, are copiously documented and indeed are the primary historic geographical features, and the pathetic mass-created GNIS-sourced stubs hide extensive scope. One always has to do the research. Researching, I can come up with Wimer, Oregon as a documented place, but not extensive documentation of this specific creek within it. Even the 1913 mining report puts this creek under the heading "Evans Creek District". And Pleasant Armstrong died in the Battle of Evans Creek in the "Rogue River Indian War" according to (an old article by) the Oregon Historical Society, citing Albert G. Walling's 1884 History of Southern Oregon which documents Woodville, Oregon and names Armstrong as "One of the affluents of Evan's Creek". So it's all Evans Creek. Uncle G (talk) 03:31, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:08, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:47, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Evans Creek (Rogue River tributary). I've found no evidence of meeting WP:SIGCOV or WP:GEOLAND. --Animalparty! (talk) 03:03, 11 March 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. Edges into Keep territory, despite COI suspicions. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:22, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Piotr Skowron[edit]

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

Other than the concern of COI, the article lacks WP:SIGCOV. No special achievement other than a regular academic in the domain of Computer Science. The only point worth considering while judging WP:NPROF parameters is the Citation index in G scholar. Though it is not low, but in a domain like AI, since major works are going on massively, citation count should be scrutinized with extra care. Chirota (talk) 18:51, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Chirota (talk) 18:51, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:54, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

For WP:NPROF the criterion 2. "The person has received a highly prestigious academic award or honor at a national or international level." of notability is satisfied. The academic won the academic award, IJCAI Computer and Thought Award, which is considered to be "the premier award for artificial intelligence researchers under the age of 35". Regarding COI, the page contains only facts and no subjective judgments. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Motzarcik (talk • contribs) 22:24, 23 February 2022 (UTC) Motzarcik is the creator of this article, and has very few edits outside this biography and a theory that Piotr Skowron co-published about, see Method of Equal Shares[reply]

Weak keep. He meets Polish Wikipedia's equivalent of NPROF due to having a habilitation - but there is no consensus on en wiki that's sufficient. GScholar shows he is a co-author of several papers that got 100-200+ cites, but he is only one of several co-authors, not a sole author. But we have an article on IJCAI Computers and Thought Award which he won, and that counts for something here, something being NPROF#2. I am unclear why the nom does not consider that reward significant? PS. On the other hand, his Method of Equal Shares does not seem notable, it was just AfDed at pl wiki and I'll do so here shortly. PPS. Done: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Method of Equal Shares.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:58, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this is the English Wikipedia and we apply English Wikipedia inclusion rules, of which he meets none.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:44, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- why none? could you refer to WP:NPROF#2 criterion and IJCAI Computers and Thought Award? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:F41:18A3:D146:383B:1D1:DB6C:F1B4 (talk) 23:08, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. It's still a bit early in his career but with four triple-digit citation count papers on Google Scholar (soon to be five) I think he already has a case for WP:PROF#C1. And the awards are probably too early-career to be enough by themselves, but they're not by themselves — they have the citation record to back them up. Also, really the proper comparison for the citation counts is computational social choice theory, not AI as a whole, which can have massive citation counts but more in other subareas than this one. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:58, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - while this might barely squeak by on NPROF, the fact that this is COI/UPE editing puts it in the bin for me. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:52, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- You have evidence of this "fact", I assume, since that is a serious accusation to make against the good faith of an editor? Evidence clear enough to state definitively which one of COI or UPE you mean? —David Eppstein (talk) 17:20, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:33, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mild keep Just barely at the notability bar with the award and the citation index numbers. Oaktree b (talk) 14:23, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:43, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:PROF criteria 1 and 2. Lkb335 (talk) 23:12, 10 March 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. Of note is that the nominator stated in the nomination, "I think this page should be merged, deleted, or further developed". As such, this is not a pure "delete" nomination from the start. The two delete !votes following the nomination state that the subject is non-notable in a rather generic manner, and in part based upon personal opinions, because they did not directly cite any specific notability guidelines. Furthermore, only one out of three delete !voters (including the nominator) checked back to the discussion to provide input about sources that were later presented. The keep !votes provide relatively solid evidence that the subject meets notability guidelines, but again, after sources were presented two out of three delete !voters did not come back to assess those sources. The same two out of three provided no input about sources added to the article as well, which occurred on 3 March 2022‎.

The two delete !votes following the nomination focus mostly upon the subject's internet posts, stating that such posts do not create notability, but do not provide much other qualification for deletion relative to notability guidelines, other than simply stating that the subject is not notable per their respective rationales, and neither opiner referred to any specific notability guideline.

Conversely, keep !voters here provided evidence and cited specific notability guidelines, such as WP:NAUTHOR and WP:SIGCOV. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:53, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jared Yates Sexton[edit]

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

As has been outlined on the talk page by other users; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Jared_Yates_Sexton several months ago. And I quote; Lets go through the criteria: The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory, or technique. No unless I'm missing something? The person's work (or works) has: (a) become a significant monument, (b) been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) won significant critical attention, or (d) been represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums. No. (c) is the closest. Sure his books have been reviewed but I would say that constitutes critical attention of a standard sort. His works have not received more attention than usual or "significant" attention. Again tell me if I'm off here. The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of an independent and notable work (for example, a book, film, or television series, but usually not a single episode of a television series) or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews. Perhaps you could say his coverage of the Presidency of Donald Trump would fit the mold of something notable he was involved with. Or you could say the 2016 United States presidential election was something notable he contributed to. But he certainly didn't play a "major" role in either of those. You could find hundreds of people who played a larger role in both of those. His name or coverage does not appear on either of those wiki pages. Finally, The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors. This is the most difficult to parse. He doesn't have any successors yet so it would be peers. Do other authors cite his work? I don't see evidence of that in the References area of the article so at the very least that should be updated. In fact, regarding the references, there are only four out of nineteen which qualify as WP:SECONDARY sources: #'s 2, 7, 8 and 14. For 2, Barrelhouse is a quite small outlet. Not worthy of much weight. For 7, Bloomberg News qualifies as a reliable source but this is an opinion article, filed under their "turnabout" section. For 8, again, Mother Jones qualifies as a reliable source but using it for politics (as this does) requires attribution per WP:RSPSOURCES. Reference 14 is Deadspin which is not a reliable source. For all these reasons I think this page should be merged, deleted, or further developed. AVNOJ1989 (talk) 19:38, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Politics, and Indiana. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:50, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:50, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable political journalist who got a little coverage for some social media posts he made, but nothing rising to the level to justify an encyclopedia article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:26, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There is no need to delete this page. Sexton is a notable author and commentator. The article has many sources. Could it be better? Of course. It should not be a candidate for deletion.Utahredrock (talk) 05:33, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A few viral tweets does not equal notability. Sexton's work is definitely not journalism, he is not independently investigating anything. His work is also not academic. He is simply a person with strong opinions. Also the authority control box still directs to the wrong Jared Sexton. Nweil (talk) 17:37, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, we do have several articles on people who were opinion columnists, so people do not need to be doing investigative journalism, or "journalism" per some definition, to be notable. However, they do need good quality sources about them which we seem to lack here.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:32, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep His works have received "significant critical attention"; saying he hasn't received "more attention than usual" and therefore existing coverage doesn't count seems totally arbitrary and would make inclusion successively harder the later an entry appears in the encyclopedia. He's received attention from multiple independent sources, and that's significant per WP:SIGCOV. Moving on, the criteria is saying "the person has created...a significant or well-known work or body of work," not "must have played a major role in a significant historical event," as the nominator seems to be understanding it. No, he did not play a massive role in electing Trump or anything, but his work is itself "significant or well-known," based on the coverage of it, which treats it as such (even if you personally disagree). Yitz (talk) 23:49, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Do you believe the "significant work" you mention (I'm guessing the tweeting? Or his books? Please clarify since they are different) has been the primary subject of an independent and notable work (for example, a book, film, or television series, but usually not a single episode of a television series) or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews.? Please cite. Nweil (talk) 16:17, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It has, see below. Oaktree b (talk) 14:34, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – AssumeGoodWraith (talk | contribs) 02:33, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep I just added links to four high profile reviews of his books LA Times, NPR etc. They alone satisfy WP:AUTHOR as he has created a work that has multiple independent reviews (criteria 3). CT55555 (talk) 03:13, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- There is no review in the LA Times. Nweil (talk) 06:50, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  It's here: https://www.latimes.com/books/la-ca-jc-review-jared-yates-sexton-man-they-wanted-20190620-story.html CT55555 (talk) 04:08, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Mild keep Has been reviewed in the Los Angeles Review of Books and has authored articles in the Globe and Mail among others, even if most of his "coverage" is hanging off Donald Trump's "fame" while in office. His book also has a review in the The Journal of Psychohistory, [45], via ProQuest. I think he's notable, that's 3 critical reviews, two in the LA book review and this one. Oaktree b (talk) 14:27, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes the WP:AUTHOR bar: multiple reviews, including two for each of two books, indicating there's a body of work to write about. XOR'easter (talk) 17:27, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- OK great, lets look at these reviews. So going book by book. Book: The People Are Going to Rise Like the Waters on Your Shore Article: written by Blake Morlock in LA Review of Books, published in October 20, 2017. So the writer here has only been published in LA Review of Books once, only for this specific review. Furthermore, I can't find any other book review from Mr. Morlock, ever. He seems to be a local news reporter in Tuscon. Also, digging more into the LA Review of Books, despite having a very lofty sounding name, it has only been in existence for 10 years. Wikipedia has a fairly extensive list of literary review periodicals and magazines at List of literary magazines, and LA Review of Books is nowhere to be found on that. Is this a serious operation? The magazine originated on Tumblr, which would obviously not meet our standard. It has since transitioned to online and print to be fair, but it's founder Tom Lutz described their strategy for growth as "we had to learn to insert ourselves into social media conversations" which is an odd thing for a book review periodical to be concerned about. And it casts some doubt in my mind about their intentions. Especially given that the Wikipedia article at hand (JY Sexton) has such a large social media following. Book: The Man They Wanted Me to Be Article: written by Nicholas Cannariato in NPR, published May 10, 2019. The tone of this review is very personal. In fact, the writer includes personal anecdotes about their own life rather than focusing on the book at hand. It's much more based on raw feelings rather than any academic interest or historical literary contextualizing. The writer is a self described freelance writer. It's unclear what editorial control was applied to this article, as NPR books does not have a masthead. NPR is not known as an outlet that reviews books, and similar to LA Review of Books, it does not appear on the Wikipedia list at List of literary magazines. It's difficult to take a previous commenter seriously when they described this review as "high profile". It's simply a freelance article, generated for NPR's engagement numbers. Essay: written by Harriet Fraad in the Journal for Psychohistory, published in Fall 2019. If you check the reliable sources noticeboard, there has already been a discussion of the reliablility of psychohistorians, such as Fraad. The verdict was that it's close to, if not completely over the line of, WP:FRINGE. A link to this essay by Fraad would be ill-advised. Book: American Rule Article: written by Paige Welsh in LA Review of Books, published September 27, 2020 The LA Review of Books masthead indicates that their politics editor is Tom Zoellner. Zoellner is a professor at Chapman University in the same department where the writer (Welsh) is a student, and in this case, submitted a politics-related book review even though none of her other available writings relate to politics or even book reviews. It seems clear that Zoeller encouraged or helped Welsh get published, or at least we can't discount that as a possibility. All of this, again, calls into questions the reliability of LA Review of Books as a serious publication for our purposes. If you look at the actual review from Welsh, it spends a significant amount of time chastising Sexton for a lack of "wokeness" asking why Native peoples were not featured more prominently. In fact, she counted the number of times a white man's name appeared in the book. What the review does not do is contextualize Sexton's book in the literary canon. Reading the review, you are left with no inkling of whether the work is significant in a literary sense or not. All this to say, these reviews are pretty lame and I strongly encourage the keep voters to rethink their position. Nweil (talk) 06:48, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  Los Angeles Review of Books "only" reviewing books for 10 years doesn't seem like good reason to discredit them. I likewise consider NPR to be a very reliable source. I'd request if you quote me again, to please tag me so I can reply sooner. Also, I added a link to the LA Times review that you said didn't exist above. In summary I've done the rethink that you asked for and your research/analysis has not shifted my opinion. CT55555 (talk) 04:17, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment you forgot the essay in the peer-reviewed journal I cited above. It and the two "lame" reveiews as you call them seem to add up to notablity. He's also cited at least 3 times in this peer-reviewed journal from New Zealand, [46], as well as this theology journal, quoting several of his tweets, [47]. Three or four others also use his writing to discuss various issues in psychology, theology and journalism in general. I would consider that at least a modicum of notability on which to base an article in Wikipedia? Oaktree b (talk) 21:12, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Actually, we have enough to write an article about the effect he's had on society based on these peer-reviewed journals, "Jared Yates Sexton and Trumpism" or something similar. He's gained enough traction to have two articles in Wikipedia! Oaktree b (talk) 21:25, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:37, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the reviews noted above all seem above board, the fact that the subject is frequently cited in media of various kinds and has been covered for his work all suggest that he's notable enough to remain. Tony Fox (arf!) 06:09, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Tornadoes of 2014#July 8. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:23, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

2014 Smithfield, New York tornado[edit]

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

I'm going ahead with nominating this for deletion for a lack of notability as a WP:ROUTINE event. While the death toll of four is more than most tornadoes achieve, especially in New York, damage was limited to rural areas and was not that extensive. Only a few houses sustained significant damage. Most of the sources are news reports from the day of or the day after the tornado. It may also be worth mentioning that the IP who created the initial draft was blocked for block evasion not long afterward. Off-wiki communication indicated that the sockmaster was Andrew5 (talk · contribs), whose socks have previously shown an interest in storm-related articles. While I'm opening this as an AfD, I also think it would be perfectly fine to redirect or merge this article to Tornadoes of 2014#July 8. Mainly I want to generate a more thorough discussion and get a conclusion to this. TornadoLGS (talk) 20:44, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. TornadoLGS (talk) 20:44, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. TornadoLGS (talk) 20:44, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge – per nominator. This article doesn’t meet our general standards for an article, as damage was relatively brief and can be summarized in the section at Tornadoes of 2014 and the monthly tornado list page. Any information in this article could easily be merged into Tornadoes of 2014#July 8. United States Man (talk) 21:52, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Since my secret is out, I wanted to point out why I created the page. I did this because I was quite surprised how a tornado with 4 deaths didn’t have an article, and I wanted to improve coverage. I know my opinion doesn’t matter but I wouldn’t object to a merge, though I would want zero loss of information. And I had no bad intentions with any of the tornado outbreak articles I created, I did all of them because I wanted to improve wikipedia’s coverage and I hoped I wouldn’t have gotten caught, but then again sorry for all Incovinces. --209.201.121.4 (talk) 01:52, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – AssumeGoodWraith (talk | contribs) 02:32, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:36, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Tornadoes of 2014#July 8 - Per United States Man and TornadoLGS. Elijahandskip (talk) 07:39, 10 March 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. Of note is that this is essentially a weakish keep result, because WP:NMUSICIAN only states that a subject "may be notable if they meet at least one of the following criteria". However, the guideline does not provide presumed notability for subjects that meet at least one of the criteria. Also of note is that nobody in the discussion has agreed with deletion after two full relisings. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:56, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Alice and the Glass Lake[edit]

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

Fails WP:NMUSICIAN. Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 23:06, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 23:06, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 23:06, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 23:06, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:09, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:11, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This conversation has already been carried out previously here. The consensus was that it does meet the WP:NMUSICIAN threshold, even if it only barely. A very quick browse of this article's history or my talk page's history (which I know you have visited) would have revealed that. ~Junedude433 (talk) 02:52, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There was a prior AfD before an article move, which concluded keep. Notability is forever. Bondegezou (talk) 11:17, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but Clean Up - The musical act achieved some basic stub-level notability as decided in this previous AfD. Back then, I surmised that the article makes the mistake of presenting a personal biography of Ms. Lemke, when it would work better as a history of the musical act called Alice and the Glass Lake. That has not been resolved, but it can be handled as a cleanup process. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 18:35, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've done a bit of clean up etc. on the article. As I understand it, the musical act called Alice and the Glass Lake is just a stage name for Alice Lemke. I think the basic article structure is fine. Bondegezou (talk) 10:53, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment she is credited on one song on Revival (Eminem album), which topped a number of charts. I'm not sure if the single credit is enough for WP:NMUSICIAN. Rusalkii (talk) 19:50, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Her other claim to notability would be her credit as the vocalist for the song "Trip the Light" which plays as the theme for the notable Where the Hell is Matt? 2012 video. This would fall under rule 10 for WP:NMUSICIAN, which being used in conjunction with her credit on an Eminem song, I think establishes notability, in terms of raw music credit. ~Junedude433 (talk) 19:45, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – AssumeGoodWraith (talk | contribs) 02:29, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:35, 10 March 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. Of note is that the article was renamed to Clive Disposal Site during the course of this discussion. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:49, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Clive, Utah[edit]

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

Appears to have been, originally, a very isolated rail siding, which could explain why the dropped a nuclear waste storage area just south of it. There's a highway exit for "Clive", but there's no Clive. Mangoe (talk) 02:26, 10 March 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 March 10. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 02:47, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Utah. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:12, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
(Author) Keep There are references to Clive in early highway guides, which wouldn't make sense unless it was some kind of a destination. But ultimately, I think the value of the article rests primarily on the fact of the industry located there, particularly the waste storage, which has received media attention and has been going on for more than 50 years. This is a place where significant human land use has occurred. Chubbles (talk) 12:23, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've had a lot of experience in dealing with dots on a map, and experience has shown that they aren't of terribly much value as to what is actually at the dot. Often enough, there's nothing at all. Mangoe (talk) 18:20, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Only on Wikipedia could we see argued with a straight face that the Tooele County West Desert Hazardous Industries Area, which was selected as an unpopulated area by the County because prior sites had started to become populated, which is in a region recorded by the County itself as having "no population outside of the East Wendover area", and which actually has environmental impact statements listing surveys that there is no sign of human settlement in the area for the past several thousand years, a "community" and a "populated place"; and that the earlier railroad maintenance stop and non-agency station which closed in 1955 was a "destination". (The EISs record that there was only a "dirt road" there before the hazardous waste companies constructed their access road.)
But then we've also got the falsehood that Aragonite, Utah, the location of an aragonite mill, and likewise with no evidence of ever being settled by humans, is a "ghost town". Knolls, Utah was another non-agency railroad station and highway construction camp for I-80, not a "community". (Van Cott is, once again, cited and then mis-used.) Barro, Utah was another non-agency railroad station. So too was Arinosa, Utah (Van Cott even saying "siding", "no permanent residents", and "maintenance camp", and yet again abused).
If this were any other subject where people were injecting these sorts of falsehoods into Wikipedia, and not an outcrop of the GNIS mess, we'd be crying systematic hoaxery at this point, articles claiming things that are not and never were, with sources that outright contradict the articles.
Uncle G (talk) 01:25, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- "I-80 Corridor Planning District" (PDF). Tooele County General Plan. Tooele County. 2016.
- Van Cott, John W. (1990). "Clive Siding". Utah Place Names: A Comprehensive Guide to the Origins of Geographic Names : a Compilation. University of Utah Press. ISBN 9780874803457.
- USPCI Clive Incineration Facility, Tooele County: Environmental Impact Statement. United States Bureau of Land Management. 1990.
- Aptus Industrial and Hazardous Waste Treatment Facility, Tooele County: Environmental Impact Statement. United States Bureau of Land Management. 1988.
- Weder, D. (1981). Cultural resource inventory of one square mile in the Clive locality. Bountiful, UT: Archaeological-Environmental Research Corporation.
The argument you're making here is really for changing the article, not deleting it. I'm not really contesting the semantics of what constitutes a "town" or a "community", but I am interested in the encyclopedia covering human uses of land, and this is land with a history that deserves encyclopedic coverage. Perhaps we should rename it or change how it is covered, but deleting it is counterproductive. Chubbles (talk) 01:19, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename as Clive Disposal Facility or Clive Radioactive Waste Site, which is notable as a Class A RadWaste facility. Clive is a big deal in the US RadWaste arena, even if it was not a community or settlement. [48], [49], [50], [51], [52], [53], [54], [55], [56], [57], [58], [59], [60], etc. Netherzone (talk) 05:28, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: per Netherzone. I've updated the article to incorporate some of their sources and renamed it accordingly. ––FormalDude talk 05:08, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:57, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Charles B. McDaniel[edit]

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

Lack of WP:GNG. The only independent source I can find is this one sentence mention in a newspaper. The article is mostly copied from the official air force bio, which is not an independent source. (t · c) buidhe 02:22, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Military. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:14, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:BASIC. Mztourist (talk) 05:49, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete we lack the level of indepdent coverage to show a passing of GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:27, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no indications of independent coverage that I can turn up. Congratulations to him on reaching the general staff, I suppose, but there's no indication he's anything beyond career military. Tony Fox (arf!) 06:00, 12 March 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. Although an argument for redirect instead of delete was presented, it gained no traction. No evidence presented that it meets any notability guidelines. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 22:33, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Crescent Junction, Utah[edit]

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

For all the expansion past the original GNIS stub, the added text discusses first a rail point and then an intersection, a narrative mostly inferred from a variety of maps. Actual sourcing from GHits gives nothing beyond clickbait and location references mostly having to do with highway work. "Brendel" produces the same, except the hits are about railroad stuff. A single gas station at an intersection doth not a settlement make. Mangoe (talk) 23:57, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and Utah. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:00, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Grand County, Utah. I do not see any real indications of notability. There's a gas station, a spur line to a potash mine, and a highway exit. Only thing of note is the Crescent Junction Disposal Cell [61][62], a facility for the storage of radioactive material. As notability is not inherited, that doesn't make Crescent Junction notable in and of itself. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 00:45, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- The potash mines and oil wells are the Paradox Basin, by the way. Uncle G (talk) 04:26, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That's because it isn't a settlement. I researched it, and then found that the source that I found explaining what it actually was, was in the article already, but had been mis-used. van Cott's Utah Place Names says that Crescent Junction is a "wayside stop and service station" with some permanent residents. No-one says that it is a "town" (as originally written back in 2007, not actually as a GNIS stub, and linking "town" to not to town but to an article on "areas") or an "unincorporated community" (as changed in 2011 by an editor who ironically thought that the GNIS, which in fact doesn't distinguish between towns and single buildings, was a "better source"). And a contemporary 1960s source likewise says "Brendel, Utah, the railhead at or near Crescent Junction, Utah", explaining what that is. Uncle G (talk) 03:32, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm leaning towards keep, but am open to persuasion. I agree that purely on the merits it should be deleted. It's a highway junction, rail junction, old run down truck stop, and a waste disposal site. However, I can easily predict that if deleted, it will be back. In fact, at one time this was two articles, one for Crescent Junction, and one for Brendel. IIRC I'm the one who combined them. Despite not having a lot of notable things, this place does have an appeal to several types of people (roadgeeks, railfans and environmental activists, to name 3) and it's not difficult to predict that someone reading this article Moab uranium mill tailings pile, or any number of road and rail transport articles that mention the place, will see the red link for Crescent Junction and say "Hey, I've been there, I can throw something together". I know "why make more work for ourselves" isn't exactly a rule at wikipedia, but I think in this case it has merit. Davemeistermoab (talk) 20:24, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwaiiplayer (talk) 12:51, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Although transportation routes have passed through the area for many years, there's no evidence that Crescent Junction was ever anything more than, well, a junction with a rail siding and later a truck stop. Anything of interest to railroad buffs, environmentalists, road enthusiasts, etc would best be covered in articles about those topics. –dlthewave ☎ 13:43, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:19, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Dlthewave. --Vaco98 (talk) 03:05, 10 March 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 Accidents and incidents involving the Boeing B-17 Flying Fortress#1940s. Consensus is against keeping. There is some disagreement between delete and merge, so redirect is a compromise: it allows editors to decide what if anything to merge. Sandstein 18:13, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Plane shootdown over Syke[edit]

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

Nothing notable about this war-time accident. A bomber was shot down. How often did that happen? Over a thousand times. Wikipedia is not a memorial. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 15:05, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 15:05, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 15:05, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 15:05, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 15:05, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 15:05, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, bombers being shot down over Germany happened hundreds of times during the Second World War and that in and of itself is not notable but what is notable is that the tail gunner, Eugene Moran survived a fall from at least 8 000 meters in the severed tail of the B-17. If you can point me to at least three other instances where crew men survived falls from such heights trapped in parts of their planes without a parachute then I will agree that this instance is not notable but otherwise I have to disagree with your assessment. EU-DE-NRW-SI (talk) 15:24, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- What's the source for that claim. A website that wouldn't pass WP:RS and a paid obituary. Those always fail as a reliable source....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 15:45, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - The sources are the American Air Museum in Britain, the NRD and the Kreiszeitung (a local newspaper). EU-DE-NRW-SI (talk) 16:02, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    - Your sources are a small local newspaper and, in the Weblinks (this is straight out of the de-wiki?) a few links to what appears to be a regional TV station. A museum doesn't count: we need reliable secondary sources. BTW, even if those sources were acceptable, what you're doing in the infobox, and in general with all these redlinks, is clearly in contradiction with the spirit if not the letter of WP:NOTMEMORIAL. Drmies (talk) 16:18, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      - So just to avoid any misunderstandings the NRD which is part of the Germany wide public broadcasters ARD does not count as a reliable source? EU-DE-NRW-SI (talk) 16:24, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        User:EU-DE-NRW-SI, first of all, please follow the advice in Wikipedia:Colons and asterisks. Second, you know as well as I do that "Hallo Niedersachsen" is hardly a national program, even though it's on a large public broadcaster (and one of the links isn't going anywhere--plus, you should cite them as references then, not as "Weblinks"). Besides, some TV coverage is not the same as printed sources. Drmies (talk) 16:36, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        @Drmies But this exabit in the American Air Museum in Britain is a written source which recounts the incident. EU-DE-NRW-SI (talk) 16:49, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
To everyone interested in participating in this discussion please read my revision of the article as a basis of your decision since WilliamJE continuously deletes crucial parts of the article, including the fact that the tail gunner survived a fall from at least 8 000 meters without a parachute in the severed tail section of the B-17 which (in short) only leaves "B-17 shot down over Germany" to then claim that there was noting notable about this incident and that the article should be deleted. EU-DE-NRW-SI (talk) 16:45, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- EU-DE-NRW-SI, please tone down the rhetoric a bit, with all that bold. Crucial parts ought to be well-referenced; they do not appear to be. An exhibit in a museum is not generally a reliable source, and at any rate, a. you didn't use it as a reference, and b. they are newspaper articles but without bibliographical information, and so their reliability is not a given. Drmies (talk) 20:24, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ The fact that the tail gunner survived a fall of 8000 meters is unusual, but not notable by Wikipedia standards unless it meets WP:NEVENT. I wasn't able to find any additional sources besides the ones posted here and in the article, and don't believe the sources demonstrate the depth, persistence, or diversity to meet NEVENT. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 19:19, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to Accidents and incidents involving the Boeing B-17 Flying Fortress per RandomCanadian below as ATD. Enough sources for a mention in that article even if it doesn't have enough for a stand alone. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 17:31, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep This article needs work, for example adding in the two newspaper articles that are located here https://www.americanairmuseum.com/media/37742 but it's clearly a notable event that's made the newspapers a few times, and and had even recent coverage. I think the article needs to be cited better, but I added the sign in Skye and a English language news source that I easily found online, so it seems to meet the general notability criteria. CT55555 (talk) 21:45, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- CT55555, can you please identify in what newspapers those articles were published, and when, and what the status/reliability of those newspapers is? Drmies (talk) 01:46, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - I've contacted the museum to try and do that, in the context of them being a museum archive, we can surely assume they are authentic and reliable enough for the Imperial War Museum's collection. Hand written notes presumably by museum staff suggest 1945 for one of them. As for the details, I have no idea how quickly they will reply, so this may take time. I suggest we focus on improving this article, as I have done so, as is the spirit of AfD policy, and accept that it may take time to get the newspaper stuff in. CT55555 (talk) 01:50, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    - I suggest that if you cannot find sourcing in the normal way, then there isn't much notability there. Drmies (talk) 01:59, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Let me summarize and see if I can persuade you:
      
      - US news: https://www.swnews4u.com/local/spotlight/soldiers-grove-veteran-survived-four-mile-fall-over-nazi-germany/
      
      - Memorial plaque (signs in public are valid for Wikipedia sourcing) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plane_shootdown_over_Syke#/media/File:Absturzstelle_-_Gedenkst%C3%A4tte.jpg
      
      - https://www.kreiszeitung.de/lokales/diepholz/syke-ort44535/november-1943-ende-rikki-tikki-tavi-10557112.html
      
      - https://www.kreiszeitung.de/lokales/diepholz/syke-ort44535/syke-jahre-danach-gedenken-amerikaner-deutsche-einer-episode-krieg-10772484.html
      
      - Three circa 1945 newspaper cuttings in a museum archive that I'm in the process of getting details on
      
      - a book (that you say may be self published, which would not fully discount it) https://www.amazon.de/Luftkrieg-Region-Zeitzeugenberichte-Archiveinblicke-Kaack/dp/3981927001
      
      - A book coming out this year http://www.johnmarmbruster.com/author.html
      
      I think these nine sources combined (even if some are not strong) is enough to establish notability. No? CT55555 (talk) 02:05, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I did some copy edits. Also, as this article points out this book writes about the incident. I don't know if it's appropriate to cite a book because we know it talks about the incident without actually reading the book, so I won't do that, but this sways me from keep to strong keep, so I'm also changing what I said above now I see that. CT55555 (talk) 22:30, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- I looked at that book: this search for its ISBN should indicate sufficiently that whatever this book is, whatever this publisher is, it's not much--the name suggests it's self-published. Drmies (talk) 01:59, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  I do agree, it seems likely self published. But it's still secondary, nobody is suggesting it's self published by anyone affiliated with the event, I think. CT55555 (talk) 02:14, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Insufficient signficant coverage for WP:GNG for a single aircraft downing; museum blurbs and mentions don't cut it. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 04:30, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Of the newspaper sources in the article, swnews4u is a "collaboration of nine community newspapers in southwestern Wisconsin" ([63]) and the German articles seem to be typical local coverage as well. These don't, in my view, cut it for WP:SIGCOV purposes. As for the plague, we have no idea who authored the text, so we should presumably view it as an anonymously produced WP:SPS. The book source identified above appears to be both self-published, so it doesn't count unless it is established that it was written by an established domain expert. Furthermore, nobody has been able to identify what it says about the event. Overall, I'm not seeing the SIGCOV needed to establish notability. -Ljleppan (talk) 09:10, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Also happy with a merge as suggested below. - Ljleppan (talk) 07:34, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The shootdown of the aircraft is not notable. WP:ONEEVENT applies here to the unusual fortune in surviving. Suggest merging any pertinent facts to Falling_(accident)#Surviving_falls with a possible redirect for the gunner's name. GraemeLeggett (talk) 12:44, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment By searching using the name of the rear tail gunner "Eugene Moran" and "Gene Moran" combined with his home city of "Soldiers Grove" and/or "B-17" it is easy to find many more sources, of variable quality. I've added a few of the better ones. I think the survival of a free fall of about 4 miles is quite unusual and there is a lot of people writing about it online. The sources also speak about the two books written about the event, so I've created a "in popular culture" and mentioned them, I've not used the books as sources themselves, as I've not read them, although I'm perhaps being a bit caution here, books about the event surely mention the event. Anyway, as this is contentious, I'm erring on the side of caution. CT55555 (talk) 13:02, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

One of the sources you found gives thirteen examples of aircrew surviving falling to earth in the wreckage. GraemeLeggett (talk) 19:59, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I said it was "quite unusual". If the counter argument is that it's been documented thirteen times in human history, I'll stand by my comment. CT55555 (talk) 20:05, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As I am not really seeing a lot of sourcing here. Unsure this passes GNG.Slatersteven (talk) 13:10, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not seeing enough solid sourcing to meet GNG in my view. Intothat darkness 13:31, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Drmies' cogent arguments, and a dearth of the necessary WP:SIGCOV to justify a standalone article. SN54129 13:33, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Accidents and incidents involving the Boeing B-17 Flying Fortress as a valid alternative to deletion. There is certainly some content about this which is from both independent and reliable sources. Of course, not the only B-17 crewmember to whom this happened ([64]), but this is probably unusual enough that it would warrant some mention there. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 15:13, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: let's see if a relist brings some consensus
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:11, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I already voted to delete, but would not be opposed to a merge of relevant information as suggested by a couple of participants above. Intothat darkness 20:28, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I likewise have voted, in the opposite direction, quite strongly. But recognize that I hold a very small minority view and appear to be on the losing side of this debate, and also concur that the merge seems like a sensible compromise, in the spirit of trying to reach consensus. CT55555 (talk) 20:33, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Likewise happy with a merge, and amended my vote above as such. - Ljleppan (talk) 07:35, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There appears to be a clear consensus for a merge at this time, with relevant information going to Accidents and incidents involving the Boeing B-17 Flying Fortress or Falling_(accident)#Surviving_falls. Intothat darkness 21:32, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not particularly notworthy among the thousands of wartime incidents and the text in Accidents and incidents involving the Boeing B-17 Flying Fortress is sufficient so doesnt really need a merge. MilborneOne (talk) 13:07, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, particularly per Milborne1, and I commend WilliamJE for their continued efforts to maintain the article to a policy-compliant standard, even throughout this AfD. SN54129 12:03, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Accidents and incidents involving the Boeing B-17 Flying Fortress. It would be a pity for the extra nuggets of information on this page were lost if there was a deletion without merging information. Gusfriend (talk) 12:15, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep per the sole reason for being nommed is "Nothing notable about this war-time accident" when, in fact, "...including the tail gunner who survived a fall of 28,000 feet inside the tail section of the aircraft" is as notable as can be. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:26, 18 March 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. Fenix down (talk) 00:47, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Football at the 2009 Maccabiah Games – Women's team squads[edit]

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

The article appears to be original research and I'm just not seeing the significant in-depth coverage of this topic to justify a stand-alone list. Barely even meets WP:V let alone WP:GNG/WP:LISTN as far as I am able to see. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 00:31, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Lists of people, and Football. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 00:31, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Israel, United Kingdom, Australia, Canada, Brazil, and United States of America. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 00:32, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 00:33, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per norm. --Vaco98 (talk) 03:06, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The tournament itself is barely notable. Looks like an abandoned project attempted around the time the event took place. Ajf773 (talk) 08:43, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as not notable for a separate article. Normally I would suggest merging in, but these squads are incomplete, unsourced, and don't have links to any notable players, so it would be a net harm to the parent article to merge this junk in. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:18, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 12:28, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable, incomplete, and abondoned. ArsenalGhanaPartey (talk) 15:53, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - As said by others, there does not seem to be the level of notability for the tournament for there to be an article on squads. Equally , given this lack of notability, and as this is so incomplete, I don't think there is any need for a merge, nor do I think a redirect would serve any useful purpose. Dunarc (talk) 20:54, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable and the article is incomplete in itself. Foodie Soul (talk) 12:43, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all the above. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 09:15, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If this had been completed, it could conceivably have been merged up, while hidden. But it hasn't been completed. So a discussion is not necessary. So many articles get prodded while they shouldn't. This is the opposite case. It's unlikely that anyone will object to delete. WP:SNOW also applies. gidonb (talk) 03:09, 16 March 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. GNG shown to be met. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 22:30, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Postmen[edit]

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

The band's name makes it difficult to find sources, but the article (here and the Dutch one) are unsourced and the ~~criteria~~ content discussed does not explain how the subject meets any notability criteria. Walter Görlitz (talk) 09:05, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Walter Görlitz (talk) 09:05, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. Walter Görlitz (talk) 09:05, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It helps to put the band members surnames in as restrictive search terms.
- "Postmen voor optreden naar Suriname". Waterkant (in Dutch). 2016-05-27.
Uncle G (talk) 12:52, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Walter Görlitz, what do you mean with the "the criteria discussed does not explain"? Discussed where? I see no previous nomination or text on the talk page. Also: which criteria? Finally: can someone correct the listing error? gidonb (talk) 15:46, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for pointing this out. It was late and I was tired. It should have been content or something similar. The article itself does not discuss why they would even considered notable. Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:11, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - Walter Görlitz: NP. Stuff happens. I agree that the article does not make a clear claim to fame but, on the other hand, it does not convey that this a local band either. Now, one click away is the Nlwiki entry. According to your intro you checked that article. It does claim that all the Postmen's albums charted on national charts, as did five (!) of its singles. One album went platinum. Our entry also covers Postman for whom all albums charted in Holland (one also in Belgium) and two singles charted as well. gidonb (talk) 23:41, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per WP:BAND #2 and #3. See above. gidonb (talk) 23:41, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Why bother with chart positions and whatnot, when the easy argument is that they are encyclopaedic because well before we even had an article at all they had a non-trivial entry in another encyclopaedia (with stuff that we still do not have, such as the origin of the name)?
- Larkin, Colin, ed. (2006). "Postmen". The Encyclopedia of Popular Music. Vol. 6: Morricone, Ennio–Rich Kids (4th ed.). MUZE. pp. 609–610. ISBN 9780195313734.
Uncle G (talk) 04:45, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, Uncle G's encyclopedia entry and, for example, this source are sufficient for WP:BAND #1. I never doubted that BAND #1 would be satisfied. Only pointed out that the data of the referenced Nlwiki article are already sufficient for WP:BAND #2 and #3. gidonb (talk) 14:44, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment WP:BAND #8 is also met. See here. Probably a lot of items on the band list are satisfied. This is a major band. gidonb (talk) 00:42, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment wonderful that they meet the criteria, yet for all this supposed notability, can we find any sources? Without them, the subject is clearly not notable. This is why WP:BAND clearly states that bands that meet criteria may be notable and it does not state that they are notable. Clearly, this supposed notability does not actually exist. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:46, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Walter! BAND #1 is about sources. It is satisfied. See above. gidonb (talk) 07:30, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

yes it is, but the point is that notability means that they have been written about, and the preface to it all—and this is what most readers completely miss—is may be notable if they meet at least one of the following criteria. The assumption is not that they are notable because they meet any criteria, but that they may be. Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:38, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I just noticed that @SNUGGUMS: makes this same point when responding to a question about a different criteria at Wikipedia talk:Notability (music)#WP:NSONG. Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:59, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, their point is marginally valid. It's the opposite case under the same guideline. gidonb (talk) 06:32, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Modussiccandi (talk) 16:08, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:11, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep See for example Larkin, C. (2006). Postmen. In The Encyclopedia of Popular Music. : Oxford University Press. Retrieved 11 Mar. 2022 also coverage in Billboard Piecesofuk (talk) 16:35, 11 March 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. Withdrawn by nominator per WP:HEY causa sui (talk) 14:05, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Back pressure[edit]

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

Contested prod. The vast, vast majority of the article is unsourced. Furthermore, it has been tagged for sources since 2012. We should have an article on this topic, but in its current form there is no article here after all the unsourced material is removed. Per WP:BURDEN we do not maintain unverifiable content, nor expect that people removing unverifiable content provide the sources themselves. It is better to remove unverifiable content than wait longer for sources to be added. causa sui (talk) 00:11, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 00:19, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep (if sources are added)~~ If the topic is notable and sources exist, add the sources instead of starting an AFD discussion. I would search for and add in the supposed sources suggested by the deletion contester (and replace the line For an extremely detailed description of these phenomena see Design and Simulation of Two-Stroke Engines (1996), by Prof. Gordon Blair of Queen's University Belfast, pub. SAE International, ISBN 978-1-56091-685-7.), but I am unfamiliar with the physics field, so I don't know what exactly to add. @SailingInABathTub: considering you were the one who contested the PROD and assuming you are familiar with this topic and know that the sources exits, maybe you could add them in? It's usually preferred that the PROD contester improves the article or resolves the issue when removing the deletion tag. Waddles 🗩 🖉 01:03, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Changing my vote to keep per WP:HEY, the article has been improved. Waddles 🗩 🖉 01:58, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep provided suitable sources can be found. It's also a hugely important concept in column chromatography, since the rate at which liquid chromatography can be carried out is limited by the balance or what pressure a pump can reasonably produce versus the back-pressure created by trying to get the required flow through the chromatography column. Loads has been written about the subject. The problem is trying to pick out one or two really useful general references in an objective fashion. I'll have a go. I think there's some good stuff in LCGC magazine, which is a refereed and reliable half-way house between trade-magazine and academic journal, and would be suitable. The article needs work, lots of it, but there is promise. Elemimele (talk) 09:27, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

for reference, here's an article on back-pressure in LC chromatography by Ron Majors, a staff author of LCGC [65]; although he starts off by calling it just "pressure", he's slipped into using the chromatographer's normal jargon of "back pressure" within the first paragraph. Although the current WP article discusses exhaust manifolds and engines more than chromatography, the basic concepts are actually quite similar, and chromatography is a big field, as deserving of mention as engines. Here's another article that deals with how chromatographers and column-designers describe and manage back-pressure, using kinetic plots: [66]. Here's an example of a whole class of article on back pressure, articles written by manufacturers to help their customers: [67]. These articles aren't necessarily written to promote the manufacturer in question, but it's harder to cite articles of this sort without favouring one manufacturer, and we'd have to be careful they weren't promotional. Nevertheless, the sheer number that exist (every manufacturer has one!) indicates the importance of the concept. Elemimele (talk) 13:48, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, due to significant coverage in independent, reliable, secondary sources.^[1]^[2]^[3]^[4] These sources are now cited in the article.

References

^ Shekhar, Ravi; Singh Dhugga, Paramvir; Malik, Kashish (2016). "CFD analysis of Back Pressure due to bend in exhaust Pipe of 4 stoke petrol engine" (PDF). Int. J. Aerosp. Mech. Eng. 3 (4): 1–3.
^ Hield, Peter (2011). The effect of back pressure on the operation of a diesel engine (PDF) (Report). Defence Science and Technology Group.
^ Kocsis, Levente-Botond; Moldovanu, Dan; Baldean, Doru-Laurean (2015). "The influence of exhaust backpressure upon the turbochargers boost pressure". Proceedings of the European Automotive Congress EAEC-ESFA 2015. Springer International Publishing. pp. 367–374. ISBN 9783319272764.
^ Dalla Nora, Macklini; Lanzanova, Thompson Diórdinis Metzka; Zhao, Hua (2016). "Effects of valve timing, valve lift and exhaust backpressure on performance and gas exchanging of a two-stroke GDI engine with overhead valves" (PDF). Energy Conversion and Management. 123: 71–83.

SailingInABathTub (talk) 17:12, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by nom "This is an important topic" and "Sources exist" are not valid reasons to maintain unsourced content in Wikipedia articles. --causa sui (talk) 17:48, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:HEY. The article has been improved by adding sourced content and reliable in depth sources--nice work, Elemimele and SailingInABathTub. Those additions show notability per WP:GNG and refute the assertion that the article cannot be improved. Remaining problems, such as removing contested material, are a matter of routine editing, not deletion. Hence keep. --{{u|Mark viking}} {Talk} 20:04, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If notability or the assertion that the article can not be improved were raised as reasons to delete the article, that was not from me. --causa sui (talk) 13:54, 14 March 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. Fenix down (talk) 00:46, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

2019 AFC U-16 Women's Championship squads[edit]

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

Laundry list of largely non-notable and extremely young sportspeople. Sources are almost entirely from the countries' own FAs or from the tournament itself (see WP:IS). I fail to see how this meets WP:GNG or WP:LISTN. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2022 South American Under-17 Women's Football Championship squads, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2016 South American U-17 Women's Championship squads and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2017 AFF U-18 Youth Championship squads all of which had similar issues. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 00:10, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Lists of people, and Football. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 00:11, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Bangladesh, China, Japan, Korea, South Korea, Thailand, Vietnam, and Australia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 00:11, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 00:12, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect to 2019 AFC U-16 Women's Championship#Squads per Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Alternatives to deletion. The subject does not meet Wikipedia:Notability#Stand-alone lists. The sourced lists can fit in 2019 AFC U-16 Women's Championship#Squads. Cunard (talk) 09:45, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 12:28, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete separate squad list article is not needed. As almost none of the players are notable, don't see the value in merging this into the main tournament article (as then that article just gets filled with lists of non-notables, which doesn't seem beneficial to me). Joseph2302 (talk) 13:36, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Plus I would want to see reliable and independent sources rather than FA websites and Twitter Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:43, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:LISTN. LibStar (talk) 01:23, 14 March 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.

[1] Shekhar, Ravi; Singh Dhugga, Paramvir; Malik, Kashish (2016). "CFD analysis of Back Pressure due to bend in exhaust Pipe of 4 stoke petrol engine" (PDF). Int. J. Aerosp. Mech. Eng. 3 (4): 1–3.

[2] Hield, Peter (2011). The effect of back pressure on the operation of a diesel engine (PDF) (Report). Defence Science and Technology Group.

[3] Kocsis, Levente-Botond; Moldovanu, Dan; Baldean, Doru-Laurean (2015). "The influence of exhaust backpressure upon the turbochargers boost pressure". Proceedings of the European Automotive Congress EAEC-ESFA 2015. Springer International Publishing. pp. 367–374. ISBN 9783319272764.

[4] Dalla Nora, Macklini; Lanzanova, Thompson Diórdinis Metzka; Zhao, Hua (2016). "Effects of valve timing, valve lift and exhaust backpressure on performance and gas exchanging of a two-stroke GDI engine with overhead valves" (PDF). Energy Conversion and Management. 123: 71–83.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]