Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2022 October 17

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< October 16	October 18 >

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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:41, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sven Valerio[edit]

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

Fails WP:NPOL, minor politician who has never held elected office. There also does not seem to be WP:GNG passing coverage in the provided sources or elsewhere. All of it is either trivial or non-independent. W 42 23:59, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Sweden. W 42 23:59, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as not notable enough per WP:NPOL. He has not been elected, and strong local coverage is not established. ✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 03:08, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete insufficient coverage, notability has not been established.Draken Bowser (talk) 07:36, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Same reasoning as in the similar case of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mikael Simm. //Julle (talk) 12:53, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - At this time no notability indicated. Could be recreated in future.BabbaQ (talk) 13:43, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG. Profile on different websites and self published articles don't make a person notable for Wikipedia. Atighot (talk) 18:52, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:NPOL and WP:SIGCOV.4meter4 (talk) 16:27, 24 October 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 to Keep this article given the new sources described in this discussion and recent additions to the article. But it is recommended for editors to remove any OR that exists in a general article clean-up after this AFD closure. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:41, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Robopsychology[edit]

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

There isn't WP:SIGCOV for this topic and this fails the WP:GNG. Most of this article is WP:OR trying to connect disparate concepts that haven't been covered in reliable third party sources. Jontesta (talk) 23:58, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Jontesta (talk) 23:58, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science fiction and fantasy and Technology. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 01:45, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Psychology-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 01:45, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep existing refs 2 and 4 appear independent RS coverage--that is, I've not even run a search for more yet. This somewhat brief article doesn't appear particularly more confused than any other when a science fiction concept is eventually instantiated in the real world. Jclemens (talk) 02:27, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There are several not-so-short secondary sources already in the article. I am asking the nominator to give the reasoning why those and other hits appearing in a search should not constitute WP:SIGCOV? Until that is clarified, my opinion is keep as there are sources. Most sources I have seen talk mainly about the real-world use of the concept. However, both this paper and the Computerworld article link that to the term coined by Asimov, so that connection is not original research but is indeed covered by third party sources. Daranios (talk) 18:50, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep I found one more significant source: Krägeloh, C.U. et al. (2022) ‘The time is ripe for robopsychology’, Frontiers in psychology, 13, p. 968382. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2022.968382. What is tricky here is that there are sources that seem to cover this same material but don't use this exact term. That argues against this article, or at least this article's title, which may be too narrow. I still say keep because this is a very new usage and perhaps it will become more widely used. If not I assume we'll be back to discussing this. Lamona (talk) 00:43, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify I can see it being a developed article, but right now it is pure WP:SYNTH and original research. I recommend putting it through the article creation process to confirm that it can be a viable article, otherwise, it should be removed per WP:TNT. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 18:52, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep I updated the article using this recent academic source found by Lamona. It's entirely dedicated to the concept of robopsychology, although it also documents the current lack of a sub-discipline in psychology with that name. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 09:38, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Great find, and another source that states that at least its use and sources referring to Asimov are indeed linked, rather than a case of "trying to connect disparate concepts". Daranios (talk) 11:31, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I'm convinced by the arguments above, not least since Gitz has added to the article since the start of this AfD conversation. /Julle (talk) 15:37, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Passes WP:SIGCOV per the sources in evidence.4meter4 (talk) 16:28, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Star Mississippi 00:56, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oceanic Airlines[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

A gross compilation of WP:OR. If you were to remove all of it, there would be nothing left to keep, and justifies deletion. If this were to be sourced to reliable sources, there would only be trivial mentions related to a singular TV series, would fail WP:SIGCOV and WP:NOTPLOT. Jontesta (talk) 23:54, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Jontesta (talk) 23:54, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per clear and overwhelming consensus to keep in the two previous AFDs that used similar nomination rationales. RecycledPixels (talk) 08:08, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Previously mentioned RS in the last discussion include Adweek, The Wayfarer's Handbook, and Hartford Courant among others, another one that was added to the article was The Aircraft-Spotter's Companion. These are significant coverage of the subject. See also WP:NEXIST. The Appearances section can mostly be removed if necessary; but this is an article in need of improvement and not deletion. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 19:01, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Passes WP:SIGCOV per the sources produced in the previous AFDs. This should not have been re-nominated.4meter4 (talk) 16:30, 24 October 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 P. G. Wodehouse characters. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:34, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Daphne Winkworth[edit]

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

There isn't significant coverage in reliable third-party sources, and this fails the WP:GNG. A review of the sources finds either trivial mentions or material that can only support a plot summary, and this type of article is WP:NOT within the scope of Wikipedia. Jontesta (talk) 23:50, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Jontesta (talk) 23:50, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest Redirect Deb (talk) 09:18, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of P. G. Wodehouse characters.4meter4 (talk) 16:33, 24 October 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. Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 10:04, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Jackson (character)[edit]

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

There isn't significant coverage in reliable third-party sources, and this fails the WP:GNG. A review of the sources finds either trivial mentions or material that can only support a plot summary, and this type of article is WP:NOT within the scope of Wikipedia. Jontesta (talk) 23:49, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Jontesta (talk) 23:49, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Discussed, for example, after a brief search with SIGCOV in:
- Who's who in Wodehouse (Link)
- Wodehouse at work to the end (Link)
- The world of P. G. Wodehouse (Link)
- I think it would be helpful to analyse the extensive Wodehouse secondary sources before nominating the articles on fictional characters by him for deletion. WatkynBassett (talk) 20:40, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes WP:SIGCOV per the sources produced by WatkynBassett.4meter4 (talk) 16:35, 24 October 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. Whether or not there's a procedural issue with scope, there is no case for deletion. If these are revisited I suggest a smaller batch within the same field and/or level. an MS in HR is very different to a BA in Phys Ed, for example. Star Mississippi 00:58, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bachelor of Physical Education[edit]

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

This article should be deleted as it is not notable. I see very little discussion about the 'Bachelor of Physical Education' degree either on the article itself or elsewhere. There are thousands of fields of study out there; that does not mean each of them should have a corresponding 'Bachelor of...' page. This is different from degrees that are specialised, professional, or otherwise notable in such a way that warrants significant discussion on them, such as the Master of Business Administration or Bachelor of Civil Law. The current article is simply a bachelor's degree in a specific subject, does not warrant separate discussion other than what may be discussed about the subject of the training of the subject, and should therefore be deleted. Dawkin Verbier (talk) 08:58, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I would also add that it would not be appropriate to discuss the training of physical education teachers under this article, as not all PE teachers actually receive this specific degree, and because the point of the article is on the degree in itself and not the training. It would be better to have a separate article like "Training of PE teachers" if that were the aim. I think this reasoning applies to the other nominated articles as well. Dawkin Verbier (talk) 09:19, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I don't think it would be appropriate to redirect this article (or any of the ones nominated) to another one. I don't think they should be redirected to the specific field they include. Redirecting Bachelor of Physical Education to physical education, or Master of Business Engineering to business engineering would make the redirect to a page that does not actually address or cover the specific material of content that the first page would encompass. Dawkin Verbier (talk) 09:23, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following articles for deletion because of the same reasoning, and it seems quite clear that it would be unreasonable to list all of these degrees when each one of them are of little notability apart from the fact that they exist and are related to the two notable concepts of an academic degree and a field of study:

Dawkin Verbier (talk) 09:08, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. This is quite a bundled nomination and requires signficant discussion. I don't think it should be closed based on 2 or 3 editor's opinion of the nomination.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:49, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment it is down to the nominator to give policy based arguments for delete. Given that 'Batchelor of Physical Education' has a body of scholarly work specifically studying it as a named thing^[1], I think it's a tough argument to make that it isn't notable. JMWt (talk) 08:23, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That publication appears to be from a publishing mill. Apart from a lack of WP:Notability, I think listing all of the possible degrees out there has to go against WP:DIRECTORY. Dawkin Verbier (talk) 10:10, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It may or may not be the case that the specific publication is not suitable for referencing within the article, but WP:NNC and I'm not trying to prove that is is notable. I'm just pointing out that you are not making any real argument that it isn't notable other than offering an opinion. JMWt (talk) 10:17, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure what you mean by this. Dawkin Verbier (talk) 02:32, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Mabini, Jay; Louise B. Reyes, Jumhejell; B. Aras, Geraldine; J. Homeres, Ramil (16 November 2021). "Challenges and Coping Strategies in Achieving Physically Active Habits: The Case of Bachelor of Physical Education Students". International Journal of Research Publications. 90 (1). doi:10.47119/IJRP1009011220212521. eISSN 2708-3578.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:27, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I found 3 articles about this degree 1) malekipour, Ahmad, Rezvan Hakimzadeh, Marzieh Dehghani, and Mohmad Reza Zali. 2018. “Analysis of Entrepreneurial Competency Training in the Curriculum of Bachelor of Physical Education in Universities in Iran.” Cogent Education 5 (1). 2) The Times of India 2012, ‘Bachelor of Physical Education teachers association meets CM’, 4 April, viewed 20 October 2022, 3) Legge, M 2015, ‘Planting seeds to honour the Treaty: “E Noho Marae” in the Bachelor of Physical Education at the University of Auckland 2015’, Physical Educator - Journal of Physical Education New Zealand, vol. 48, no. 2, pp. 17–18. I note that these are all Southern Hemisphere sources. I cannot agree to keep or delete all of the articles listed. I would suggest that they be analyzed and brought to AFD separately, and not all at once ;-). Lamona (talk) 00:59, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'd argue by WP:SUSTAINED that this coverage is not enough, and even if it was, it revolves around the training of PE teachers and not on a specific degree course. On the second point, I think it would fail WP:SIGCOV as the studies only analyse the bachelor's degree from an educational perspective, mentioning the actual Bachelor of Physical Education as representative of the degrees offerred by the universities of the countries. This is similar to how different countries have different names for engineering degrees (BEng, BA (Eng), BSc (Eng), BS etc.), but not all of these should have their separate articles even if they are mentioned in academic coverage. Dawkin Verbier (talk) 02:50, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural keep all and Keep Bachelor of Physical Education for passing WP:SIGCOV. Given that sources have been found for the Bachelor of Physical Education to pass GNG; we can't possibly go through every single one of these articles individually to do the same and build a community consensus on each one in one conversation. That's impractical for building community consensus; and frankly there is low participation here because it is too complex of a bundled nomination. As such, this should be a procedural close for all of the other articles and a keep for the Bachelor of Physical Education for passing SIGCOV.4meter4 (talk) 16:43, 24 October 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!} 22:49, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

James Havoc[edit]

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

Does not seem to meet WP:GNG or WP:BIO. There are currently three references in the article. The first is from a website whose stated mission is to "expose Creation Books’ (which Havoc founded) civil and criminal mistreatment of its authors." Not a great start... The second seems to be a more neutral source but it's unclear if Havoc is mentioned at all in the book. The third is Alan McGee's autobiography but the excerpt used clearly shows that Havoc is only mentioned in passing. Pichpich (talk) 22:49, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Pichpich (talk) 22:49, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:NAUTHOR. The only thing I could find that is independent significant coverage is this review. However, I am not sure if this publication should be considered a proper "magazine" or as a self-published source, because it's not clear what sort of editorial oversight is at work.4meter4 (talk) 17:04, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:46, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Anil Kumar Gupta (scientist)[edit]

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

article serves no other purpose other than to promote this guy. see WP:NOTPROMOTION ---FMSky (talk) 22:24, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and India. Shellwood (talk) 14:28, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I would think fellowship in the Indian Academy of Sciences is a big enough honor for C3? Haven't looked into that too much, but he's also probably a C1 pass (currently analyzing his and his coauthors' Scopus citation profiles). JoelleJay (talk) 01:02, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Scopus profiles of Gupta and all 141 of his coauthors with >15 papers:
Total citations: average: 3270, median: 1043, Gupta: 4899

Total papers: 77, 50, 169

h-index: 23, 18, 34

Top 5 papers: 1st: 467, 149, 872; 2nd: 237, 97, 294; 3rd: 184, 81, 250; 4th: 144, 69, 208; 5th: 120, 60, 154.

I would say he passes C1. JoelleJay (talk) 02:35, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Can you please elaborate about C3 and C1? Pgupta1997 (talk) 11:13, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Pgupta1997, I am referring to WP:NPROF criteria 1 and 3, which I believe the subject meets (therefore meriting a Wikipedia article). Also, per WP:COI, if you have any connection with the subject whatsoever you should not be editing the article directly and should instead leave suggestions on its talk page. JoelleJay (talk) 20:40, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@JoelleJay Thank you for your suggestions. Pgupta1997 (talk) 04:23, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Can you help us what other things we can add in this page so that it becomes more interactive? Pgupta1997 (talk) 11:12, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have rectified all the words which led to promotion ("Peacock" words). Please check it once again. Pgupta1997 (talk) 12:32, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep:As he is fellow of Indian National Science Academy and National Academy of Sciences, India. Contributor008 (talk) 12:55, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@JoelleJay then the suggestions made by different users in talk page should be edited to the main page by whom? Thank you Pgupta1997 (talk) 04:31, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seems to meet WP:NPROF through a combination of citations and fellowships (though I can't comment how prestigious they are). The article could be cleaned up a bit, but WP:DINC. -Kj cheetham (talk) 09:14, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:44, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pratik Gauri[edit]

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

Seems to do not meet WP:GNG. AmirŞah 22:05, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Businesspeople, India, and Delhi. AmirŞah 22:05, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8] and more sources exciting on Google, passes WP:SIGCOV and therefore WP:GNG. Nasin3030 (talk) 13:05, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I also found more reliable sources in Hindi including [9], [10], [11], [12], [13] focusing on him and his achievements that receiving award for his company as the founder. There is enough reliable sources in English & Hindi to demonstrate his notability per WP:GNG.황83보 (talk) 14:34, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes WP:GNG per sources provided above and existing sources in article. Moresdi (talk) 22:59, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:43, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Deputy collector[edit]

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

This may be a notable topic, but as the article stands it is just too poorly sourced and written (and has been for some time now). Best to delete this and start all over again. QueenofBithynia (talk) 21:54, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There is not enough significant coverage from reliable sources to pass WP:GNG. Pleases ping me if you found new RS. Nasin3030 (talk) 13:42, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:30, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: It is a second highest post in Indian Administrative Service so it is notable but it have to be delete and start again with best sources. It is very important post in a district you can see this https://northgoa.gov.in/whos-who/ https://ganjam.nic.in/about-district/whos-who/ https://ganjam.nic.in/about-district/whos-who/ Contributor008 (talk) 12:52, 19 October 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 Procedural close. Same reason as my closure at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Lucky Duck. Redirects must be discussed at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion (RfD), and not at AfD, MfD or any other venue. (non-admin closure) —CX Zoom[he/him] ^{(let's talk • {C•X})} 22:00, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Lucky Duck[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Draft:Lucky Duck

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

Abandoned draft redirect of already existing page. Darth-Wiki-Man (talk) 21:27, 17 October 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 October 17. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 21:45, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:38, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Timothy french[edit]

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

Appears to me to be a not notable bio failing GNG, BEFORE turns up little of substance and some similar named individuals. 3 of the refs in the article are interview type and the New York Times ref sends me to their home page (maybe reachable from US?) Josey Wales^Parley 21:43, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note I attempted to move article to Timothy French but that title is create protected Josey Wales^Parley 21:45, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists and United States of America. Josey Wales^Parley 21:46, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I started at topic at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#What is the correct way to tag this article for deletion? because I didn't know if there was way to have it speedy deleted when the correct title was create protected. I have a subscription to The New York Times and it only has three short paragraphs about him. The overall topic is the shoreline of Riis Beach and how it has been a "queer haven". SL93 (talk) 21:51, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note The previous articles at Timothy French were about an unrelated person, so that history should not prejudice this discussion here. DMacks (talk) 09:39, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG. The New York Times article does exist and it does include a four sentence profile of them including the Barbie art, but I do not think that brings them up to notable. As stated in the nomination, the other citations are for interviews. WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 16:18, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete doesn't meet WP:GNG, no significant coverage. - Yours Faithfully, GA Melbourne ( T | C ) 08:03, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the above. I can see some low-level trivial coverage of a few things, but nothing I see in my attempts to find sources raises to the standards of WP:GNG. --Jayron 32 15:42, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:NARTIST. WP:SALT as this was a work around a create protected page. 4meter4 (talk) 16:51, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:38, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Veerji Kohli[edit]

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

Assistant to a civil servant. Failing WP:GNG and WP:POLITICIAN Arthistorian1977 (talk) 21:41, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Pakistan. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:21, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep the subject is somewhat notable and references are fine but it is bare. Also he is special assistant to Chief Minister of Sindh not some civil servant as per article. So it can stay this time. Muneebll (talk) 14:34, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. "Special assistant to the chief minister" is not an inherently notable role per WP:NPOL — it's one where he would have to pass WP:GNG on the strength and volume and depth of his sourcing, but that hasn't been demonstrated here. Bearcat (talk) 21:37, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:NPOL and WP: SIGCOV.4meter4 (talk) 21:20, 24 October 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!} 22:37, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mutathura Mahadever Temple[edit]

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

Ancient unreferenced stub which I cannot verify: the only meaningful hit I got was this blog post which obviously doesn't cut it as a source. I suspect there is a transliteration problem here but I cannot resolve it myself. Mangoe (talk) 21:33, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture, Hinduism, and Tamil Nadu. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:22, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no independently verifiable information on significance. Kazamzam (talk) 13:53, 19 October 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. As this result is primarily due to low participation, there is no prejudice against speedy renomination. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 19:50, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Selling England by the Pound Tour[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Copy and paste spin off of Selling England by the Pound, previously deleted at a related AfD. G4 was declined, so here we are. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 21:44, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Events, and United Kingdom. Shellwood (talk) 07:50, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:51, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It's a major band and international tour so it should not be too hard to source to pass WP:NTOUR. Rolling Stone had a featured article/interview on this tour in September 2019, 43 years after it happened, which clearly shows WP:SUSTAINED coverage. Here are a few references which could be used to improve, verify, and expand the article. I would imagine there would be press reviewing the tour from 1973 and 1974 that could also be used to source the article See below.

Andy Greene (September 5, 2019). "Genesis Guitarist Steve Hackett Talks 'Selling England by the Pound' Tour". Rolling Stone.
Daryl Easlea (2018). Without Frontiers: The Life & Music of Peter Gabriel. Omnibus Press. ISBN 9781787590823. about 6 pages covers the tour; although it asserts the tour began in Manchester on October 6, 1973
Tracy McMullen (2019). Haunthenticity: Musical Replay and the Fear of the Real. Wesleyan University Press. p. 34. ISBN 9780819578549. sig cov of a tour band's recreation of the tour 20 years after it happened

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:37, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:17, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I apologize to the person who took the effort to create the detailed lists but I can't find a policy reason to keep a page of tour details (all of the dates, the playlist) when there aren't sources for that material. The only things I found about the tour were fan sites (i.e. https://music.fandom.com/wiki/Selling_England_by_the_Pound_Tour), presumably not good sources, or interviews (which can be good sources of some information but are not 3rd party sources)(e.g. https://www.rollingstone.com/music/music-features/genesis-steve-hackett-interview-selling-england-by-the-pound-tour-879695/). Lamona (talk) 01:16, 20 October 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 Conservation in Uganda. I think there is consensus here that the stand-alone article should not exist in its current form, and that the preferred remedy is a selective merge into Conservation in Uganda. I recommend continuing a discussion at Talk:Conservation in Uganda regarding exactly which content to include. Waggers TALK 09:46, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pro-Biodiversity Conservationist In Uganda (PROBICOU)[edit]

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

Sadly I'm not seeing enough independent coverage for WP:NORG, or even plain-old GNG. Current sourcing is clearly not independent. Couldn't find anything on JSTOR. The one source I could find is [14], which is borderline on depth of coverage of the company directly, but looks independent. Ovinus (talk) 22:03, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Uganda-related deletion discussions. Ovinus (talk) 22:03, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep with source [15] Still needs one more to satisfy WP:CLUB VTVL (talk) 22:45, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:59, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The source provided by VTVL relies entirely on interviews of organization's personnel. As noted in WP:NORG "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." I don't think the source qualifies, so delete (t · c) buidhe 23:21, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. If kept, this MUST be renamed Pro-Biodiversity Conservationists in Uganda. gidonb (talk) 14:47, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:ORG. Initially, I noted that if kept, the name should be changed. That said, looking for potential sources, the article does not meet the bar and should be deleted. gidonb (talk) 00:12, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:15, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/Redirect to Conservation in Uganda per WP:ATD. There is enough here to have a small subection in conservation in Uganda. The organization is cited as a source of information in academic literature on the subject, so it is reasonable to include content on the organization in that article. Fails WP:ORG/WP:SIGCOV per buidhe's analysis. Pinging Gidonb, VTVL, and buidhe to consider this merge proposal.4meter4 (talk) 15:37, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm skeptical that it would be due weight to mention this org in conservation in Uganda. (t · c) buidhe 18:49, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. I think it will do the exact opposite, which is bring some needed balance to the article which completely ignores any domestic conservation organizations working in Uganda, or even any relevant laws/legislation/actions by the Ugandan government . Right now the article only covers colonial era conservation efforts and international organizations working in Uganda, without looking at anything more recent or anything done by the Ugandan people themselves through either their government or non-profit NGOs like PROBICOU. The section in the book Access to Environmental Information in Uganda could also be used to source some content on other relevant organizations in addition to PROBICOU with an eye at bringing balance to the article.4meter4 (talk) 19:23, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: So far, support for Keep, Delete and Merge. If this article was merged, can there be a consensus on the merge target?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:15, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

4meter4, no objection to a selective merge (not including, for example, the info box!). Rather than as a new section, this could be included in the history section with just a few details. In case of a selective merge, please use the correct name in my initial comment. The current name is a mess. gidonb (talk) 23:59, 17 October 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:34, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Gholam Hossein Sarmadnia[edit]

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

The subject’s claim of notability is that his translation of the book “Physiological Aspects of Dryland Farming” won Iran's Book of the Year Awards in 1987. Is that enough? Mccapra (talk) 21:49, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Iran. Mccapra (talk) 21:49, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:51, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per criteria 4c of WP:NAUTHOR. According to sources cited in the wiki article on Iran's Book of the Year Awards, it is the most prestigious book award in the country of Iran. I would consider winning a significant national literary award meeting our criteria for authors.4meter4 (talk) 03:07, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:11, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors and Iran. TJMSmith (talk) 00:29, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:13, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep passes WP:NAUTHOR, per his received award at Iran's Book of the Year Awards in 1988. He was also an assistant professor at Isfahan University of Technology. Nasin3030 (talk) 13:53, 18 October 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 AFD nomination was probably doomed from the beginning as it was started by a sockpuppet and the low participation after 2 relistings has left this nomination again as No Consensus. Here's hoping though that no one starts up a 6th AFD any time soon. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:33, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Aras Corp[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

~~Poorly sourced advertisement. No sources to help with WP:NCORP. Not notable software company. Driodr (talk) 20:45, 3 October 2022 (UTC)~~UPE spammer strike. MER-C 19:14, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Software, and Massachusetts. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:57, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:05, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I don't know why we have had to go through this so many times. The company obviously fails WP:CORPDEPTH. There's a Boston Globe article about it that's fundamentally local interest (and so reliant on interviews I think it's dependent!), and not a ton else out there besides. This is a perma-stub; there's nothing to say about this company. It's just not notable. FalconK (talk) 02:43, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Passes WP:ORG per the sources provided in evidence in the other previous AFDs. Without an WP:ORGCRIT analysis table (see WP:SIRS) presented by the nominator of all the sources not just in the article currently, but presented as evidence in the previous AFDs, I am not seeing a valid reason to overturn prior consensus that the company passes WP:CORPDEPTH. There is a reason this company has passed four previous AFDs, and no new argument has been presented here that hasn't already been successfully refuted in the other discussions. In other words, do the work and say something new, or this discussion isn't likely to end up with a different conclusion. 4meter4 (talk) 16:04, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. The reason why there are so many AFDs for this article is that editors keep nominating it for deletion. Previous AFDs had Keep or No Consensus closure so so far there has been no consensus to Delete this article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:11, 17 October 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 Mariangelo Foggiato. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:16, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Liga dei Veneti[edit]

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

Tiny party that doesn't meet WP:Notability. The only information provided by the party page is that it was founded in 1999 by Foggiato and Serena. The rest concerns the abandonment of the party shortly after by Serena and the subsequent political career of Foggiato (not inherent with the party). At most it can be merged with the Mariangelo Foggiato's page. Scia Della Cometa (talk) 20:25, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Mariangelo Foggiato per nom.4meter4 (talk) 20:34, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Politics, and Italy. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:36, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep — Proposing the deletion of such an article is sign of Wikipedia:Recentism and, more broadly, lack of historical perspective. Though it might be difficult to find sources on the web, the party is clearly notable and is mentioned in several newspaper articles. Please note that the party was represented both in the Regional Council of Veneto and the Italian Parliament. I hope this article can be kept as it is and in that case I would expand it, but, if that is not possible, please merge it with Liga Veneta Repubblica, not Mariangelo Foggiato, at least. --Checco (talk) 06:00, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry Checco, your comment doesn't make sense: Wikipedia:Recentism applies to articles, not to deletion process. If the article suffers of recentism, then it is quite obvious to have it deleted... Pay attention that your reference to difficulties in finding sources and "mention in several newspaper" (very probably around the time when the party existed) makes me feel that the article actually suffers of recentism and fails the WP:10YEARTEST, so that you are actually providing a strong argument for deleting it... P1221 (talk) 10:05, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Liga Veneta. The article does not meet WP:GNG and is currently not properly sourced. Furthermore, it mainly covers the actions of the two party members of Liga dei Veneti while they were not members of this party. Yakme (talk) 09:43, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:28, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: @Checco If I have proposed the deletion of this page it is not sign of recentism or lack of historical perspective, but it is due to the fact that I have not found any sources on this party and therefore it has not left any mark on Italian or Venetian political history. However, in the event that the outcome of the AFD procedure is a "merger", I think that the most suitable target article for the merger is Mariangelo Foggiato (as this party can be considered part of his political life) and not the Liga Veneta Repubblica ~~Liga Veneta (of which it was one of the innumerable splits, hardly affecting its political history)~~.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 07:29, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Liga Veneta Repubblica, not Liga Veneta and not Mariangelo Foggiato. --Checco (talk) 16:50, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as there are three different Merge targets being suggested.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:08, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@4meter4, Checco, P1221, and Yakme: in case of non-deletion of the page, the merge target should be decided. I would prefer Mariangelo Foggiato, on the other hand, Liga Veneta, one of the suggested merge targets, does not actually have connections with this party.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 17:40, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that Mariangelo Foggiato is a suitable redirect, and that Liga Veneta is not a suitable redirect.4meter4 (talk) 21:08, 19 October 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!} 04:17, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Avi Berman[edit]

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

Little to no significant coverage findable...frequently confused with a rabbi of the same name. Only one source, no clear notability established, possible GNG fail. InvadingInvader (talk) 20:22, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Music, and Israel. InvadingInvader (talk) 20:22, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Concur with the nominator after an extensive search. As noted, Avi Berman is a common name. The rabbi is definitely notable. The psychologist and the restaurateur just maybe. The musician comes last of the four in coverage and currently fails the GNG. I could find one independent RS and very flattering review, archived at Wayback and linked from Hewiki.[16] If I have missed additional significant coverage, please ping me! gidonb (talk) 10:54, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I don't understand why you want to delete the article. If there are more important people under the name, you can change it to Avi Berman (musician). The video of his latest symphony can be found here [17]. אבנר (talk) 17:17, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi אבנר, we need more WP:SIGCOV in WP:RS in order to keep. Not videos of performances. In any case, there is no reason to move right now. gidonb (talk) 18:19, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Gidonb. There just isn't enough significant coverage from reliable sources to merit a GNG pass. Best, GPL93 (talk) 22:17, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Has anyone tried searching in Israeli media for Hebrew language sources? This bio, while not independent, does indicate some fairly significant achievements. If we could find some independent reviews documenting these performances it is possible the subject would meet our notability guidelines.4meter4 (talk) 16:42, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as there is active discussion going on now about potential new sources.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:05, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

4meter4, unfortunately found no more than passing mentions in Hebrew. The one article I did find was linked from Hewiki. It is a review. gidonb (talk) 13:58, 19 October 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!} 22:29, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

California Film Awards[edit]

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

Article about a regional film award, referenced entirely to primary sourcing that is not support for notability. The notability test for film awards hinges not on using their own self-published websites about themselves to verify that they exist, but rather on using WP:GNG-worthy reliable source coverage about them to verify that they attract independent attention from the media. But six of the eight footnotes here are its own website, one more is a video of the ceremony unfolding on YouTube, and one is a deadlink from the blog of a non-notable organization with a direct affiliation, absolutely none of which represent GNG-worthy coverage about the awards in third-party sources. (Also, this was created by Neelix, though you'd most likely have to be an oldtimer to understand why I'm mentioning that.) Bearcat (talk) 16:12, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and California. Bearcat (talk) 16:12, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Awards-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:44, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The article was improved by removing defunct links, youtube links and by adding outside references. The festival has gained enough attention/coverage of local and international media (including India, Australia, Azerbaijan, Ireland and Indonesia) to prove that it is a notable event, and its awards are mentioned as notable film awards in their articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 175.157.107.131 (talk) 06:43, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:09, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:55, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:SIGCOV, WP:NEVENT, and WP:ORG. No significant coverage in independent reliable sources. Even after weeding of materials, what is left are non-independent primary sources or press releases or interviews, or passing mentions of which do not address the subject directly and detail. Additionally it is not clear that the awards have been held in the last four years. Appears like it may now be defunct.4meter4 (talk) 21:28, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 21:04, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sam Field[edit]

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

Unsure if this is notable enough for this baseballer to have an article based on the date of career and the absense of sources. The content is also just one sentence and two external links. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 20:21, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. Spanneraol (talk) 21:01, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Field is covered in some detail by both David Nemec in The Rank and File and by Paul Batesel in Players and Teams of the NA, and mentioned in this book about Pud Galvin. Based on these sources, I believe he meets NBASIC, and in any case I don't think deleting this article would improve Wikipedia. Hatman31 (talk) 01:28, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. He played pro ball for 15 years, much of his career occurring before the formation of MLB. The sources describe him as "one of the best catchers of his time" and "one of the leading baseball players" of his section of the country. Moreover, the books referenced above (and now cited in the article) represent SIGCOV and demonstrate his enduring relevance. Cbl62 (talk) 02:57, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per recently added sources. Spanneraol (talk) 03:11, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:HEY. Hog Farm _Talk 13:10, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I do believe this article should now be kept after the recent edits made with sources added and 100% consensus of keeping per above. Thanks to those who edited the article since the nomination. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 20:22, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, per all above. Ejgreen77 (talk) 06:14, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per GNG. Rlendog (talk) 18:07, 19 October 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. Due to the low participation here, the lack of a strong deletion rationale and a solitary vote of "Weak Keep", I think it is most appropriate to close this discussion with a decision of "No Consensus". Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:25, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ascent South End[edit]

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

I am not sure it has enough notability to grant an article Arthistorian1977 (talk) 16:08, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture and North Carolina. Shellwood (talk) 17:11, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure why this article might lack notability. I have referenced numerous national journals (Cision PR Newswire, MultifamilyBiz, Rebusiness Online), along local sources (Charlotte Business Journal, Charlotte Observer, Axios Charlotte), and I have also reference the architect's page on the building. What is missing to provide proof of notability? City Dweller 2 (talk) 17:44, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Arthistorian1977, could I get a reply to my recent message requesting what I need to do establish notability? Please look at the current article, I have greatly expanded it in the last couple of days. City Dweller 2 (talk) 14:33, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:14, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

PR Newswire is not a newspaper, it is a distributor of press releases and per WP:PRSOURCE what you get from it does not count towards notability. The Multifamilybiz piece is sourced directly to White Point Partners and Greystar, so it is another press release. The Rebusiness article appears to be churnalism. The local sources seem to be the best so far. -Indy beetle (talk) 20:41, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
After looking at the sources you mentioned with a more critical eye I understand what you are saying. There are a couple of points I would like to discuss 1) Could background on the current boom in the area of South End Charlotte (where the building is located) establish notability? 2) I have noticed there are a lot of Wikipedia articles with very few sources, or no sources, or no sources to establish notability. Is there another aspect to notability these articles could have such as location or the tenants of the building? However, it could be that these articles have not yet been challenged or considered for deletion. City Dweller 2 (talk) 15:20, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- - Our guideline for building notability is at WP:NBUILD, but it essentially defers to the WP:GNG. Practically speaking, what that means is that for notability to be established for this building project, you would want preferably at least three news articles that are about this building/construction project in a meaningful way (a simple news notice like "Traffic will be closed today on X Street due to construction on Ascent South End" would not suffice). Information on the background of real estate development in the area may be nice to include, but coverage of development trends in Charlotte generally will not help establish the notability of this building. -Indy beetle (talk) 15:40, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - Per coverage in the Charlotte Business Journal, The Charlotte Observer, and Axios Charlotte, I think this scrapes by GNG, though more non-local coverage, if possible, would be nice to include. -Indy beetle (talk) 15:40, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Can I remove the deletion consideration template at the top of the page? City Dweller 2 (talk) 19:11, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- No, this discussion is not yet closed. See WP:CLOSEAFD for details. A neutral uninvolved AfD closer, typically an admin, will evaluate this discussion after they think there has been adequate participation or enough time has passed, and then decide what the fate of the article is as per what the people who have discussed it here have said. Do not alter the deletion templates, that will be done once the discussion has finished. -Indy beetle (talk) 21:19, 20 October 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!} 04:20, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Grace Church Nottingham[edit]

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

I can find no evidence of WP:ORG level coverage for this twenty year old church. It exists, and does good work, but may not be notable. Star Mississippi 15:33, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Religion, Christianity, and England. Star Mississippi 15:33, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:12, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

delete no claim to notability, and a heavily promotional tone. Mangoe (talk) 21:37, 17 October 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!} 04:22, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bhav Dhillon[edit]

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

Copy and paste move from Draft:Bhav Dhillon in order to subvert the AfC process. Have already advised editor on IRC to return to the draft and submit correctly. - Rich^T|C|E-Mail 12:40, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Businesspeople, and New Zealand. - Rich^T|C|E-Mail 12:40, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It isn't required to use AFC unless there is a conflict of interest, or the user is an IP user for which that's the only option; a user is free to disregard a review and the advice of reviewers. The user hasn't declared a COI if they have one- though I think it's certainly possible. I have posted a possible paid editing notice on their user talk. 331dot (talk) 12:44, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User has now mentioned a COI. 331dot (talk) 08:19, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've already requested a history merge of the draft to the pasted copy in mainspace. Once the history is merged, I'd have no objection to moving it back to draft, but I suspect we'll be doing a rinse-repeat of history merges if we try that. Article creator is apparently not a native English speaker. Storchy (talk) 12:54, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

History merge request was just declined [18]. I've done some cleanup to the main space version, and gently undone new editor's attempts to revert back to its promotional former state. Subject might meet WP:BIO, with some coverage in national newspaper and radio. indianweekender.co.nz references turn out to be primary source though, as Dhillon is the publisher. I'll tag those now. Storchy (talk) 14:10, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Rich Smith,

I have removed the draft article and this is the only article page remaining now. I will be making the required changes in this article, therefore I request you to please take this article out of deletion process.

Please help me understand what else needs to be done to get the review templates removed from this article.

The Bhav Dhillon article must not be considered an orphan page as I have added the links to other Wikipedia pages as required. So can I remove that tag. Thanks. IndivarWiki (talk) 05:11, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Looks like a promotional article by a SPA. While not a basis for a deletion vote, I am very suspicious of any editor who fails to defend a suggestion of COI or possibly paid promotion. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 05:10, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

a new second SPA, User:Garry nz, is now also laying on the praise with a trowel, citing with press releases posted on Scoop.co.nz. A lot of cleanup will be needed. Storchy (talk) 05:32, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:07, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Promotional. Blatant COI. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 01:34, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've just done another cleanup. He does seem to pass WP:GNG and WP:BIO. Storchy (talk) 06:03, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete despite the heroic refbombing, the sources cited are a mix of passing mentions, appointment and award notices, churnalism and non-RS sources; the only one IMO that looks like it might meets the GNG standard is the Indian Weekender piece, but I'm not sure how independent and reliable it is; in any case, it alone isn't enough to establish notability. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:10, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Indian Weekender is owned by Dhillon, so I've replaced that reference. Seems I missed one in the mass removal above. Storchy (talk) 07:24, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks @Storchy; I had a funny feeling that might well be the case, but on a quick glance couldn't find the evidence. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:55, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete, I think DoubleGrazing is right about the sources. There is the Radio New Zealand reference, [19] but I'm not really seeing the SIGCOV in multiple sources needed for WP:BIO. Storchy (talk) 08:20, 20 October 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 Jerusalem Municipality. This closure is moot after an editor already brought over content from this article to Jerusalem Municipality during the AFD discussion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:09, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Emblem of Jerusalem[edit]

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

There are little to no sources standing up either the basic subject here or the specific phraseology of "emblem of Jerusalem", which appears in a range of scholarly sources to describe other things, but not this winning graphic from a design competition. Of the two sources provided, one is dead and one has no page number or extract. Notability is not clearly established for this graphic as a subject in its own right. Iskandar323 (talk) 06:41, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Israel and Palestine. Iskandar323 (talk) 06:41, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Into Flag of Jerusalem. I don't think this deserves a standalone article as per WP:NOTINHERITED. GoldMiner24 ^Talk 08:28, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@GoldMiner24: NB: The emblem seems to have preceded the flag as a design (no confirming sources on the flag article either). The main problem here is that we simply have no sources with which to establish encyclopedic notability or clarify basic details about either putative subject in question. Iskandar323 (talk) 07:18, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If merging into the flag doesn't make sense, I do believe that the emblem on its own fails WP:GNG. Deleting also makes sense to me. GoldMiner24 ^Talk 17:59, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to the flag of Jersualem seems like a good alternative to me too. Fad Ariff (talk) 13:05, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Problem is, there doesn't seem to be any page for the flag of Jerusalem. Also if you look at the Wiki Page for Jerusalem, there is no emblem or flag displayed as there usually are for most others. PearBullet (talk) 17:55, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ ~~Keep~~ Merge to Jerusalem Municipality. I have fixed the dead link with an archive link and supplied another link from Eliyahu Koren page but the problem is neither of these links speak about any design competition, they simply say that the "seal" (is this something else altogether?) was designed by him. Therefore both sentences about the design contest and presentation by him are effectively unsourced (unless it says something in the People of the Book source that I have no access to).17:56, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

EDIT: I have obtained the People of the Book + translation https://yaronimus.files.wordpress.com/2014/01/israel_biliophiles_no6.pdf Hard to read will comment later.Selfstudier (talk) 18:10, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

EDIT OK, I have written up what that source says on the article talk page, it doesn't match the article text but taken together with the other two sources, it seems reasonable to suppose that the municipality symbol is Koren's (having won a competition arranged by himself :) so I change my vote to keep.Selfstudier (talk) 18:46, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

EDIT Sigh. Reflecting again, I don't think this is really worth an article, so change !vote once more to Merge. Selfstudier (talk) 11:10, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Flag_of_Jerusalem#Flag_of_Jerusalem

Keep. Very similar to the emblem entry. Impulsive people, who lack any stress and live in a world where only education, or indoctrination, matters -- rather than reality or state of public opinion in countries that read English Wikipedia -- think they can change reality by re-writing history and deleting pages. Won't help IMO. Truth usually wins.Archway (talk) 16:32, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand this response. First, this is the emblem entry. Second, are only editors who are stressed, uneducated, not impulsive and not indoctrinated able to !vote?? Third, what has reality to do with this? I agree that WP:TRUTH matters. As does notability. Selfstudier (talk) 21:34, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:N, and that doesnt mean it cant be covered elsewhere, but doesnt need an article. nableezy - 16:52, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Exists in like fourteen different Wikipedias. Hanging all over the city of Jerusalem. Lots of sources in Hebrew available. ---Lilach5 (לילך5) discuss 20:34, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
What's the best sources you have for this in Hebrew? There are just three weak sources in the Hebrew Wikipedia version. Iskandar323 (talk) 05:11, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Just a note to those advocating a Merge to Flag of Jerusalem, that article is also up for AFD discussion so is not a promising Merge target if it gets deleted.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:34, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Regular city emblem with plenty of sources. No case for deletion was made. gidonb (talk) 13:38, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Gidonb: Where are you counting this "plenty of sources"? What's the best example of a source with non-trivial coverage? Iskandar323 (talk) 14:53, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sources are listed on Hewiki. This article should never have been nominated. gidonb (talk) 15:05, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sources on some other wiki are no use, bring here + translation the sources you wish to be considered. When this was nominated there were literally no source and no-one looking for any till I looked myself, so the nomination was fine. There is still a notability problem. Selfstudier (talk) 15:11, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's not how nominations should work. gidonb (talk) 01:24, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - nothing significant about it. Fails both WP:N and WP:GNG. Haueirlan (talk) 14:59, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nableezy. starship .paint (exalt) 02:43, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, Haaretz has coverage as does this 28 page booklet by historians Olive branches, stones and a rampant lion : the design process of Jerusalem's municipal emblem.. PrisonerB (talk) 11:03, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Lo and Behold, Visual Aspects of Zionist Myths in Israeli Culture, a book by Dr. Alec Mishory, also has a chapter, pages 223 to 239. PrisonerB (talk) 11:17, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The second one is just an exhibition catalogue. The first one directly contradicts the three sources we have in the article that give credit to Eliyahu Koren and instead gives credit to a group of which he was a member and in particular to another member of that group. So which source is right, the People of the Book (+2 books) or Haaretz? I don't think this confusion really helps the keep case tbh. I have no access to the third one and it's in Hebrew, what does it say? Selfstudier (talk) 11:21, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Olive branches, stones and a rampant lion : the design process of Jerusalem's municipal emblem. is a 20 page catalog of an exhibit, curated by historians, dedicated to the symbol. The Lo and Behold, Visual Aspects of Zionist Myths in Israeli Culture book has a whole chapter on the symbol. That there is a possible disagreement over authorship between members of the submitting group is not a factor detracting from the significance of the symbol. These are three significant sources. PrisonerB (talk) 11:29, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If there is a dispute over authorship how do we know which source is significant? If you replace three current sources with three new ones we are no further ahead, we just give credit to someone else. And these new sources also need to be properly cited in the article with any necessary translations. Anyone looking at the title of the third source might easily conclude the emblem is a "Zionist Myth in Israeli Culture"?? Selfstudier (talk) 11:35, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have access to either of those sources and do they say who designed it? So far the story seems to be Koren designed it in a competition that he set the rules for, and then when everyone else failed to follow those rules, his design won by default. Is that still the jist in the above? Iskandar323 (talk) 11:41, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
A catchy title is not an indication of content. If you feel like translating the source, go ahead. The nomination was clearly flawed, as I located these sources by looking at other Wikipedia pages and some searching in less than two minutes. PrisonerB (talk) 11:47, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Haaretz piece speaks more to an article on Ali Gross - for the emblem itself it's a trivial mention and a confusing one. Iskandar323 (talk) 11:31, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The Haaretz piece has several paragraphs on the symbol, leading off with it and covering it later too. Nothing confusing in it. PrisonerB (talk) 11:36, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I mention the confusion over the designer: here possibly Koren, or a whole bunch of designers, or maybe Ali Gross. Iskandar323 (talk) 11:42, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Haaretz points out this was a group design, but says that Gross' private archives suggest she was the main designer. I don't see a confusion. PrisonerB (talk) 11:47, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This is a waste of time, no evidence provided. Providing a source that one has not read is not providing a source at all. And if one has read it then it should not be a problem to provide a translation or to properly cite it in the article. Selfstudier (talk) 12:02, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Book, author, page numbers, section, and chapter. Full citation in this discussion. If you can't bring yourself to check it out from the library, the this review of the book on page 137 verifies that it contains a chapter in section three on the symbol of Jerusalem. PrisonerB (talk) 12:23, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This is AfD is already open for a while but all this while no case has been made for either deletion or for merge.

The case for deletion does not address the existence of sufficient sources for WP:GNG, and a lot more prose in the high-quality Hewiki. There is much more to write on this subject and there are sufficient WP:SIGCOV sources to back this up. The delete case is based on WP:IDONTLIKEIT and WP:JUSTAVOTE and does not deal with the evidence.

The case for merging is also extremely weak. It is not evidence-based either. The suggestion of one such opinion is to merge the article into the flag of Jerusalem but the amount that can be written about the flag is finite as it is the emblem with two blue banners, taken from the flag. If something must be merged, it would make sense to do this the other way around: from the flag to the emblem. Thoese !votes too seem to be based in WP:IDONTLIKEIT. gidonb (talk) 03:03, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting another week, too many different options are still being considered to draw this to a close yet.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:59, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If one looks at the article for the Jerusalem Municipality the modern material (post creation of Israel) is completely unsourced and the article almost a deletion candidate itself as it stands. This "emblem" is something that could easily be mentioned there as a start on improving it. If the "parent" article is virtually not notable, then why should this subsidiary icon of it be notable? The supporters here are making no effort to improve the article, alleging that there are (contradictory) Hebrew sources that they are unable to quote and now accusing deleters of "Idontlikeit" because there are no good arguments for keeping it. Selfstudier (talk) 09:27, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not even sure where this page's current title came from, as it is unsupported by the sources present - both of which call it "the seal of the city of Jerusalem" - a title incidentally closer to the Hebrew title. The phrase "emblem of Jerusalem" appears in scholarship, but usually as a metaphor for things. Iskandar323 (talk) 09:51, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Then why not ask a question on the talk page? You AfD tons of articles, where ample sources exist, totally baseless nominations, and this takes away precious time that editors could have spent in the article space to tons of discussions where the outcome is known from the get-go. A huge waste for our community project! gidonb (talk) 13:07, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

More evidence free assertions. Why not spend time yourself in "in the article space" instead of criticizing other editors here. Selfstudier (talk) 13:53, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oh for the love of anything you hold holy stop babbling and if you have sources provide them. Not make some bogus claim that they obviously must exist. nableezy - 13:55, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sources were provided above. Nobody even has the beginning of an answer to them. This is a classic uninformed WP:IDONTLIKEIT nomination (and support), which the nominator spouts at high speed. gidonb (talk) 14:01, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The answer is that in the opinion of others they are not sufficient to support a standalone article. Kindly stop commenting on any editor or their motivations as it is both a violation of WP:NPA and a non-sequitur in a deletion nomination. If you refuse to do so Ill be asking that you be made to do so, by either block or topic ban. nableezy - 14:04, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You can try to make people shut up but it doesn't take the problem away! Nor does it remove the existence of sufficient sources by WP:NEXIST. gidonb (talk) 14:07, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You are free to make that argument without the personal attacks. You are not free to make it with them. Im done responding here tho, toodles, nableezy - 14:11, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it seems that deletion has been proposed to remove unpalatable facts rather than build an encyclopedia. W C M_email 14:15, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Jerusalem Municipality. Fails WP:SIGCOV. The sourcing provided here is all very thin, and the language doesn't necessarily match the title of this article with some sources using symbol of Jerusalem, seal of Jerusalem, flag, etc. Ultimately, there is not enough here to pass GNG. Further, there is no reason we can not include this same information in the article on the municipality, so the encyclopedia will not be losing this information by housing it in a different place. Note to closer. Please consider the strength of the arguments in your close, instead of going off a vote count. Many of the keep votes have used emotional arguments or even personal attacks or have made claims without evidence rather than making a policy evidence based argument. Best.4meter4 (talk) 03:36, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
A merge into Jerusalem Municipality would improve that page and be an ok home for this thinly sourced material (as an option). Iskandar323 (talk) 04:59, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - there are no sources which describes it as a graphic. The emblem with some prose can be manually moved and used to illustrate article Jerusalem Municipality per municipality official page, so no redirect should be left behind.--౪ Santa ౪^99° 07:19, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment (NB:) For the sake of simplicity, I've copied the material over to Jerusalem Municipality. I agree with the above that a redirect would not be particularly beneficial given that none of the given sources seem to actually use "emblem of Jerusalem" (which has various other scholarly uses) to describe the seal. Iskandar323 (talk) 07:56, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Might be needed for attribution history at this point, and dont think a redirect really matters either. nableezy - 16:30, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. Iskandar323 (talk) 17:33, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. Just a note to participants that the relevant content has already been merged to Jerusalem Municipality.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:07, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Eliyahu Koren or Jerusalem Municipality as an section. Since this fails WP:N but citations seems to be verifiable it is better to merge into another article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pranesh Ravikumar (talk • contribs) 16:20, October 18, 2022 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Draftify. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:06, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yasmín Ramírez[edit]

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

Yasmín Ramírez

This biography of a living person fails verifiability because it has no independent references, and has no footnotes. The reference list is only a bibliography. There is also a draft that is almost identical to the article and has been declined as not satisfying author notability. If there were no draft, this article could be moved to draft space for the addition of proper references and for review as to notability. Since there already is a draft, this article should be deleted, and the draft can be left for improvement. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:07, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Fictional elements, Mexico, and Texas. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:07, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Footnotes are recommended but not required and editors are not required to use the draft process. Author of a notable book: we could rename this page after the book, but it's better as is, in my opinion. pburka (talk) 02:59, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: here [20], the author admits to having done WP:PAID or WP:COI (at least) editing. Since it cannot be draftified, this is the best option so the draft can incubate. Asparagusus (interaction) 03:03, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Kirkus is certainly independent, but that's but one of the listed sources. I'm at a loss as to why this was DELSORT'ed to fictional elements; I suggest it be removed from Fictional Elements and added to Literature. Jclemens (talk) 03:05, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - she has several mentions in independent sources in Spanish as well as in English languages including a mention in the NY Times[21]. Haueirlan (talk) 15:18, 3 October 2022 (UTC) Delete based on the new findings. I confused her with the Art-historian of same name[22].Haueirlan (talk) 16:01, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:49, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Being an author of one book that is notable per WP:NBOOK is not enough to support an article per WP:AUTHOR, which says the one book should also be a significant or well-known work, and there currently appears to be no support for this part of the guideline. Multiple reviews help make the book notable, but more is needed to make the author notable. Also, the 2017 NYT passing mention noted above does not appear to be referring to writer and associate professor Yasmín Ramírez. I am not !voting yet because I have not completed research for additional sources. Beccaynr (talk) 01:05, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you are correct. She is a different person[23]. Haueirlan (talk) 15:58, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ Draftify as WP:TOOSOON. I searched online, at GNews, and at the Wikipedia Library, and have been updating the article as I go. I am not sure there is currently enough to support notability for her debut book, and have not found sufficient support for author or other notability guideline. Art historian and curator Yasmin Ramírez may be notable, based on sources I found. Beccaynr (talk) 02:32, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:47, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Since the author blanked the content of their draft (except AFC notices), the draft has been deleted and this article could be Draftified if the participants choose this option.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:00, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete TOOSOON. The Kirkus review is the only one I see that's not from a book seller's site. She'll likely get more reviews, but not quite there yet for GNG. Oaktree b (talk) 20:27, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. If draftified, I'll try to adapt it into a page about her book using sources such as Kirkus, Hip Latina, and KTSM. I think those are sufficient for WP:NBOOK. pburka (talk) 20:29, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have changed my !vote above per pburka. Beccaynr (talk) 20:35, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify as too soon. There is WP:POTENTIAL here and it's worth preserving in some state, but isn't appropriate for Wikipedia mainspace at this time. Shooterwalker (talk) 02:40, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural note: The page author has moved this to Draft:Yasmín Ramírez. Victor Schmidt (talk) 06:58, 22 October 2022 (UTC) has been reversed by an admin Victor Schmidt (talk) 07:09, 22 October 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 Jim Jones#Early life. Consensus here, after 2 relists, is that the content of this article should be merged into the primary article on Jim Jones. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:05, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Early life of Jim Jones[edit]

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

Should be deleted or merged into the main Jim Jones article Gtag10 (talk) 01:27, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge back I don't think this split was needed. Reywas92^Talk 02:18, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge: I think that, while long, it does not deserve its own article. Asparagusus (interaction) 02:35, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Don't merge The content was split out at my suggestion in order to reduce the length of the main article and use summary style per FA requirements. There is still no space for most of the content in the main article (which is still probably too long to pass FAC). If this article should be deleted, it's because the details are excessive to the point of being unencyclopedic/intricate detail. I have no opinion whether this is the case. (t · c) buidhe 08:34, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Prefer to Keep If not, I prefer to delete and not merge. The main article is already well above size limit recommended by WP:Length. Early life sub articles are common on biographies of prominent figures, eg Early life and career of Abraham Lincoln, Early life and career of Thomas Jefferson, Early life of Marcus Aurelius, Early life of Isaac Newton, Early life of Samuel Johnson, Early life of William Wordsworth, Early life of John Milton, etc, etc, etc. This is common practice for splitting lengthy biographies into sub articles. —Charles Edward ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 12:17, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That's the ultimate OSE to say that because other more famous people have subarticles (which are long than this one) that this one should have a subarticle. No one denies the concept of subarticles, but the main article is just 61kb and this one remains quite duplicative of what remains in the main article as well. Reywas92^Talk 00:29, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- I am ok with deleting this if that is consensus. But main article is over 10,000 words in the body, which is over the recommended length per WP:Length. I do not think we should merge the content back in. I do think the content is useful though, and would prefer to see it kept. Jim Jones is not a minor historical figure. There are more documentaries and books on his life than most of the aforementioned (Lincoln and Jefferson excluded) Jim Jones is one of the most wrote about figures in American history, and his early life is critical to the formation of his ideology. So it is a noteworthy topic, IMO. Cheers! —Charles Edward ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 14:47, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  
  Also - just want to point out. The Early Life section of the main article is the only section of the main article which will no longer have a sub-article when this is merged back in. The main article presently has five sub article. I also point out that merging this back in would go against the recommendation of peer review, the FAC review, and the GA review of this article. —Charles Edward ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 16:06, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Religion, and Indiana. Skynxnex (talk) 13:37, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge all (and only) pertinent information into main article. Trillfendi (talk) 16:17, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Jim Jones#Early life, in agreement with the nominator and others that a separate article is excessive. A. Randomdude0000 (talk) 22:39, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:46, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:57, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 21:04, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Mattei[edit]

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

This page, including the photo, was created and developed by the subject of the article as part of his political campaign. Subject was not elected to office and sources are not enough to support notability. Nweil (talk) 19:49, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Law, and Connecticut. AllyD (talk) 19:57, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Obvious WP:COI issues aside, the subject fails WP:NPOL and WP:GNG. Sal2100 (talk) 23:30, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As always, people do not get Wikipedia articles just for standing as election candidates — the notability test for politicians is holding a notable office, not just running for one, while a candidate must either (a) show that he was already notable enough for a Wikipedia article for other reasons anyway, or (b) display credible evidence that his candidacy should be treated as a special case of significantly greater notability than most other people's candidacies. But this isn't really demonstrating either of those things. Bearcat (talk) 21:50, 21 October 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!} 22:01, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sandip Sharma[edit]

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

Might become notable at some point but currently fails the WP:BIO and WP:GNG tests. His career as a film director consists of a single short film (also up for deletion, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Unintentional (2022)). Pichpich (talk) 19:09, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and India. Pichpich (talk) 19:09, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete film director of a single film, not notable at the moment. Moresdi (talk) 10:23, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The one "keep" makes no real argument in terms of Wikipedia guidelines or policies. Sandstein 19:15, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mollie McGoran[edit]

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

AFD because PROD is contested. In my opinion, being elected as the member of SYP does not constitute notability per WP:NPOL. While SYP is somewhat on a national level, it is vastly different from Scottish Parliament. ✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 19:03, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Women, Politics, Environment, and Scotland. Skynxnex (talk) 19:46, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable. Does not meet WP:N. Even with an attempt at references, I think this is essentially Wikipedia:SPIP. At most, she is currently a sentence in the Scottish Youth Parliament article. Coldupnorth (talk) 08:41, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note Retain have amended citations to avoid linkrot. Notability for youth activists is hard to evidence, perhaps, but she is as active as other (adult male) elected representatives in first term of office, who are considered suitable for Wikipedia articles, and despite the comment on SYP versus Scottish Parliament, above, the impact e.g. on youth free public travel card is national (Scotland) and maybe now influence policy development elsewhere in the UK.Kaybeesquared (talk) 13:46, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Wikipedia:NPOL states that "Just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability, although such people can still be notable if they meet the general notability guideline." The general notability guideline is not met. A comparison to other adult male elected representatives generally is not sufficient for notability. If we look at the article for Scottish Youth Parliament, there are only two links to articles on ANY of their representatives. One is this one and the other is also female. I hope that this young woman goes on to become notable, but at the moment that notability is not established. It's the Scottish Youth Parliament... This would be like trying to establish articles for every member of the UK Youth Parliament or the comparable Youth Delegates to the General Assembly of the United Nations, the notability is not there. Coldupnorth (talk) 14:31, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A youth parliament is not an WP:NPOL-passing office. The difference between Mollie McGoran and an MSP isn't that they're men and she's a woman, particularly given that it's not even remotely true that all MSPs at Holyrood are men (see e.g. Nicola Sturgeon, Katy Clark, Angela Constance, Màiri McAllan) — it's that they serve in the primary national law-making body of Scotland while McGoran doesn't. Furthermore, notability is not established by primary sources, which is what the footnotes here are: you do not establish a person as notable enough for a Wikipedia article by sourcing it to government reports and the self-published websites of organizations she's directly affiliated with; you establish a person as notable enough for a Wikipedia article by sourcing it to journalism in the media. Bearcat (talk) 21:31, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 19:13, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

John Tottenham, 9th Marquess of Ely[edit]

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

Zero coverage, fails WP:BIO. British nobles aren't inherently notable, and BEFORE didn't turn up any mention of the John Tottenham who succeeded his father in 2006 in reliable sources. Debrett's as the only source is problematic, since it only namechecks the subject's ancestry. The subject also never sat in the House of Lords, so they cannot qualify for WP:NPOL either. Possible redirect target: Marquess of Ely. Pilaz (talk) 02:05, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Royalty and nobility and United Kingdom. Pilaz (talk) 02:05, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previous AFD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Charles John Tottenham, 9th Marquess of Ely.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 04:07, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 04:51, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: One more relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ♠PMC♠ (talk) 18:03, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

On balance I'd have to say Delete. The time has long passed when people of this background living in other Anglophone countries would get automatic coverage as of right in their adopted country's media. RobinCarmody (talk) 21:55, 18 October 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. Tending towards keep. Content improvements can continue to be discussed on the article talk page. Sandstein 19:13, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Re-latinization of Romanian[edit]

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

As per other conversation on this talk page. The article has nothing to do with proper studies that define it in nature and time, the phrase being more of a passing mention in regards to modernizing of the Romanian lexis with French loanwords. The conversation shows reasonable doubts about the article meeting WP:COPO and numerous other flaws are being discussed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aristeus01 (talk • contribs) 18:17, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As multiple conversations on the article's Talk page indicate, the article's subject meets our general notability guidline because it received significant coverage in reliable sources. Borsoka (talk) 05:14, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

~~You might want to change your vote to Keep for consistency. RF354 (talk) 10:58, 18 October 2022 (UTC)~~[reply]

Keep Around two dozen scientific sources confirm the article, basically every single sentence is supported by reliable sources. RF354 (talk) 10:58, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language and Romania. Shellwood (talk) 14:33, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It quotes almost everything except the essential part where it defines the term, classifies it, and describes its characteristics, making the article an example of affirming the consequent. Aristeus01 (talk) 21:10, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The re-latinization of Romanian (also known as re-romanization) was the strengthening of the Romance features of the Romanian language during the 18th and 19th centuries. In this period, Romanian adopted a Latin-based alphabet to replace the Cyrillic script and borrowed many words from French as well as from Latin and Italian, in order to acquire the lexical tools necessary for modernization.

This is the scope of the article, a summary in the lead. Then the article explains the background, the history, the recent trends etc. I don't understand your problem. RF354 (talk) 06:48, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That would be synthesis "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any source." Aristeus01 (talk) 08:52, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There are three references in the lead. Isn't that enough?

If you want to rephrase the lead, we are open to suggestions, but that doesn't mean we should delete such a well-written and well-referenced article. RF354 (talk) 08:58, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The references in the lead say "that the use of this term is inappropriate", "it conflates the larger process", and "the term's lack of precision is susceptible to lead to confusion", and they cannot be used to reinforce the synthesis.

I would like to participate but there's no source we can cite in favor of the article. Everything I have on the topic either refutes the concept, and/or speaks of the term(s) in the context of a debate and with quotation marks, or refers strictly to the Transylvanian School (limited) influence, not the modernizing of the lexis with French loanwords. Aristeus01 (talk) 09:52, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
How about Romania: Borderland of Europe by Lucian Boia, published in 2001 by Reaktion Books, page 84? (Just after a quick search.) It seems to reinforce the current lead almost word for word. RF354 (talk) 10:03, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Romania: Borderland of Europe by Lucian Boia uses quotation marks : Romanian today is not quite the same as the Romanian of the eighteen century, since it has undergone a process of "reLatinization" in the meantime.

Same meaning for example in Britannica: That circumstance had important consequences for the language, triggering the so-called re-Romanization of Romanian.

By definition quotation marks in this position are used to indicate that a word or phrase is regarded as slang or jargon or is being discussed rather than used within the sentence.

The only other salvation I can think of would be a neutral title for the article like Modernization of Romanian language (or lexis ), or Influences of Latin and Romance languages on Romanian. That would have to change the lead to something like "in this context the phrase re-Latinization has been used to discuss the strengthening of the Romance features of the Romanian language during the 18th and 19th centuries". What do you think? Aristeus01 (talk) 11:00, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that the quotation marks indicate "slang" or "jargon", we also use quotation marks for very specific scientific terms.

I think as only Latin and Neo-Latin languages are involved, the current title is perfect, but this thread is not about moving the article to a new title. RF354 (talk) 11:15, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
the symbols “ ” or ‘ ’ are put around a word or phrase to show that someone else has written or said it - Cambridge Dictionary

Exactly, this isn't about moving the title, it's about the article as a whole. That's why I didn't propose the solution in the first place. So, even without being able to provide a definition of the title/topic to sustain the article and not the article to support the title/definition as it is now you still consider it perfect. What else can I say? Aristeus01 (talk) 12:22, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Meanwhile, I've added two further references to confirm the lead. I hope if the title is OK, the lead is OK and the references are OK, then we'll keep this article. References do use Re-latinization with or without quotation marks. RF354 (talk) 12:26, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Clearly we do not have the same opinion on what so-called, quotations marks, and according to stand for when defining a topic.

In the interest of not making this a debate about punctuation marks, I will only add this final opinion:

WP:Notability - the article does not make it past Presumed notability;

WP:Neutral point of view - reliable sources emphasize that the use of this term is inappropriate making the phrase a seriously contested assertion (ie not a fact);

and quite possibly WP:Neutral point of view - the lines defining the scope and topic of the article, and presented directly in Wikivoice, give undue weight in proportion to their representation in reliable sources.

Thank you for your time taken to debate but I still think we should delete the article on this grounds. Aristeus01 (talk) 15:40, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:AFD: Nomination already implies that the nominator recommends deletion (unless indicated otherwise), and nominators should refrain from repeating this. So I removed the bold letters, as they may easily be mistaken for a vote.

The article is clearly notable, and also neutral. If you want to add something based on reliable sources, feel free to do it. Now even the lead has enough references. RF354 (talk) 17:06, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
1. The phenomenon that is called re-latinization/re-romanization of Romanian in relevant literature has been studied for more than 200 years, as it is verified by a number of reliable sources cited in the article. 2. Re-latinization is the most widely used term to describe this phenomenon in reliable sources published in English. It may be an inappropriate term (as it is proposed by some scholars), but it is widely used in English literature. Until a new terminus technicus is not introduced by linguists, the term could hardly be changed. Borsoka (talk) 16:35, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Is this allowed or is it WP:Canvassing? RF354 (talk) 06:52, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It is quite obviously canvassing. Borsoka (talk) 16:36, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Appropriate notification:

Editors who have made substantial edits to the topic or article

Editors who have participated in previous discussions on the same topic (or closely related topics)

I am baffled by your interpretation of the rules. Aristeus01 (talk) 17:56, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment 2 is this WP:MEAT? "::~~You might want to change your vote to Keep for consistency. RF354 (talk) 10:58, 18 October 2022 (UTC)~~" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aristeus01 (talk • contribs) [reply]
User:Borsoka had voted with Oppose (as opposing the deletion), I just warned her that to avoid confusion she should change that to Keep. After she did so, I struck my comment as no longer necessary.

Also quoting the very policy you just cited: The term meatpuppet may be seen by some as derogatory and should be used with care, in keeping with Wikipedia:Civility. Because of the processes above, it may be counterproductive to directly accuse someone of being a "meatpuppet", and doing so will often only inflame the dispute. RF354 (talk) 19:47, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It may also be uncivil to accuse someone of canvassing. Also, how do you know the user is a "she"? Aristeus01 (talk) 19:59, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You know very well what I was doing (as you've been here all along as the nominator), you still made an accusation. I thought that notifying just one editor whose opinion you admittedly knew constituted canvassing.

I just assume she's a she based on the sound of her WP account name. RF354 (talk) 20:03, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, let's call this two comments misunderstandings and move on. Aristeus01 (talk) 22:47, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Just for curiosity. Why did you inform me about this discussion on my Talk page days after I voted above? Especially your edit summary is surprising: "just in case you weren't aware of the conversation" [24]. Borsoka (talk) 02:20, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article takes history as pretext to promote a biased view of reality. It presents historical facts in a heavy loaded ideological manner, resulting into a misleading entry, quite far from the Wiki scope.

The article has many serious flaws which have never been adressed. Out of 11 sections on the talking page, 9 sections represent pertinent, sometimes very elaborated criticism, none of it having been adressed in three years.

I've followed and contributed to this article since the beginning, assuming good faith. It took me time to realize that the article tried to instill a biased narrative, abusing the citation rules of Wiki. This entry doesn't reflect the scientific research on the topic. Many statements in the content are either out of context, cherry picking, fringe theories, or simply represent personal opinions, not confirmed by the source referenced. Much of this article does not meet WP:COPO.

Many edits are made in disrespect of WP:OR, WP:NPOV, WP:V:, or bluntly violating WP:UNDUE, WP:BALASP, WP:GEVAL.

The main instrument in feigning credibility seems to consist in interpretations and statements not confirmed by the source: the text in the sources does not match the corresponding passages in the article.

Another important flaw consists in over-interpreting the source: fugitive and unsourced claims in the source are presented as indicating a real piece of research.

The article is richely sourced, but it is quite a clear case of abusing the spirit and content of the sources cited.

The talk page has all this criticism in detail.

After three years, this entry cannot stand anymore as it is. Horea Vêntilă (talk) 15:45, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

How can you build an ideological position out of more than two dozen (!) academic journals and scientific books?
Basically every single sentence is well-referenced in this article.
This talk page comment initiated the whole deletion process, but it has since been addressed as I've added two further references to support the lead.
Would you show some talk page issues that haven't been addressed? RF354 (talk) 21:21, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
One can build an ideological position in many ways. As I understand, in Romanian literature "re-latinization" refers to the process when Romanian adopted a number of Latin and Romance loanwords, thus its predominantly non-Romance vocabulary was "re-latinized" said the creator of the article. I'm not sure if this is original research, but I am sure the editor confuses lexis with vocabulary and confirms his ideological view that Romanian was not a Romance language before the so- called process. This "building" can also include arguments like "there's 63 quotations on my article!", when only 2 (allegedly) sustain the core, 3 refute it(!), 1 contradicts the timeline given in the lead of 18th and 19th century by saying Romanian borrowed words from Italian in the 16th century, and the remaining 57 are used for non-core topics, including 4 that contradict a less Romance nature of the language before the said process. The whole article is an issue, fixing some auxiliary parts won't fix the core. Aristeus01 (talk) 23:27, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And that would be reason enough to remove 200 years from the history of the Romanian language just because of WP:IDONTLIKEIT.

The original editors of the article presented different viewpoints, I think that makes the article better, not worse.

The article says clearly that Romance features of the language were first detected in the 15th century, no sooner, no later.

The way you try to discredit the sources would be funny if it wasn't in a WP:AFD discussion. There are no "core" and "non-core" topics, or by "core" you mean the lead? It has several references. Every single statement of the article is supported by academic journals or scientific books. RF354 (talk) 07:35, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Just for the record, a single sentence from the article has not been challenged by editors who want to delete the article. The article can obviously be improved but an important aspect of the development of the Romanian language is notable to have its own article. Borsoka (talk) 08:25, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

By core I mean central point, the whole idea of the article. And it's not about like or dislike, it's about encyclopedic or not encyclopedic. I said (and say) the article fails to be part of an encyclopedia because:

it is not notable enough. Editors have put their minds together to improve the quality of it, including during this discussion, yet we only came up with 2 sources that mention the term (process) therefore subject to "Presumed" WP:SNG, which in my opinion it fails.
we did came up with 3 that refute it as inappropriate, conflated, and confusing (and we can add a couple more sources for that). Even if this is subject to WP:FRINGE/ALT as an alternative theoretical formulation, presenting it on wiki in WP:WIKIVOICE fails by employing WP:UNDUE, WP:GEVAL, and overall breaking WP:NPOV and very likely falls under WP:NOTDICTIONARY category.
the subject, main topic, central point, or core of the article is only in the "lead" (actual definition) of the article. Other parts of the article, richly sourced, are additions that fall under WP:NNC.
I have found during this discussion reasons that might put the article under WP:ADVOCACY and I quote from the creator of the article's description of the term: its predominantly non-Romance vocabulary was "re-latinized" and an important aspect of the development of the Romanian language. This opinions are nowhere found in the sources, nor are they real features of Romanian language to the best of my knowledge. This editing based on a non-academic point of view goes against the general principle of Wikipedia.

Aristeus01 (talk) 11:47, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

More than two dozen academic journals and scientific books make the phenomenon "Re-latinization" clearly notable.
I came up with two academic references that support the lead as it is and the structure of the article in a couple of minutes. User:Borsoka just forgot to add the sources in the lead, that's all. She probably treated the lead as a summary. RF354 (talk) 14:13, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please be aware that there is actually no requirement to cite sources in the lead, as long as they are cited in the body of text. The lead simply has to be a summary of the content, which the extended text and its sources should verify. Dahn (talk) 07:24, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and move to something such as Linguistic Latinism in Romania, or Latinist school in Romania, which is precisely what this well-attested, and quite clearly culturally relevant phenomenon is called by countless sources in Romania itself; under that title, it should also be used to cover the over-latinization of Romanian by Laurian and Marius Chicoș Rostogan, i.e. in the context ridiculed by most Romanian scholars. This nom seems like at attempt to shoot down the topic because the article could be titled better (and is somewhat incomplete). Dahn (talk) 12:35, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I do agree that the article should be kept, I consider this a frivolous nomination.

My only problem with renaming is that many references do use "re-latinization" (or, to a lesser extent re-romanization), so these terms might be searched on Wikipedia. I quote User:Borsoka, a main editor of the article from above: Re-latinization is the most widely used term to describe this phenomenon in reliable sources published in English. RF354 (talk) 14:20, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not proposing we delete and salt the current title, just that we have it as a redirect to a title which is probably more descriptive (presumably, the references to this phenomenon as merely "Latinization" outnumber "Re-latinization", and in any case Romanian sources [self-]describe this mostly as "Latinism"); renaming it would do away with the only issue up for contention that has any traction to it, for what is otherwise a fine article and an important topic. I do agree with the characterization of this nom as frivolous. Dahn (talk) 06:15, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The logic behind this nom reminds me of a time long ago, when an editor with a strong Romanian POV thought it wise that we should delete the article on Northern Transylvania, claiming that Transilvania de nord is unheard of in Romanian. He was technically right: the concept exists in Romanian, it is painfully well established, but under the much more widespread form Ardealul de nord (as you may no, the only English translation for both Transilvania and Ardealul is "Transylvania"). This seems to be the twisted logic, or just blatant sophistry, behind the opposition to this topic -- if these editors would actually bother with anything other than attempting to erase the article at any cost, they would have to realize that the concept, under somewhat different names stemming from the same root, is very well present in Romanian scholarly literature as well. Not just the self-critical one, from Junimea (which notoriously attacked Latinists in their lifetime, and less notoriously spoke plainly about modernization as required, commendable, but limited re-Latinization) to Boia, but also in your regular overview of philology, where the neo-Latin lexis is treated as matter-of-fact. Incidentally, the view that Romanian may technically be a Slavic language was also proposed within mainstream philology by Alexandru Cihac, a Romanian from Junimea; it may be bunk, but it is not fringe bunk. Dahn (talk) 06:22, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

First save the article, then we'll get back to the proper title.

To me "Latinization" would be acceptable, but it is a more general term: the first hit on Google Books was "Latinization: How Latino Culture is Transforming the U.S". RF354 (talk) 07:29, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't worry too much that this article won't survive the nom. It is not decided on a vote, but on the weight of arguments.

WADR, I don't think using "Latinization" or "Latinism" or etc. would be ambiguous, if the title clarifies the national context, as per my proposal. Of course, my solution carries no ultimatum, it is just a suggestion to move this forward. Dahn (talk) 08:12, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The only twisted logic here mr. Dahn, is the assumption others don't know about or dislike certain cultural movements in Romanian history.

The way this article is titled, defined, and presented (ie wikivoice) makes one controversially named topic of an ongoing academic discussion look like a well-established fact. An alternative theoretical formulation should be presented as it is - if presented at all since this rarely comes up in the English language literature - and not by taking sides. And by the way, the modernization of Romanian lexis was not just the result of a couple or more cultural movements, it is a process that started with the modern era (1780 onwards) meant to describe the aspects of this age and carries on, with multiple trends, and more often than not led by the large mass of native speakers rather than a few individuals, for example the use of "și" conjuction instead of "i" is not due to Transylvanian School who (a few members at least) thought it's a foreign word. To quote from Kim Schulte: "the reality (of loanwords impact) is not as black and white (as a new word simply replacing the old one)". For example the loanword "sursă" has largely replaced the Slavic "izvor" for the same meaning but also the Latin-inherited "fântână" for the general meaning of water source. We then come to the weird conclusion Romanian re-latinized by replacing Latin words with Latin words, which is why this topic is not well-defined.

In this sense I understand you want this to be incorporated in the appropriate category and so would I, yet the consensus about that category does not exist between editors hence my action. Also in this sense I hope you understand I cannot subscribe to editing proposals while they are not sustained by reliable sources or the reliable sources argue against the central point of the article. Again, opinions (academic, not just whatever opinions) should not be given undue weight and added as mainstream if that consensus does not exist between researchers. Call me frivolous and sophistic if you like (thanks, by the way) but for me language study is a science not just an argument for interdisciplinary studies to make a point on historical debates and this is my understanding of how this encyclopedia works as well. Else, I could easily fill pages with contentious topics such as another 100 words or more from Dacian language (allegedly!, they have no cognates in Albanian or well established etymology but there are enough sources to go by) and present it as a fact. Or re-write the Balkanscprachbund by supporting only one explanation of its origin as the fact while the others are just mentions. I will not stand for this sort of subtle interpretations. If it's not notable enough even if it's something you value it's not notable enough. If there's an opinion that makes more sense to you but other academics contradict it is just one opinion, not a fact. If we want to add arguments to support our opinion we need to follow the sourced material not just select phrases that fit in our narrative. Aristeus01 (talk) 10:54, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"The way this article is titled, defined, and presented" -- respectfully, none of those would be grounds for deleting the article. Dahn (talk) 13:42, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe. I really struggle to come up with a way of making this a neutral presentation without completely revamping the entire article. In my opinion the lead (definition) would need to follow the way M. Sala presents the overall process: as the influence of Romance languages and Latin on Romanian during the modern era, various examples given in the article under re-Latinization would have to be replaced with the exact term: re-romancing for loanwords that came from Romance languages, westernizing for those that are not connected to the language of origin in particular but to social and technological aspects imported from the West. NB: while I understand Franz Rainer's definition as generally acceptable, it does not really "scratch the spot" for Romanian in this context, a language that opposed at some point loanwords from Latin to those from Italian, French, and even inherited Latin words.

Anyway, I'm getting too deep in the topic. My point is the article would have to be re-named as you suggested, the definition would have to be inclusive of all related terms in their particular meaning, and the cultural movements presented in their respective category, for example I.H. Rădulescu's contributions cannot be named re-Latinization if we already establish that phrase should be used for Transylvanian School. I think this would mean a complete change to the article, one we can't seem to agree on. And since we cannot agree we revert to the preceding status-quo which is an article that looks good but misses the essence, therefore not contributing to the reader's knowledge in any other way than pointing him/her in the wrong direction. Aristeus01 (talk) 14:23, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article has significant reliable academic sources OrionNimrod (talk) 10:52, 24 October 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 18:15, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Chilinda District[edit]

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

the district is inexistent; Internet search results do not report anything on the topic; the article says it was "proposed to be created" 5 years ago but it has not been mentioned on any news source or even by Zambia's government from that time. GeographicAccountant (talk) 17:40, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Africa. Shellwood (talk) 18:29, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The creator is a long-banned user, who was notorious for mass-generating articles from lists in generally unreliable sources. Imaginatorium (talk) 04:13, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This is one in a list of "articles" on geographical subdivisions, helpfully listed on his user page. (These were generated over an interval of 12 seconds!) Could someone who knows the subject matter please check if there are other problematic or nonsensical entries... Imaginatorium (talk) 05:03, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Imaginatorium All the other articles he created on Zambia represent existing districts, as shown on the Districts of Zambia article. This is the only one that needs to be deleted. GeographicAccountant (talk) 17:26, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

OK, that's fine then. Thanks for your work on this... Imaginatorium (talk) 17:43, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete wikipedia is not telling the future. 24.138.27.215 (talk) 11:05, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete: This district has not been created and will not be. The Only place from all Google Searches where this "proposed district" has been mentioned is on this "Zambian Parliament Session" (Link 1) from the 10th of March 2017. From that time, the Government of Zambia has not said a word about that (or at least "sources" cannot be found) and the User who created Chilinda District should have confirmed properly if that "proposal" will actually take place. It's now 2022, with a different President & Cabinet & there is still no talk about the creation of this district. So, if all the available Geographical Sources say that there is No District of Zambia with this name (& that there are no "plans" to allocate any land area as a new district), then this article "should not exist" on any online website, including Wikipedia. GeographicAccountant (talk) 17:24, 20 October 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 close. Wrong venue, use WP:RSPM instead. (non-admin closure) ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 17:57, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Minecon[edit]

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

Name of article is outdated and should be moved to Minecraft Live or renamed to Minecraft Live AlBro66 (talk) 17:25, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. AlBro66 (talk) 17:25, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Close Wrong venue, use WP:RSPM to suggest a page move. Jumpytoo Talk 17:41, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As I understand it, the WP:COMMONNAME is still Minecon, but because the in-person aspect was cancelled due to the pandemic, the live portion was just known as Minecraft/Minecon Live. It still remains to be seen what they'll call it. BrigadierG (talk) 17:49, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 19:11, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Shein Law Center[edit]

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

The law firm seems to be unnotable except for two specific cases they were involved in. This article should be merged with the articles about Garlock Sealing Technologies and John Crane Group. RPI2026F1 (talk) 17:17, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law and Pennsylvania. RPI2026F1 (talk) 17:17, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete They don't appear notable and there is more about them getting sued than what they have done as a firm. I don't find much more than what's given in the article, and it's mostly "bad press" type articles. Oaktree b (talk) 20:20, 17 October 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 per criterion G7 FASTILY 09:17, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Othiram Kadakam[edit]

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

WP:TOOSOON article about an upcoming film, not yet reliably sourced as the subject of sufficient coverage to exempt it from the primary notability criteria at WP:NFO. As always, we do not automatically want an article about every single future film that enters the production pipeline -- with rare exceptions for films that get a lot of coverage during the production process (such as Marvel or Star Wars films), we usually only want articles about films that have actually been released and reviewed by film critics. But this cites just two sources, one of which indicates that the production has been placed on hold, with no source indicating that it has resumed at all. This isn't nearly enough coverage to establish the permanent notability of a film that's sitting in production limbo. Bearcat (talk) 16:58, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and India. Bearcat (talk) 16:58, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per WP:NFILM, which is clear enough on unreleased films, as the nom notes. Java Hurricane 17:07, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Too soon, production has not begun and there is no indication when, if ever, it will begin.. Fails WP:NYF. The the cited sources do not exist and return a 404. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:06, 23 October 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. Noting that the discussion was opened by a now blocked sockpuppet. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 17:24, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Elele[edit]

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

I wanted to create a page similar to something like this but I needed this to be judge at first. I have made a research about this article Elele on Google. It only has mere mentions and not independent of the subject on secondary reliable source but has a University built under its location which is Madonna University. Having a notable university built under it’s location does that makes the subject suitable to be on Wikipedia without a single reference. Also, the page was Proposed for deletion but the tag was removed by an IP address and not a registered user. You can see from here. Gabriel (talk to me ) 16:20, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Nigeria. Gabriel (talk to me ) 16:20, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fairly sure any place that is mapped and confirmed to exist is considered notable. It appears from the brief look at a map that there is certainly more in this town than a university campus. JMWt (talk) 17:50, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I usually add sources to pages and removed claims that I can't find the sources online. Nominating an article for deletion is not a form of cleanup. The place has several scholarly articles that I (or anyone else) should be able to add before this debate runs off. Best, Reading Beans (talk) 08:18, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I feel your point @Reading Beans:. I would have loved to improve the article but i have never been there to write what I know about the place. I never hoped it should be deleted. I just needed some point of view from editors when creating places similar to places like this. --Gabriel (talk to me ) 23:00, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Subject meets NPLACE. Princess of Ara 11:31, 20 October 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. Nominated by a confirmed blocked sockpuppet with no remaining deletion proposals (non-admin closure) Atlantic306 (talk) 22:16, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bilal Saeed[edit]

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

~~Non-notable pakistani singer, article sourced to local website/his employer. Fails WP:GNG uncontroversially. Nasir Chaudhry (talk) 3:16, 17 October 2022 (UTC)~~ striking nomination by confirmed blocked sockpuppet, Atlantic306 (talk) 22:15, 19 October 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 October 17. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 15:39, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Pakistan. Shellwood (talk) 16:54, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - per WP:ANYBIO. The subject won the 1st Pakistan International Screen Award and was nominated for 2 other notable awards Lux Style Award and Brit Asia Music Award. Insight 3 (talk) 16:34, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The account that nominated the page for deletion itself is sockpuppett. Subject is notable for Wikipedia. There are many articles about him from many different reliable sources. Atighot (talk) 19:59, 18 October 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. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 16:09, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Arab Pentagon Commission[edit]

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

This article contains no verifiable information. Both external links are dead. A web search for the title in quotation marks turns up only Wikipedia derivatives. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:30, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:30, 17 October 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. Nominated by a confirmed blocked sockpuppet with no remaining deletion proposals (non-admin closure) Atlantic306 (talk) 22:19, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Anand Raaj Anand[edit]

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

~~Non-notable Indian singer, article sourced to website/his employer. Fails WP:GNG uncontroversially. Nasir Chaudhry (talk) 3:03, 17 October 2022 (UTC)~~ striking confirmed blocked sockpuppet, Atlantic306 (talk) 22:18, 19 October 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 October 17. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 15:21, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Film, Music, and Maharashtra. Skynxnex (talk) 15:39, 17 October 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. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 16:06, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Basham (racing driver)[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:NMOTORSPORT or WP:GNG. All sources link to Racing-Reference. NASCARfan0548 (alt) ↗ 15:18, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Indiana. NASCARfan0548 (alt) ↗ 15:18, 17 October 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 Moot. The nominator is indefinitely blocked for spamming, and nobody else is interested. Sandstein 19:10, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Diana Magnay[edit]

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

Notability of the journalist isn't shown or proved. Driodr (talk) 13:16, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Journalism. Shellwood (talk) 15:22, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Russia and United Kingdom. dudhhr^talk _contribs (he/they) 15:25, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:44, 17 October 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. Sandstein 19:08, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oh Hwa-sup[edit]

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

South Korean theatrician and scholar. Draftified, moved back into mainspace. Offers absolutely no notability, fails WP:GNG. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 12:44, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Actors and filmmakers, and South Korea. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 12:44, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify for further improvements. Haueirlan (talk) 14:54, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There have been attempts to draftify this article - the author has been slinging it straight back into mainspace, unimproved. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 16:19, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Alexandermcnabb: Requesting extended-confirmed page protection to prevent it from being recreated might resolve that. Waddles 🗩 🖉 19:51, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:13, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:44, 17 October 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 speedily deleted per WP:CSD#G5. (non-admin closure) Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:58, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Vikram Singh Meena[edit]

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

Biography of person who meets neither WP:GNG nor WP:NPOL. Repeatedly created and draftified, and Vikram Singh Meena is salted (see also Draft:Vikram Singh meena and Vikram Singh meena), but the draft creator moved it back to mainspace with a variant title but without any changes. bonadea contributions talk 14:14, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The article was at Vikram Singh Meena BKU (the "variant title" I mentioned in the nomination) but GeoffreyT2000 moved it to the appropriate title, Vikram Singh Meena. I should have done that myself – thanks, GT2000! --bonadea contributions talk 16:02, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Another note: the article creator may be a sockpuppet, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Baba1031. --bonadea contributions talk 20:12, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and India. bonadea contributions talk 14:14, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete President fails WP:NBIO with no significant coverage in independent reliable sources. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 14:55, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Admin note Deleted per WP:CSD#G5.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 20:34, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Nomination withdrawn. Sungodtemple (talk) 11:41, 18 October 2022 (UTC) (non-admin closure)[reply]

Elizabeth Otto[edit]

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

Almost all sources are faculty listings and interviews, which don't count for GNG. WP:BEFORE does not reveal any new useful sources. Sungodtemple (talk) 13:20, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Sungodtemple (talk) 13:20, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Authors, Women, and History. Skynxnex (talk) 13:23, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:NAUTHOR#3. This is a newly created page, so draftifying was also an option. I found multiple reviews of her books on Google Scholar, including this scholarly review that covers two at once: https://academic.oup.com/jdh/article-abstract/33/1/83/5703602 pburka (talk) 13:33, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Keep. There are tonnes of RS reviews of her books Haunted Bauhaus[25][26][27][28][29][30][31][32][33] and Bauhaus Women,[34][35][36][37][38] meeting WP:NAUTHOR and WP:PROF#C1. – Joe (talk) 13:36, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Noting this was nominated only 16 mins after it was created, technically ok as Wikipedia:New pages patrol says "an article should not be tagged for any kind of deletion for a minimum of 15 minutes after creation and it is often appropriate to wait an hour or more", but it feels too hasty to me. -Kj cheetham (talk) 13:47, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep due to the number of reviews of her work as mentioned above to warrant a pass of WP:NAUTHOR. -Kj cheetham (talk) 13:47, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the pass of WP:AUTHOR demonstrated above. —David Eppstein (talk) 14:46, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Seems a clear pass of WP:AUTHOR. The article has been greatly improved since nomination. I know NPP is a difficult arena to work in, but perhaps placing some kind of a notability or sourcing tag to encourage the creators to continue to improve would have been enough? And NPPers really need to understand how WP:PROF & WP:CREATIVE work in practice, and how to search for book-review sources, before bringing a good-faith creation on an academic here. Espresso Addict (talk) 01:51, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Espresso Addict: I agree that this was a poorly thought out nomination, but Sungodtemple is not a new page patroller. – Joe (talk) 05:54, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, Joe Roe, I was using "NPPer" in the sense of anyone who patrols newly submitted articles, rather than in the sense of someone with the permission to use the NPP suite. Espresso Addict (talk) 06:03, 18 October 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 Djang'kawu with the option to merger viable content. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:28, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Djunkgao[edit]

Note: This discussion has been included in the [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/<topic>|list of <topic>-related deletion discussions]]. <signature>

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

There are no references here at all, I suspect this is actually the same as the page Djang'kawu, but an unresearched and misspelled version. Zaddikskysong (talk) 12:44, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Pretty clear the nominator is right, in which case could have been speedy A10'd. Whatever, it needs to go. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 13:14, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No further comment I removed my earlier struck out comments - if anyone wants to resurrect my very convoluted confusion, fine, doesnt bother me - my comments were not relevent to this afd - spelling issues, and emphasis upon aspects of the sisters where a straight delete seems to miss the differences of the two articles.JarrahTree 15:28, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and add sources and this alt spelling in the existing article. I have found quite a few sources with this spelling, such as here, here, and here. Also, I see new sources provided now in this one, so they should be integrated or added as further reading if not there already. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 01:40, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect / merge. I agree with Laterthanyouthink, actually. I'll put up my hand and say I've never actually nominated anything to get deleted or merged before, and I put this here because I knew people would discuss it here. It seems this is a spelling that's been used before in the literature, although the current literature, e.g. this NMA exhibition agrees with the version at Djang'kawu. I'm not sure how much good content there is in the text of this article, but it's worth looking up and at least adding the alt spelling to the existing article so people know to add content from those texts into the existing article. Interestingly the Yolngu Matha dictionary has 'Djan'kawu', but that's close to the existing/NMA version, perhaps they are variant spellings. Zaddikskysong (talk) 02:19, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, Zaddikskysong - this is the best place for discussion and more input. I sometimes do the same, when I'm not sure what the outcome will be. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 06:42, 18 October 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. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 16:02, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Asterix Conquers America[edit]

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

Appears to fail WP:NFILM as no reviews found in a BEFORE.

PROD removed. DonaldD23 talk to me 12:49, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, Comics and animation, France, and Germany. DonaldD23 talk to me 12:49, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
~~Comment~~ Keep This article is in 20 languages, which is pretty widespread - and there's a lot more info and sources in the French page. I'd be loth to write it off, TBH, but am reaching for the popcorn and sitting on the sidelines for now... (update: off the fence!) Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 13:17, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I removed the Prod because I found this: I can't access the contents, but this movie has a separate entry (chapter?), so this at least should mean some indepth, independent information. The film is still being shown on TV[39] (despite what the article now claims, it wasn't made for the direct-to-video market but was made as a cinema movie, but didn't perform well there). More significant coverage can be found here, a short entry here. Reruns on French television are quite successful2013 2015. Most likely there were reviews when the film was new, the above sources are all from decades later. Fram (talk) 13:41, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I dont' find much in French for the film; the comic book of the same name has coverage, mostly for being banned in several schools due to the portrayal of Native Americans. Oaktree b (talk) 13:43, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep even beyond the non-English language sources it meets WP:NFILM with sufficient notable reviews, there were quite a few brief reviews from England during its release and at least one decent-ish review online in Empire: Asterix Conquers America Review. A few behind paywalls I can't easily access but found basic info on: Asterix Conquers America (Asterix in Amerika) directed by Gerhard Hahn, Felperin, Leslie. Sight and Sound; London Vol. 5, Iss. 8, (Aug 1995): 38. Asterix Conquers America (Asterix in Amerika) directed by Gerhard Hahn, Hansen, Eric. Variety; Los Angeles Vol. 358, Iss. 9, (Apr 3, 1995): 144. The Arts: A magic potion for the summer, DELINGPOLE, JAMES. The Daily Telegraph; London (UK). 11 Aug 1995: 14 (with a pull quote of It's this sort of topical humour which will keep grown-up yawns at bay while the kids are enthralled by this witty, superbly animated and generally faithful update of Goscinny and Uderzo's comic book, Asterix and the Great Crossing.". "Asterix gets in a real States", Liverpool Echo, England, Friday, August 11, 1995. A paragraph in Turning the Page, Austria, Peter Lang, 2006. Skynxnex (talk) 13:49, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per Fram, people need to start doing do better BEFORE clearly...★Trekker (talk) 13:50, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment No harm to nominator, the article needed better sourcing and was sloppy as presented - and the film, despite its 20 WP articles, was pretty much direct to video. That's hardly the stuff of The English Patient... Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 14:21, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- True, but it is way more than your average direct-to-video though, e.g. in 2012 it was used as a lengthy example in a German book on "innovation management"[40]. It looks as if it had a wide but somewhat disappointing cinema release in France, with 125,000 visitors the first week[41], ending with about 1 millipn visitors in France in total[42]: not the success of other Asterix movies, but a real cinema release anyway (in other European countries as well). Fram (talk) 14:44, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - Even with all of the paywalled sourced we're looking at squeaking over the bar not a clean pass. Nominator is to be commended and their BEFORE appears to have been adequate. Being wrong and being incompetent aren't the same thing and its inappropriate to attack the nominator in a deletion discussion. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:58, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    - Please reply to who actually attacked the nominator, I didn't. Fram (talk) 15:05, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      - Trecker. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:27, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        Then don't put such blanket statements in a reply to me please. Fram (talk) 15:45, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        If they're blanket and not personal statements whats the issue? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:47, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        That the indentation gives the impression of it being a personal statement, i.e. you are stating "its inappropriate to attack the nominator in a deletion discussion." in reply to me, even though it wasn't a reply to me at all. Fram (talk) 16:06, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        I apologize for any inconvenience I've caused or insult offered whether intentional or not. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:17, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:27, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Conscription in South Africa[edit]

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

WP:INDISCRIMINATE. The information presented here does not seem to be encyclopedic, I'd suggest either draft-ifying ~~or deleting~~. Aasim - Herrscher of Wikis ❄️ 12:40, 17 October 2022 (UTC) Update: I am aware this is probably a notable subject, I am concerned about the way that information is being presented and this article likely not ready for mainspace. Aasim - Herrscher of Wikis ❄️ 14:17, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military and South Africa. Shellwood (talk) 13:04, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Article more suited as part of South Africa Defence Force article. Don't believe there is enough information out there for a separate article — Preceding unsigned comment added by Conlinp (talk • contribs) 13:14, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Good - then I withdraw my Delete opinion and look forward to a history of conscription in South Africa. Conlinp (talk) 09:01, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: There are lots of good academic sources about the topic, so to me the question is really just whether the entire topic can be covered at South African Defence Force. Conscription ended when the SADF ended, but I think there's content about the topic that would extend beyond the bounds of the SADF article (e.g., End Conscription Campaign and the opposition movement). Regardless, it's a valid search result and should redirect to South African Defence Force at most with the option to re-expand the article later. Or just keep the article if anyone wants to begin expanding it now. Alyo (chat·edits) 18:22, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep see sources added above. Conscription was a huge issue in South Africa, it helped shape white society and was a source of white resistance to apartheid. WP:NOTCLEANUP applies as well. Also oppose draftifying. Park3r (talk) 07:47, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOTCLEANUP kind of does apply here, which is why I suggested draftification. It needs a lot more work before it is ready for mainspace. This is the place to also suggest draftification, right? Aasim - Herrscher of Wikis ❄️ 13:32, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As mentioned above conscription was a massive issue and had its own anti conscription movement and resulting protests. Gbawden (talk) 13:35, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Highly notable subject. Could easily be expanded. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:15, 19 October 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. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:27, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pamoza International[edit]

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

Fails WP:NORG, requires significant coverage in multiple reliable independent secondary sources. Dan arndt (talk) 11:22, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Africa. Dan arndt (talk) 11:22, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I've only found two sources from the press mainly covering this nonprofit. Two other mention Temwa Wright while mentioning he's the executive director of this nonprofit. So this probably isn't significant coverage. Aaron Liu (talk) 11:54, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 14:07, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Don't Delete Give it a week.It could get improved and sourced. Regards Tumbuka Arch (talk) 19:49, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment it has been over 7 days and no additional reliable sources have been added. Dan arndt (talk) 13:29, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 14:17, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

William M. Webster IV[edit]

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

Businessman, run of the mill company announcements; roles. Fails WP:GNG. Served as a civil staffer in the Whitehouse, no significant office, fails WP:NPOL. Was CEO of Bojangles Famous Chicken 'n' Biscuit restaurant chain, fails WP:NBUSINESSPERSON. Sits on the board of The Nature Conservancy of South Carolina and also International Battery Metals which is an interesting conflict of interest, IMHO, but neither role contributes to notability. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 06:52, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Politics, and United States of America. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 06:52, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:12, 17 October 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!} 08:53, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

EXIT (magazine)[edit]

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

Maybe someone else can find enough reliable sources, but I couldn't. Pretty obvious COI creation. Doug Weller talk 09:49, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Comics and animation, Companies, and New York. Skynxnex (talk) 13:54, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I suspect the involvement of the magazine's editor, G Petros, in the creation of this article. Call it a nagging feeling, a 'hunch' if you will. Fails WP:GNG, unsourced OR. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 14:09, 17 October 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!} 08:50, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Paper Boi[edit]

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

No evidence found of notability, no reliable sources actually give any significant attention to Paper Boi. Fram (talk) 09:42, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Nigeria. Fram (talk) 09:42, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not enough in-depth coverage from independent reliable sources to pass WP:GNG.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 10:34, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Clearly fails WP:GNG; WP:MUSICBIO, references incidental, passing, irrelevant even. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 14:15, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I’m not voting on the deletion of this article. Everything was written with good citations from independent news sources, artists do not have to work with other notable artists before they can become notable in their country or have an article on Wikipedia, what is important about notability is having recognised and covered by independent news sources under wikipedia guidelines .

This singer met number one criteria of Wiki:criteria for musicians which states Musicians or ensembles may be notable if they meet at least one of the following criteria.

Has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent of the musician or ensemble itself.
- This criterion includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, books, magazine articles, online versions of print media, and television documentaries.

The nominator should understand that not every article on Wikipedia is meant for deletion, some may be stubs Wikipedia:Stub and can be improved with time as musicians or ensembles status and credibility improves, that was why wikipedia stated in Wiki:criteria for musicians "Musicians or ensembles must meet either one of the following criteria", meaning they do not have to meet all criterias listed before they can be notable, they may meet some and others with time. He should also learn to help improve articles not only nominate articles for deletion, that makes a good editor. Clexiiii (talk) 00:02 18 October 2022 (UTC)

Well, a "good editor" wouldn't use this article as a source for your article on Paper Boi, as the "Paper Boi" in that New Yorker article is obviously someone completely different. And is not a one-off mistake, this article from The Ringer is about the different Paper Boi as well. And then of course there are the many sources that don't even mention Paper Boi, like this one. But sure, lecture me about what makes a good editor or what the criteria are to keep an article. Fram (talk) 08:07, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, I shouldn't blame brand new SPA User:Clexiiii for the mistakes by SPA User:Cluxer25 who made these errors, silly me to confuse these two editors. Fram (talk) 08:10, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Glad to see Fram has taken the lesson on board and is suitably chastened. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 08:37, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — covert UPE. Entity does not meet the general notability guidelines for a Wikipedia nor the SNG for a musician. Best, Reading Beans (talk) 19:40, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:UPE and WP:Notability Qwv (talk) 21:56, 23 October 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!} 08:44, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Carousel (charity)[edit]

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

I'm struggling to see this charity's notability. There's lots of loose connections with notable people or other entities that may be notable (WP:INHERITED!) but I can't see how the charity itself is notable. Cited sources are either from the charity itself, are trivial mentions of the charity, or cover entities the charity is related to (and therefore the notability – if any – would lie with the other body and not with the charity). MIDI (talk) 11:30, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Disability, Organizations, and United Kingdom. Shellwood (talk) 12:10, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:51, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

With sadness, I can't really see a good reason to keep a relatively small local charity. The page offers little in terms of notability and I'm not sure the sources exist. Delete JMWt (talk) 10:03, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Carousel is much more notable than a local charity. They stage the world's leading disability film festival, an international event which has had lots of mainstream coverage since the page was last updated. See 'Discover the learning disability film festival changing disabled representation' in Little white Lies 30 March 2022 or this piece in The Guardian. Carousel Radio has also won a gold in the British Podcasts Awards Cephascrispus (talk) Cephascrispus (talk) 09:05, 18 October 2022 (UTC)08:19, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Cephascrispus. Having looked at those sources, it doesn't look like the Little White Lies article mentions Carousel at all. The Guardian piece does, although it's a passing mention when talking about the Oska Bright film festival. This might mean the film festival itself is notable, but does not show that the charity is notable per our notability guidelines – it simply shows the charity exists. MIDI (talk) 12:30, 18 October 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 - The original article was created 3 years ago. It was then moved on 9 October to Veerji Kohli. Then a copy-paste !move was done to bring the content back here. shortly after this AfD was opened. Then later the other article was discovered. That article now also has an AfD going, and this article has a speedy tag. I'm going to honor the speedy tag here, and the AfD can proceed on the other article. UtherSRG (talk) 01:42, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Veerji Kolhi[edit]

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

Assistant to a civil servant. Failing WP:GNG and WP:POLITICIAN Arthistorian1977 (talk) 09:50, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Pakistan. Shellwood (talk) 10:11, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Veerji Kohli (note spelling) appears to be about the same person. MKFI (talk) 07:14, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Veerji Kolhi and Veerji Kohli are article about same person. Contributor008 (talk) 15:46, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:51, 17 October 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 Greg Howe#Discography. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:40, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ascend (Greg Howe album)[edit]

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

Outside of one ~300-words long review in all music (the reliability of this site is borderline, see WP:ALLMUSIC) I am not seeing what makes this album notable. The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline nor the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability_(music)#Albums requirement. WP:BEFORE did not reveal any significant coverage on Gnews, Gbooks or Gscholar. Thoughts? PS. Please note I've PRODed High Definition (Vitalij Kurprij album) and that I am considering AFDing the artist Vitalij Kuprij due to likely failing NBIO. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:10, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:10, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Greg_Howe#Discography: The closest to coverage I could find beyond that AllMusic review was this brief blurb from SLUG Magazine. Fails SIGCOV unless more coverage is found that we both missed. QuietHere (talk) 16:31, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Also I went ahead and started Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vitalij Kuprij on your recommendation here. QuietHere (talk) 16:41, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

With sadness, I have no contest to this AfD. When I first joined WP in 2008, I went on an (obviously good-faith) spree of creating album articles for anyone in my music collection who had none, however obscure they were. WP:GNG wasn't as rigidly enforced in those days, so I realise there's not much chance of rescue for this article or any other similar ones that get AFD'ed. I'm also aware of WP:OTHERSTUFF. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 16:57, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Greg Howe#Discography. Fails WP:NALBUM per nom. A WP:BEFORE shows nothing beyond AllMusic and Slug. SBKSPP (talk) 07:47, 22 October 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!} 07:02, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Meiram Qajyken 2022 presidential campaign[edit]

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

Article on a presidential campaign of a candidate who does not have an article themselves. Ymblanter (talk) 06:44, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kazakhstan-related deletion discussions. Ymblanter (talk) 06:44, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. There needs to be a primary topic first. I was considering starting an AFD about this article for this reason. However, the article might be salvageable to be rewritten and moved to Meiram Qajyken. Waddles 🗩 🖉 17:06, 18 October 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!} 07:01, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Metin Levent[edit]

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

Winner of Star TV reality show PopStar Turkiye in 2006, subsequently apparently releasing an album, lacks SIGCOV (2 of the 5 sources in the article are YouTube) and there is no evidence online of an enduring influence on music or a career beyond 2006. Fails WP:GNG; WP:MUSICBIO. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 06:18, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Television, and Turkey. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 06:18, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Refs 2 and 5 are the exact same source, so there are actually 4 sources in the article, with half of them being YouTube links. Ref 1 is a "Kimdir?" source, which cannot be used to establish notability. Ref 2/5 is a source from Hürriyet that talks about the subject for 4 sentences and the rest is just quoting the subject. It's debatable if that can be considered significant coverage as its borderline, but certainly not enough on its own. ~Styyx^Talk? 15:42, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - coverage is not reliable, secondary, or significant. MaxnaCarta (talk) 05:12, 24 October 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 14:41, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Milwaukee Independent[edit]

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

Fails WP:NCORP, as I am unable to find significant coverage of this company by multiple independent reliable secondary sources. None of sources in the article actually contribute towards corporate notability, as shown in the following source assessment table:

Source Assessment Table

Created with templates {{ORGCRIT assess table}} and {{ORGCRIT assess}}
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor.
Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Secondary?
Google Maps	Unclear. Some google maps entries are edited by the business owner, while others are automatically generated.	Unclear. Some google maps entries are edited by the business owner, while others are automatically generated. In the former case it's WP:ABOUTSELF, but in the latter case it's unreliable.	This google maps page provides trivial coverage of the business	This is essentially a database listing
Muckrack	The only prose content on the page is directly taken from the Milwaukee Independent's Facebook page.	Muckrack is generally fine for listing articles published by a company, but it is algorithmically generated without editorial oversight.	Per WP:CORPDEPTH, simple listings or compilations are not significant coverage.	This is an extremely primary source list of articles.
The Milwaukee Independent (1)	This is the website of the article subject	– WP:ABOUTSELF	Moot as clearly non-independent.	Moot as clearly non-independent.
The Milwaukee Independent (2)	This is the website of the article subject	– WP:ABOUTSELF	Moot as clearly non-independent.	Moot as clearly non-independent.
The Milwaukee Independent (3)	This is the website of the article subject	– WP:ABOUTSELF	Moot as clearly non-independent.	Moot as clearly non-independent.
The Milwaukee Independent (4)	This is the website of the article subject	– WP:ABOUTSELF	Moot as clearly non-independent.	Moot as clearly non-independent.
ITV UA	Why not?	Why not?	The Milwaukee Independent is mentioned in a single sentence as having reported a fact.	There is no secondary coverage of The Milwaukee Independent.
The Milwaukee Independent (5)	This is the website of the article subject	– WP:ABOUTSELF	Moot as clearly non-independent.	Moot as clearly non-independent.
Intelligencer	Intelligencer is an independent WP:NEWSORG	WP:GREL on WP:RSP	The Milwaukee Indepdent is not so much as mentioned in the article.	There is no secondary coverage of The Milwaukee Independent in the source.
The Raw Story	The Raw Story appears to be independent of The Milwaukee Independent	WP:GUNREL on WP:RSP	The Milwaukee Independent is not so much as mentioned in the article.	There is no secondary coverage of The Milwaukee Independent in the source.
Jacobin	Jacobin appears to be independent of The Milwaukee Independent	WP:GREL on WP:RSP	The Milwaukee Independent is not mentioned in the article.	There is no secondary coverage of The Milwaukee Independent in the source.
The New York Times	The New York Times is independent of The Milwaukee Independent	– This is written in the opinion pages of The New York Times, which are opinion pieces rather than news pieces.	The Milwaukee Independent is not mentioned whatsoever in the source.	There is no secondary coverage of The Milwaukee Independent in the source.
PBS Newshour	PBS is an indepedent WP:NEWSORG	PBS Newshour is an established WP:NEWSORG	The Milwaukee Independent is not mentioned whatseover in the source.	There is no secondary coverage of The Milwaukee Independent in the source.
Milwaukee Press Club (1)	– The contest requires entries to pay a fee to be considered for an award.	– WP:ABOUTSELF	Per WP:ORGDEPTH, a listing of award recipients is a form of trivial coverage.	This is a primary source listing of award recipients.
Milwaukee Press Club (2)	– The contest requires entries to pay a fee to be considered for an award.	– WP:ABOUTSELF	Per WP:ORGDEPTH, a listing of award recipients is a form of trivial coverage.	This is a primary source listing of award recipients.
Milwaukee Press Club (3)	– The contest requires entries to pay a fee to be considered for an award.	– WP:ABOUTSELF	Per WP:ORGDEPTH, a listing of award recipients is a form of trivial coverage.	This is a primary source listing of award recipients.
Milwaukee Press Club (4)	– The contest requires entries to pay a fee to be considered for an award.	– WP:ABOUTSELF	Per WP:ORGDEPTH, a listing of award recipients is a form of trivial coverage.	This is a primary source listing of award recipients.
Milwaukee Press Club (5)	– The contest requires entries to pay a fee to be considered for an award.	– WP:ABOUTSELF	Per WP:ORGDEPTH, a listing of award recipients is a form of trivial coverage.	This is a primary source listing of award recipients.

Additionally, I am unable to find sources that contribute to notability through an online search. I found a couple of news articles that give trivial mentions of the company, such as PBS Wisconsin and Mashable, but I'm not able to find significant coverage of this news company by multiple independent reliable sources. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 05:38, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media and Wisconsin. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 05:38, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per RedTailedHawk's excellent (as always) source analysis and the lack of coverage elsewhere. ThadeusOfNazereth(he/they)^{Talk to Me!} 06:32, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Red-tailed hawk. I was surprised I couldn't find significant coverage anywhere, given the reasonably high readership, but alas we don't have a notability pass on that alone. Ovinus (talk) 18:38, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I will present a defense for not deleting this page.

WP:NCORP says "... When evaluating the notability of organizations or products, please consider whether they have had any significant or demonstrable effects on culture, society ... education. Large organizations and their products are likely to have more readily available verifiable information from reliable sources that provide evidence of notability. However, smaller organizations and their products can be notable, just as individuals can be notable. Arbitrary standards should not be used to create a bias favoring larger organizations..."

Milwaukee Independent has earned 48 journalism awards since 2016. It has published over 8,000 articles in that time. Hundreds of article have been back-linked to their journalism, but are listed as embedded links - not always specifically cited as a source by name.

The low hanging fruit from a google search only shows if other news organizations have recently reported on or quoted Milwaukee Independent's work. There have been numerous citations over the years that take more effort to find - like published paper books or academic journals for columnist Reggie Jackson's work. Milwaukee Independent should not be disqualified for this reason alone.

For example, other Milwaukee TV stations wanted to interview the journalism team who went to report on the war in Ukraine. But they refused media appearances, saying... "how can we publish 27 articles and 1400 images about our experience covering the war and condense that to a 30 second soundbite for TV?" Because local TV stations did not piggyback on their work, does that make their journalism less impactful or of worth? They remain the only news organization to report on the war from Ukraine - Irpin is Milwaukee's sister city.

It is understandable that significant coverage is important for verification. But I think most attention is bad news, when an organization - particularly media - becomes embroiled in a controversy. Why should that precedent supersede when an organization is overlooked for trying to fulfill the purpose of journalism by educating the public - without demanding the spotlight? IrpinIndependent (talk) 21:34, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@IrpinIndependent: An organization is not notable merely because a notable person or event was associated with it. Your argument that the Milwaukee Independent employed someone you say is a notable columnist does not in any way lend credibility towards the claim that the corporation is notable.

Additionally, the existence of mere backlinks to their articles is in no way WP:ORGDEPTH-level coverage. And, while you may feel that they are valuable or important in some way, WP:ORGSIG notes that "Notability" is not synonymous with "fame" or "importance." No matter how "important" editors may personally believe an organization to be, it should not have a stand-alone article in Wikipedia unless reliable sources independent of the organization have given significant coverage to it. Along those lines, would you be willing to provide a list of three sources you think show that this organization has received significant coverage from multiple independent reliable secondary sources? — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 22:28, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 05:56, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Also buying RTH's excellent analysis, also believe Milwaukee Independent fails WP:NCORP. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 14:32, 17 October 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 Mexico–Taiwan relations. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:24, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mexican Trade Services Documentation and Cultural Office[edit]

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

Embassies (or in this case de facto embassy) are not inherently notable. This article merely confirms it exists. Fails WP:GNG. LibStar (talk) 04:39, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations, Taiwan, and Mexico. Shellwood (talk) 08:33, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect to Mexico–Taiwan relations per Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Alternatives for deletion. I will support a standalone article if significant coverage is found that discusses the history of this de facto embassy. Cunard (talk) 08:54, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:44, 17 October 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!} 04:28, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

David Abney[edit]

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

~~Not notable; sources are not independent reliable and with in depth coverage of the subject. No care of BLP guidelines in the article Driodr (talk) 18:05, 3 October 2022 (UTC)~~UPE spammer strike. MER-C 19:15, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Mississippi. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:40, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:15, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- This link that I found is reliable and in-depht [43]. There is more sources [44], [45]. Meets General notability guideline. Yüsiacı (talk) 00:57, 11 October 2022 (UTC)(sock strike Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:47, 16 October 2022 (UTC))[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:38, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 14:42, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Consensus is that WP:SYNTH applies. Sandstein 10:45, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Western support of dictators[edit]

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

Delete. This is yet another essay by Ghazaalch, comprising large amounts of material copied without attribution from other, better Wikipedia articles and held together via a liberal amount of WP:SYNTH. To be fair, Noam Chomsky may connect many of the incidents in question, but a Wikipedia article should not be based almost exclusively on the views of just one author, especially when the details of the abuses committed by the authoritarian governments in question come from sources that discuss each regime individually without addressing the putative topic of "Western support of dictators". (Additionally, the only examples of Western support for dictatorships listed refer to the United States, the United Kingdom, and Israel, in keeping with the views of the current authoritarian government of Iran; although this is certainly permissible on Wikipedia, Ghazaalch is an Iranian editor whose edits are generally pro-regime and anti-MeK, creating an appearance of selection bias.) Finally, while the content copied without attribution from elsewhere on Wikipedia is largely factual, the portions written by Ghazaalch himself contain several notable errors that betray a lack of familiarity with the underlying sources, for example misgendering Jeane Kirkpatrick and consistently confusing the Indonesian mass killings of 1965–66 with the Indonesian invasion of East Timor (Ghazaalch writes that "Over one million Indonesians were systematically killed" during the occupation of East Timor, until "Clinton finally ordered the Indonesian generals to stop and the conflict ended within a day, which according to Chomsky could have been stopped 25 years before it").TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 04:26, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@TheTimesAreAChanging: This article was published today and could be improved little by little but nominating it for deletion is not very constructive. As for misgendering Jeane Kirkpatrick, and confusing the Indonesian mass killings of 1965–66 with the Indonesian invasion of East Timor, I fixed them. Concerning borrowing some sentences from other articles, could you tell me how should I attribute them in this articl? And please avoid personal attack. MeK is a cultish group that was designated by United Nations and other countries as a terrorist organization and committed many assassination including some American citizens. So apposing MeK does not entail that I am a pro-regime and my writing is biased. Ghazaalch (talk) 04:40, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You can add an attribution notice via an edit summary like this.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 17:47, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@TheTimesAreAChanging: I created this article in my sandbox then copy-pasted it here, so it was of no use to write an edit summary for it there, because it is not visible here. Ghazaalch (talk) 03:46, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I can't see how such an article could ever be neutral. JMWt (talk) 09:32, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The term dictator itself is non-neutral, so the article is inherently POV. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 21:43, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@LaundryPizza03: What if we use "authoritarian" instead of "dictator"? Ghazaalch (talk) 02:50, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That's a tough one. It depends on whether the topic meets WP:GNG to support an article not based on novel syntheses. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 02:55, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I used the material from other articles mostly as introductory or footnotes, but the main body of the article is novel and could be an independent article. Ghazaalch (talk) 03:39, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

unapproved move Note user:Ghazaalch renamed this article during the time of the AFD. This is not acceptable as the scope is very likely to change with a title change. So is this article supposed to be about "support" or "allegations"? Graeme Bartlett (talk) 07:30, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Per above comments, I changed the title from "Western support of dictators" to "Alleged western support of dictators" to make it more neutral. Ghazaalch (talk) 07:49, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@TheTimesAreAChanging: Can you show me the sentences you are saying I copied from other articles without attributing? Ghazaalch (talk) 03:40, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No, I don't have the time to identify and list every example, especially when you should be keeping track yourself, but it's plainly obvious, to give just two examples, that the content referring to "historian John Roosa" and "Geoffrey B. Robinson, a historian at UCLA" was lifted (along with the supporting citations) from Indonesian mass killings of 1965–66, with very little modification.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 20:22, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@TheTimesAreAChanging: You are saying that you didn't have enough the time to identify and list every example, but you are asserting that "the content copied without attribution from elsewhere on Wikipedia is largely factual". Even in the examples given by you, there is no "copied" part except for the names of the historians and a part of a quotation that could be lifted from the original source. Ghazaalch (talk) 04:01, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ghazaalch, to be clear, there's nothing wrong with copying within Wikipedia. You just need to provide attribution, to supplement the revision history by directing readers to the edit history of the original article(s).TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 20:49, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. Yes, Western powers supported every dictator on the Earth, from Hitler to Putin. However, one needs multiple RS specifically on this general subject, rather than sources about support of specific dictator by specific USA president. If there are such sources on the general subject, then this page has right to exist. But if not, this is WP:COATRACK. Looking at the sources currently on the page, some of them are indeed about more or less general issues, but not clear cut on the "Western support of dictators", so the page does look to me as a personal essay, and "inherently POV". My very best wishes (talk) 23:51, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@My very best wishes, JMWt, and LaundryPizza03: Since this article is mainly about United States and its allies and since it not very clear who are the allies, I could change the title of article to "Alleged United States support of authoritarian governments". The sources given for this allegation are good enough, because the new title is not about "support of authoritarians" but about the "allegation of support". Moreover it is no longer a general subject. here are more sources for the new title. What do you think? Ghazaalch (talk) 03:20, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That may be seen as an attempt to recreate List of authoritarian regimes supported by the United States, which the community found consensus to delete in February 2018, under a slightly different title. I doubt that simply adding the word "Allegations" would rectify the WP:SYNTH and other concerns that were identified at the time.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 20:49, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, indeed. My very best wishes (talk) 02:24, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@TheTimesAreAChanging: Could you make some examples and explain how WP:SYNTH apply for this new title("Alleged United States support of authoritarian governments")? There are many sources talking about "United States support of authoritarian governments", so I am not combining material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any source. Ghazaalch (talk) 03:03, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The original article, which purported to be a comprehensive "list" of each example, was determined to contain a liberal amount of WP:SYNTH by the Wikipedia community. Since you haven't (yet) recreated it, it would be impossible for me to point out the WP:SYNTH in a hypothetical draft version that currently exists only in your mind, but I would caution you against further unapproved page moves/scope changes in the middle of a deletion discussion that is not trending in your favor. Certainly, the scope would have to be narrowed considerably for the page to survive a deletion challenge; again, without presenting an exhaustive list of the potential pitfalls, the aforementioned content about "historian John Roosa" and "Geoffrey B. Robinson, a historian at UCLA" would be WP:SYNTH unless you could show where those authors wrote specifically about the putative topic of the article (whether "Western support of dictators" or "Alleged western support of dictators" or "Alleged United States support of authoritarian governments" or whatever the case may be).TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 05:13, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@TheTimesAreAChanging: I am not talking about the "list". I am talking about the existing article that can be turned into an article about the United States with a few lines removed. Concerning the WP:SYNTH I should say that even if as you say the content about "historian John Roosa" and "Geoffrey B. Robinson, a historian at UCLA" would be WP:SYNTH, we could omit the three or four lines from the article. Why did you nominate the whole article for deletion? Why do you nominate every article I write about the United States? Ghazaalch (talk) 08:22, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ghazaalch, you are continually moving the goalpost and WP:BLUDGEONing this discussion, which is unhelpful. This article will be deleted or kept based on community consensus, not individual editor opinion alone. You need to take a step back and let the process play out. Further unapproved moves and personalization of content disputes will not change the outcome.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 08:27, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am not moving the goalpost. I am just trying to modify the article in order to satisfy you but you are never satisfied. You first said that I am comprising large amounts of material copied without attribution, which I showed that it is not the case. You then said that the article is not addressing the putative topic of "Western support of dictators". I proposed to change the title of article to "Alleged United States support of authoritarian governments". You then wrote that the article contain several notable errors such as misgendering Jeane Kirkpatrick and consistently confusing the Indonesian mass killings of 1965–66 with the Indonesian invasion of East Timor, then I fixed them all. Then you said that the aforementioned content about "historian John Roosa" and "Geoffrey B. Robinson, a historian at UCLA" would be WP:SYNTH unless you could show where those authors wrote specifically about the putative topic of the article. I answered that even if the aforementioned content is WP:SYNTH, we could omit the three or four lines from the article. Now you are accusing me of personalization of content disputes while you yourself wrote that Ghazaalch is an Iranian editor whose edits are generally pro-regime and anti-MeK, creating an appearance of selection bias. You are talking about consensus but you cannot give me a reasonable answer why you nominated this article for deletion. And consensus, as you know, is not acquired merely via voting. The policies say The deletion process is really a discussion. Wikipedia has particular standards for deletion and editors explain why they believe certain rules apply...Users sometimes try to sway the discussion by trying to vote several times or by getting friends or other users to vote with them. This usually backfires and violates the Wikipedia policy. Administrators can tell how many previous edits a user has made and discount these "votes". The effort may draw negative responses from other editors who dislike these methods of trying to influence the outcome. Also, making multiple accounts to all vote for a certain position is sockpuppeteering and violates policy.

Now what is the problem? If we have a section like Support of dictatorships and state terrorism in this article, why shouldn't we have an expanded version of the section as a new article? Ghazaalch (talk) 09:50, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Definitely a violation of WP:SYNTH. X-Editor (talk) 04:32, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@X-Editor: Did you read above discussion? I also encourage you to read this discussion.Ghazaalch (talk) 03:34, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:54, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Saundarya Rajesh[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Heavily promotional article with no good references or indication of notability. I checked all the sources. Many of them just mention about the subject. Charuquin (talk) 04:30, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Charuquin (talk) 04:30, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Women. Shellwood (talk) 08:34, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The nomination looks suspicious since the user who nominated the article for deletion has no substantial contribution to Wikipedia, just a 23-day-old account with here and there edits. How perfectly a new user has nominated the page is a bit surprising. It looks nominator is aware of the policies; not sure if it is a sockpuppet account of any banned user. Now, coming to the article, it looks notable per WP:BIO, WP:GNG, but fails to meet WP:Format. Needs a fix, let me try working on it.--Elton-Rodrigues (talk) 11:06, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I revised the page and removed a large amount of the information found unverifiable. I added more reliable citations found online and worked on the content part too. Now, it looks good meeting the WP:Format. The subject passes notability, WP:BIO, WP:GNG, hence would go for Keep.--Elton-Rodrigues (talk) 14:17, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:44, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:HEY and WP:BASIC/WP:GNG, e.g. Second Innings (Outlook Business, 2008), Helping women manage different avatars (The Hindu Business Line, 2014), Meeting Saundarya Rajesh, a woman entrepreneur who works for other women (The News Minute, 2016), Helping women take a new ‘Avtar’ in their career re-entry (Deccan Chronicle, 2019), How one woman's experience of trying to re-enter the workforce changed the face of the HR industry in India (Vogue India, 2020), and there is additional reporting about her work in The Hindu (2017), (2019), (2019) and various books. She is also regularly quoted by news outlets for her opinion on gender issues, e.g. two days ago (The Hindu). Beccaynr (talk) 02:45, 20 October 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 article creator redirected page to parent article. (non-admin closure) Waddles 🗩 🖉 02:37, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Samsung Galaxy S8 Keyboard Cover[edit]

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

There's coverage of this phone accessory, but it is not necessarily notable enough to be a standalone article; it's only an accessory. Besides, there is already a section regarding this on the parent article. I don't really see a reason to have a separate article about an accessory. I'm sure some of this article's content can be merged into the parent article though. Waddles 🗩 🖉 02:28, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Products and Technology. Waddles 🗩 🖉 02:28, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge As the user who created the article, yeah i agree, but it should be merged into Samsung Galaxy S8. SMBMovieFan (talk) 02:30, 17 October 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 01:23, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Gale (businessman)[edit]

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

Fails WP:NBIO and WP:GNG. As per WP:BEFORE was able to find some things online but nothing that would pass WP:GNG, further WP:BEFORE in the newspaper archive didn't produce anything of note. Has worked or been part of notable things such as one episode of a TV show on Bravo and as an executive of Macromedia. But WP:INHERITORG does not transfer that notability to Gale.

WP:NBIO: has not won a major award, and is not well known in the field.

Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Source assessment table:
Gigabit Challenge	? Website is no longer online	? Website is no longer online	Page is just an announcement that Gale is a judge	✘ No
Anthill Magazine	~ Hard to tell this article is from 2004 so a lot could change with this source since then	~ Article does not have an author, makes Gale look really good with out a lot of deeper questions	Article is about Gale but is done in a way that makes him look really good.	~ Partial
Bravo	Bravo isn't really known for it's deep cutting work but it appears to be independent	If you would cite Shark Tank as a reliable source then you should be able to do it here as well	Gale is on the show but it's hard to tell since the source is only a one minute clip from an episode of a TV show	✘ No
The New York Observer	In general it appears to be independent	I would say the source wouldn't be reliable because it's a human interest story, but the facts appear to line up that Gale's company invested money in an app that was on this show	~ Gale is quoted twice but the article isn't about Gale it's about the app and the people who pitched it on a show where he was the judge	✘ No
Business Insider	~ As per WP:BI there isn't consensus on the reliability of this source	As per WP:BI there isn't consensus on the reliability of this source	Gale is quoted a couple of times but the article isn't about Gale it's about the app and the people who pitched it on a show where he was the judge	✘ No
Anthill	Gale wrote a commentary article for Anthill	Gale wrote a commentary article for Anthill	~ Gale is talked about in this article by Gale	✘ No
Anthill	Gale wrote a commentary article for Anthill	Gale wrote a commentary article for Anthill	~ Gale wrote a commentary article for Anthill	✘ No
Anthill	Gale wrote a commentary article for Anthill	Gale wrote a commentary article for Anthill	~ Gale wrote a commentary article for Anthill	✘ No
Anthill	Gale wrote a commentary article for Anthill	Gale wrote a commentary article for Anthill	~ Gale wrote a commentary article for Anthill	✘ No
Gulf Marketing Review	? Site is no longer online, went to the Internet Archive and it mentions that Gale was on a panel at an event but nothing more	~ Can't tell if the source is reliable but as the article is just one sentence about him being somewhere I'm willing to belive it	Site is no longer online, went to the Internet Archive and it mentions that Gale was on a panel at an event but nothing more	✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

Dr vulpes ^{(💬 • 📝)} 00:40, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Australia. AllyD (talk) 08:30, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - was going to nominate myself, but Dr. Vulpes beat me to it. Agree with their assessment table. Fails WP:GNG.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 11:01, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete clearly fails WP:BIO from assessment table. LibStar (talk) 23:06, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Cabrils (talk) 23:20, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Clearly doesn't meet any notability standards. Moresdi (talk) 23:07, 21 October 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 01:24, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kuresa Tupua[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:NOLY Their result at the 2000 olympics was the lowest of the competition. Paradise Chronicle (talk) 00:16, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Olympics. Paradise Chronicle (talk) 00:16, 17 October 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 Munster Reds Twenty20 players. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:29, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Cormac Hassett[edit]

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

Fails WP:NCRIC. LibStar (talk) 22:54, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. LibStar (talk) 06:12, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. LibStar (talk) 06:14, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:36, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Munster Reds Twenty20 players The majority of matches he played were T20s for Munster Reds, so this is a suitable redirect. It looks like he fails GNG and obviously fails the updated WP:NCRIC. Other editors may be able to find coverage for him though in a more detailed search. Redirect is a suitable WP:ATD though. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 19:54, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There's some coverage in the Herald Sun - Australian and paywalled - and this from Cork CCC, and there might just be enough to argue GNG here. Overall I'm pretty relaxed about a redirect, maybe with a note added with the ref from Cork as a seed for anyone who'd like to develop the article in the future if more sources emerge. Blue Square Thing (talk) 07:03, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 00:11, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Munster Reds Twenty20 players, the Herald Sun article is a decent source, but it appears to be the only one, and the Cork CCC article would likely not contribute to GNG in any case, as it is effectively a press release. Devonian Wombat (talk) 22:26, 19 October 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 01:24, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Serdar Şatır[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:NOLY. He didn't win a medal and ranked 48th in singles, 5th with team. And a WP:BEFORE gave me non-prose basic database entries on Serdar Satir. He is the brother of an other archery athlete, I checked, but she seems of similar notability like him. Paradise Chronicle (talk) 00:01, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Turkey. Paradise Chronicle (talk) 00:01, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I couldn't find sufficient sources to show notability. Suonii180 (talk) 22:51, 18 October 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.

[MabiniLouise_B._ReyesB._Aras2021-1] Mabini, Jay; Louise B. Reyes, Jumhejell; B. Aras, Geraldine; J. Homeres, Ramil (16 November 2021). "Challenges and Coping Strategies in Achieving Physically Active Habits: The Case of Bachelor of Physical Education Students". International Journal of Research Publications. 90 (1). doi:10.47119/IJRP1009011220212521. eISSN 2708-3578.

[1]