Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2022 September 5

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< September 04	September 06 >

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 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!} 07:05, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Libyan Anti-Torture Network[edit]

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

no WP:Notabilty, just a local NGO without any achievments or notable works, all refs are WP:TRIVIALMENTION and talking about situation in Libya not about them. Ibrahim.ID ✪ 23:10, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: this organization belong to OMCT, so all links from it are not considered as "Independent source" and unacceptable according to WP:GNG--Ibrahim.ID ✪ 00:50, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Libya-related deletion discussions. Ibrahim.ID ✪ 23:10, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:00, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Ibrahim, I understand your points but I would like to explain that, unfortunately, due to the security risks facing the members of the Libyan Anti-torture Network, or any human rights defenders in Libya really, it makes it diffcult to include all of their activities and achievements without exposing them to danger, torture or even death.

Nevertheless, if you could give me a few pointers in order to improve the article and hopefully avoid deletion, that would be great. Thank you! Dawn-editor (talk) 08:40, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is irrational reason. We are talking about NGO, a public and known firm that helps people and this discussion about Notabilty criteria and its noble cause is mot reason to keep it (no exceptions), and if we keep its activities and achivements are secret what is the use of the article then? give some promotion and support it? Wikipedia is not a soapbox --Ibrahim.ID ✪ 00:50, 4 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!} 23:37, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can't find much for sourcing. I agree with the sentiment above, but we need sourcing that's independent from the organization. Otherwise the article is biased, and that's not an acceptable compromise. Oaktree b (talk) 00:17, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Doczilla _{@SUPERHEROLOGIST} 05:39, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Aguilera Tour[edit]

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

This is a recreation of Summer 2022 (Christina Aguilera) which was deleted per the discussion here. As per the principles of WP:HAMMER, this "tour" doesn't have a name because its not a cohesively marketed set of performances or events. The name is not correct - its sourced from a peice of merchandise that was made available from the tour shop - the name of her ninth album Aguilera and the subtitle Tour 2022. A vague link to a tweet from the artist references EU/UK Summer Series but again this is not the name used for this article. Furthermore, Xtina's website calls it European tour 2022. There's no single press release or marketing that refers to the tour by title other than a working name to describe the dates.

Its a disparate collection of events tied together solely by the fact they happened over a close period of time but not specifically in promotion of a set body of work (although one was released alongside the tour). Fans are desperately trying to portray a co-ordinated and marketed jaunt of events under a cohesive name and theme which simply isn't the case. None of the ticket listings, or critics coverage mention a tour title, marketing under a brand or theme or anything which makes them cohesive. Too much WP:OR and WP:SYNTHESIS. The whole background section is not even relevant and could be deleted. The whole thing needs hammering once again if not speedy deleted for effectively recreating a deleted article under a different title.

Would possibly consider a move to EU/UK Summer Series an acceptable compromise given the artist tweeted some marketing material to this effect but again its minimal coverage and could be Hammered given the lack of clarity. I did consider speedy deletion as recreation of previously deleted article but felt a discussion was merited. >> Lil-unique1 (talk) — 18:50, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - Given the marketing material on the artist's social media, a move to EU/UK Summer Series should be better, similar to other artists' festival tours, e.g., Kylie Minogue's Summer 2019. — FredYYoo (talk) 23:44, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep — I agree with the notion to move it back to EU/UK Summer Series as the name, The Aguilera Tour, has not been sourced in any notable sources. However, even then, I would question the validity of this even being a tour. Sure it is a group of performances or as you say "a disparate collection of events". Therefore, I would also support the notion of deletion altogether and just mention this on her main page or on List of Christina Aguilera concert tours.

Maxwell King¹²³³²¹ 06:23, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep — The article should be moved to "Christina Aguilera: EU/UK Summer Series", exactly like it is named in this official tweet from Aguilera herself. Obviously it should not be deleted at all, since it's a successful tour by a major artist. Many shows were sold outs (including the Scarborough one, as sourced by TeessideLive), and it has received positive reviews and big media coverage (from Liverpool Echo, The Times, Metro, BBC, among other websites). AngelOfDestiny (talk) 11:46, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. >> Lil-unique1 (talk) — 23:26, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Spain, and United Kingdom. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:01, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:36, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep WP:N Lightburst (talk) 01:39, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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!} 08:17, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lokal App[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Filled with funding and non notable awards. Failed WP:ORG MickeyMouse143 (talk) 22:37, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business, Websites, and India. MickeyMouse143 (talk) 22:37, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Karnataka. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:57, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Not enough sources that pass WP:ORG. Most are not reliable, nonindependent, or otherwise do not contain in-depth significant coverage about the topic. ––FormalDude (talk) 04:20, 5 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!} 22:45, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Insufficient sourcing to demonstrate this meets the subject specific notability guideline at ORG/NCORP - there is routine, trivial coverage but nothing appropriately in-depth to warrant a standalone article. Just another corporate puff piece masquerading as a legitimate article created by an editor with 28 edits - almost all of which are related to the creation of this article, promotion of the company behind it, and voting to prevent its deletion. MaxnaCarta (talk) 07:11, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:33, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

BudgetBakers[edit]

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

Made by a WP:NOTHERE editor User:Pf2017. Google News returns mainly blog posts / reviews from possibly unreliable sources. Current sources are mostly industry (startup focused) sources. Sungodtemple (talk) 22:10, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance and Companies. Sungodtemple (talk) 22:10, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete mostly PR stuff, not much of anything for sourcing found otherwise. Oaktree b (talk) 22:34, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Czech Republic-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:58, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Doczilla _{@SUPERHEROLOGIST} 05:38, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Emich (disambiguation)[edit]

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

This article appears to have been recreated following a WP:G14 CSD for unnecessary disambiguation pages. I'm unsure if the content has changed from its original incarnation, though the page seems to still meet G14 criteria; using AfD to avoid an edit/revert war here.

This page is linked only from Emich, which it links back to. Emich contains a link to the surname under See Also. I'm unclear if the "Emich" spelling for Eastern Michigan University merits mention, but if it does, it seems that it could also fit in the See Also of Emich and doesn't require this separate page. I propose merging any unique content on this page into Emich and deleting it. Dylnuge ^{(Talk • Edits)} 17:28, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Dylnuge ^{(Talk • Edits)} 17:28, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep. A valid disambig page. Contains 4 entries. Please cite the policy which advices squeezing multiple same-name items in a "see also" elsewhere. I've heard only about policy about ref to a single extra item with the same name placed on top. Loew Galitz (talk) 17:52, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

delete. (changed opinion). We dont list urls in disambig cases. I didnt find abbrev for the unversity as emich, only "EMU". So the number of valid entries is down to 2, and this case must be handled with "{{for}}"-hatnote. Loew Galitz (talk) 21:52, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I removed one entry as a PTM which didn't belong. "Emich" is not mentioned in the lead as an abbreviation, however it is the url of the school "emich.edu", so I think that qualifies. That makes three possible meanings for the term. MB 21:11, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@MB: Good catch. I did better search and see that the term "emich building/buildings" is not used at all. Loew Galitz (talk) 21:52, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:46, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A url is not a valid entry (unless it's a well-known one) and Emich doesn't seem to be an abbreviation of EMU, which means WP:TWODABS applies. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:52, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge back Emich, Emich (surname) and Emich (disambiguation). With only a handful of entries on each page, it doesn't make sense navigationally to have them all separate, and I doubt any of the two name articles would pass the notability threshold. Uanfala (talk) 12:13, 2 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!} 22:05, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:D it does not disambiguate and users are unlikely to need this dab to navigate. EMICH is not Eastern Michigan University EMU is. Lightburst (talk) 01:35, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Star Mississippi 01:04, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Avalon no Kagi[edit]

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

Looks like (partly) copyvio from here. Also a concern about fancruft, seeing the histoty here.The Banner talk 20:51, 15 August 2022 (UTC) The Banner talk 21:33, 15 August 2022 (UTC) (addition to rationale)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:00, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, although I did flag this on the article that there is close paraphrasing, I don't think it was sufficient enough to write-off the article on that alone. I am also unsure if it's an appropriate AfD rationale, especially as it could be paraphrased differently and doesn't necessarily impact the majority of the current prose. I don't really have a view if the article stays or goes. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:01, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- In fact, I have also a concern about it being fancruft, written by a player. The Banner talk 21:12, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - Maybe it's worth elaborating the rationale then so that it conveys a valid, or at least stronger reason for deletion? Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:16, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    - @The Banner: Hi, so this is no fancruft, as I have never played this game, and I'll re-write the gameplay portion as soon as possible --Dop55 (talk) 05:29, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:27, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:43, 29 August 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!} 22:04, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 11:51, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

AfterSchool (website)[edit]

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

Not having much in-depth coverage. Fails WP:ORG MickeyMouse143 (talk) 22:34, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Websites, China, and Hong Kong. MickeyMouse143 (talk) 22:34, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:56, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:02, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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!} 06:27, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Government General Degree College, Dantan-II[edit]

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

Fails notability criteria MickeyMouse143 (talk) 22:33, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Schools, and India. MickeyMouse143 (talk) 22:33, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education and West Bengal. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:55, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:01, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Redirect to Vidyasagar University. WP:MILL, fails WP:NSCHOOL. I am concerned a little with the fact that the nom made 12 deletion nominations in 10 minutes and probably didn't make any effort of WP:BEFORE, but, I think they are correct on this one. --Muhandes (talk) 14:05, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 11:52, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Scape TV[edit]

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

Too Early to create. Fails WP:ORG MickeyMouse143 (talk) 22:31, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Business, and India. MickeyMouse143 (talk) 22:31, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Karnataka. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:54, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:00, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:01, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

IndiaOne Air[edit]

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

Primarily, the company launch news, too early to create the page. Fails WP:ORG MickeyMouse143 (talk) 22:30, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business, Transportation, and India. MickeyMouse143 (talk) 22:30, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 23:02, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Gujarat. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:59, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:00, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. AOC has been issued and airline has already launched. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 07:06, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per AKS.9955, if the company has an AOC and operates revenue flights, it meets longstanding community consensus for notability. Carguychris (talk) 16:25, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 11:53, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

KLE Society's Dr. M. S. Sheshgiri College of Engineering and Technology[edit]

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

Non notable college, fails WP:NCORP, WP:GNG MickeyMouse143 (talk) 22:28, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business, Schools, and India. MickeyMouse143 (talk) 22:28, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Engineering, Technology, and Karnataka. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:53, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:59, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 11:53, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Shaikh College of Engineering and Technology[edit]

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

Non notable college, fails WP:NCORP, WP:GNG MickeyMouse143 (talk) 22:27, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Schools, and India. MickeyMouse143 (talk) 22:27, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Engineering, Technology, and Karnataka. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:52, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:59, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Rocket from the Crypt. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:32, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Paul O'Beirne[edit]

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

Non-notable musician. All sources found for this Paul O'Beirne were mere name drops (most other sources for "Paul O'Beirne" are for somebody else), and article content before removal by IP back in May was more about the bands he was part of rather than about O'Beirne as a person CiphriusKane (talk) 21:24, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and United States of America. CiphriusKane (talk) 21:24, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I find nothing for this musician. Lots of people with his name though. Oaktree b (talk) 02:18, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Rocket from the Crypt, where he is known as Apollo 9. It looks like someone started the article but gave up after they found that it would be nothing but a repeat of the band's article. That's because Mr. O'Beirne has done little or nothing that is notable outside of the band. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 15:23, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:57, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. It's not the same article it was when it was nominated for deletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:31, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ginger Howard[edit]

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

Autobiography. Fails WP:GNG and WP:BIO. Geoff | ^{Who, me?} 21:24, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, and Golf. Shellwood (talk) 21:41, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I was unable to find significant coverage of her in independent, reliable sources. Cullen328 (talk) 22:03, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Brief mention here in the NY Times [1], but it's paywalled, and this from a Florida newspaper, [2], also paywalled. Willing to !keep if more is found. Oaktree b (talk) 22:37, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Sufficient significant coverage to pass GNG/BASIC. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 09:25, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Cielquiparle has done a nice job improving the article and adding in coverage of Howard from multiple reliable sources. Coverage of her career began in 2007 and continues through 2021, and is therefore also sustained. DaffodilOcean (talk) 10:58, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:HEY, article has been substantially improved since nomination for deletion. NemesisAT (talk) 13:35, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article has improved significantly since it was nominated for AFD. Passes WP:GNG. Fats40boy11 (talk) 08:49, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article is now good enough with significant coverage to remain. NMasiha (talk) 20:07, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 under WP:SNOW. (non-admin closure) — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 13:49, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Eurogamer[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

I see no evidence of notability. In the previous AFD, back in 2006, the only Keep !vote that mentioned notability at all, in response to a nomination that cited a lack of notability, insisted that there were millions of Google hits and that an Alex rank of 7500 was sufficient to qualify it as notable. Well, I'm running a Google search for eurogamer and getting 25 hits (Google back in 2006 was a lot less selective and would show duplicate after duplicate as well as many more garbage pages with random words). I'm seeing only one that amounts to significant and independent coverage. Largoplazo (talk) 21:12, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games and Websites. Largoplazo (talk) 21:12, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Largoplazo Not refuting the basis of this AFD yet, but could you elaborate about your link to a Google search and "getting 25 hits"? I get "About 18,000,000 results". -- ferret (talk) 21:53, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Ferret: I provided the link to the relevant Google search: eurogamer Largoplazo (talk) 22:33, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Largoplazo Yes, yes you did. You attest that link only returns 25 hits. However, I get 18,000,000. -- ferret (talk) 22:34, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Google Search is clearly having a bit of a stroke at the moment. A search for "Google" currently yields only 65 results, "Facebook" gives 40 sources, but "Facebook.com my grandson Nathan" returns 1,860,000 hits. Google and Facebook are undoubtedly notable, whereas a meme might not be. Google Search result counts should never be the deciding factor for notability, and this current issue adds to this belief. If you go through the WP:VG custom reliable sources search, you get a solid 9 million results (albeit limited to 10 pages of 10 sources each) that you could use to look for sources, such as [3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13]. IceWelder [✉] 21:58, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Do note VG247 is not independent though. -- ferret (talk) 22:07, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Right. While I didn't have this in mind right then, my sources were just exemplatory to show that there should be more than 25 Google results. Excluding VG247 still results in more than 9 million hits, with plenty of possible sources available. IceWelder [✉] 22:18, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Using Bing, it says at the top of the results, "1,060,000 Results" but when I page through, though on page 5 of the results it says "48-59 Of 1,030,000 Results", on page 6 I get "There are no results for eurogamer. Check your spelling or try different keywords." So unless Bing is a regurgitator of Google's search corpus or vice versa, it doesn't look like the sparseness of mentions of this purportedly well-known website is a matter of a momentary Google glitch. However, I do take note of what is being related here, and I'll consider whether there's a reason why this site is widely reported in reliable places outside the notice of two major search engines. If I can ascertain that, I'll withdraw my nomination. Though I actually like trout. Largoplazo (talk) 22:42, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Largoplazo You're definitely having some sort of search engine oddity at this time. Eurogamer is one of the largest publications for video games, with millions of non-duplicate hits. Even limiting results to those deemed reliable by WP:VG/S's custom search, and removing sister sites from the results, has millions of results. Separate from WP:N, they are undoubtably reliable and frequently quoted by other publications (which makes WP:BEFORE a pain, tbh) -- ferret (talk) 22:45, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per sources found by IceWelder, the basis behind the nomination was clearly a technical malfunction of Google and WP:TROUT the nominator for not doing any more detective work than a mere Google search, much less using other search engines to confirm it wasn't otherwise. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 22:04, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Bing, at the moment, similarly chooses not to display more than 59 results for a search for eurogamer. Also, I like trout—though I take seriously the feedback I'm receiving here. Largoplazo (talk) 22:45, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (Edit conflict with Zxcvbnm and independent of IceWelder's sourcing) It cannot be overstated how careful you need to be in searching for Eurogamer sourcing. See the list of sister sites at Gamer Network. The article is in really poor shape, with 95% of the sourcing being primary or non-independent. However, I just added over 10 sources of reliable coverage to the talk page as refideas, and there's plenty more I could have listed, but I felt I'd done enough WP:BEFORE. -- ferret (talk) 22:05, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Zxcvbnm and IceWelder. Andre🚐 22:51, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the addition of sources on the talk page. WP:GNG is clearly met here. --MuZemike 00:52, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Initially, I found it bizarre that Eurogamer, with notability on par with IGN and Polygon (website) was AfDed, before searching on Google to see it only displayed 22 results with some omitted, if you continue without omitted results, there're much more. Still, the refs found by IceWelder and ferret on talk clearly indicate that WP:GNG or WP:NWEB is met, I've added a couple, they are all RS on WP:VG/RS, despite VG247's independence concerns and seem to be SIGCOV. I know there's another article for the expo despite it mentioned here, but on Kotaku there's a couple of refs for that one as well. VickKiang (talk) 03:15, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Snow keep. Clearly some kind of technical malfunction led to this AFD nom for one of the biggest game news sites in the world. Axem Titanium (talk) 10:07, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. ~~Google must've been having issues that day as the same link to the google search for Eurogamer returns 19,000,000 results for me, rather than a mere 25.~~ ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 19:14, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Striking my comment about it returning 19,000,000 results... I dunno what's going on but when you go to page 3 it says there's now only 25 results... how strange. Still, I"m keeping my keep vote since it's been demonstrated to meet WP:GNG and WP:NWEB. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 19:17, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep One of the premier gaming news website of today. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 02:31, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Doczilla _{@SUPERHEROLOGIST} 05:34, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Jammu (1399)[edit]

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

I don't think this even pass WP:GNG. There is no notability of this specific event. ❯❯❯ Chunky aka Al Kashmiri (✍️) 19:05, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. ❯❯❯ Chunky aka Al Kashmiri (✍️) 19:05, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Military, and Jammu and Kashmir. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:14, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Great Caesar's ghost, is this what we've come to? Herostratus (talk) 23:17, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well, let me back off from that. This is just a weird situation. The internet does appear to know almost nothing about this battle, and neither does Google Books, which for such an allegedly big-deal event seems practically impossible. So the suggestion below that it might be a hoax is reasonable. But, if so, it's way way more elaborate than any I've seen here, I mean this is a lot of work to write, making everything up from scratch. And also it's just an odd subject for a hoax. It's not funny. It doesn't seem like the sort of thing that a troll would do for lulz.

Apparently the article was first called "Battle of Dugara", but there isn't anything on that on the internet either. "Dogra" is another term for Dugara, but nothing on that either. The only real editing was done by the article creator, the other editors were just tweaking and cleaning up.

Anyway, we do have a source with this:

In 1397, Amir Timur attacked India, and in December 1398 he occupied Delhi. In January 1399, he marched toward Jammu to teach a lesson to disturbing Hindus. En route to Jammu, he had a battle with the Raja of Nagarcot, and in February he entered Jammu at Shahpur Kandi on the bank of Ravi and marched through Basohli to Mansar... on the 27th he attacked and plundered the village of Manu and town of Jammu and secured enormous booty in grains, goods, and cattle, later his soldiers ambushed Raja Mal Dev's party and he was put to confinement.

Emphasis added. It is from an entity called "Aphipedia". I don't know who they are, but its definitely not a hoax website. It's a commercial site, a study/coaching website for exam candidates I think, and it's clearly not a one-person site. It says here that they have at least eleven employees. I see it was founded in 2022 tho. Anyway, it's prep for the State General Knowledge exam and you'd think that either making stuff up or credulously copying from Wikipedia wouldn't fit their business model. But I don't know India.

Anyway, our article has

Timur entered the Jammu territory through Shahpur Kandi on the River Ravi, and marched along the caravan route from Basohli to Mansar Lake... On February 26th Timur again marched, and came up opposite to the city of Jammu, and set up camp... On February 27, 1399 Wednesday: Timur sent his army over the river... Timur ordered his soldiers not to go towards them, but to attack and plunder the town of Jammu and the village of Manu. Accordingly, his forces fell to plundering, and secured an enormous supply of food...

So we can see that Aphipedia and this article use entirely different wording and exposition, so it doesn't seem likely that one is copying from the other, unless special effort was expended to obscure this fact. Again, if this is hoax, Aphipedia is in on it I think, and it's getting awfully elaborate for a hoax.

So what it seems like what we might have here is an event which is somewhat obscure to begin with, really just Tamerlane overwhelming yet another podunk town. And it occurred in medieval Jammu, which even today Jammu is pretty remote from metropolitan India or really anywhere. So maybe not much was written down at the time. And this was before printing, so some or most of what was written down might have been lost. And it was written in whatever language and script they used in medieval Jammu which language and script is not even used or much known anymore I guess. So, it's natural that finding on-line English sources on the event is going to be hard, compared to an English battle like the contemporary Battle of Agincourt.

And then in the Aftermath section we have

The tradition recorded by Ganesh Dass and G.C. Smyth affirms that it was Mal Dev, who was contemporary of Timur and who died in about 1400 A.D. The Dogra folk ballads give a different version of Mal Dev's role in the affair. In one of the legends it is narrated that Mal Dev organised a confederacy of Rajas against Timur and fought the invaders in defending Kangra, and died there a heroic death. Another ballad lauds Mal Dev's terrible battle with the invaders in which Timur was badly repulsed. It is probable that the "Raja of Jammu" which Timur's men captured in ambush cade, was not the Raja, but only a vassal of the King of Jammu, who, along with 'fifty rais and Rajputs' might have come down the valley of the Tawi on way to the plain country lying across it, and fell into ambuscade...

Emphasis added. However, its not a deal killer if events are not firmly established. We just have to be careful to point out the source in the text and not say these things in our voice.

One major source is apparently the Zafarnama, which is important enough to have an article here, but as far as I can tell has never been translated into English nor published, so to vet that ref we'd have find somebody who can read medieval Persian and then somehow get hold of a facsimile. It is not used as a ref in the Notes section, which is correct because refs are supposed to be accessible without extreme effort. But it used in the text. (Also the article says that the book is a panegyric that, while it does record Timur's actions, presumably cherry-picks and spins facts, so...)

But then, we have these two books

Rai, Mridu (2004). Hindu rulers, Muslim subjects : Islam, rights, and the history of Kashmir. London: Hurst & Co. ISBN 1850656614.
Kalhana's Rajatarangini. Vol. 2 : a chronicle of the kings of Kashmir : Book VIII. Notes, geographical memoir, index, maps (Reprint ed.). 1989. ISBN 978-81-208-0370-1.

But User:TheChunky checked both books and found nothing. This is key, but I can't replicate, the first link devolve to a page with with "search inside unavailable", the second to a 547 page PDF which I can't search.

I mean it's just an interesting situation. Hard to prove, but my personal belief, based on the totality of the above and of the article, particularly the Aphipedia passage, is that this event did happen in the place and time specified. I further doubt that the details in this article are mostly or partly just made up as a hoax by User:Gārgīyajyotiṣa who wrote the article. This is the only published article by User:Gārgīyajyotiṣa, but he did write two other unfinished articles: Draft:Battle of Miran Sahib and User:Gārgīyajyotiṣa/sandbox (Battle of Dudhu Chak). These are similar to this article in all important respects. If this person is making all these up from whole cloth... that's... so odd that it's almost incredible. There are billions of people in the world tho, so you never know. Still, Occam's Razor.

Anyway, when in doubt, we want to lean toward preserving material, especially when we have something like this which took a lot of work and -- if true -- is a good article.

I think what we need to do is heavily tag the article throughout. This will alert the reader of the situation, and perhaps lead to somebody digging up more refs, altho tbh I don't know how. Herostratus (talk) 18:32, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Zafarnama says "More recently, the Zafarnama was translated into French in 1722 by François Pétis de la Croix and into English the following year." Those ought to be on the internet somewhere. Johnbod (talk) 04:21, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

OK, definitely don't want to rush here. There's WP:NOHURRY. I've alerted the India and Pakistan wikiprojects, they can read Hindi or Urdu sources, so maybe some help there.

But... looking at another of the author's articles, Draft:Battle of Miran Sahib... well apparently Miran Sahib is a person. I think. There are two sources, different from this article. But they're both used just for trivial facts. The first is "Kumar, Raj (2018). A complete history of Jammu and Kashmir State. Delhi. ISBN 978-9351282488". But there's no preview. The other is "Charak, Sukh Dev Singh (1998). Pahāṛi styles of Indian murals. New Delhi, India: Abhinav Publications. ISBN 9788170173564", used for an extremely minor fact, I can get a preview and it doesn't seem to support the fact that I can see. Of course, this is a draft, and maybe he was going to change the title and add some more refs. Maybe. Herostratus (talk) 01:04, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There is a tendency in India articles to glorify local rulers and, in all probability, a skirmish, or a local legend of sorts, has become a battle and a victory. Timur's campaigns in India are actually fairly well covered by historians so, if there was a battle, it shouldn't be hard to find English language sources. Perhaps @Fowler&fowler: can help. --RegentsPark (comment) 01:11, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The article has two book citations and I checked both books, one here and another here . I performed searches in these books about this specific battle. I found nothing about this. The remaining references are the opinion/editorials, which are possibly WP:OPINION and have also not mentioned this battle specifically, but rather various battles in general. So, it is probably a WP:HOAX. ❯❯❯ Chunky aka Al Kashmiri (✍️) 03:44, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: there appear to be several battles with the same name. So, I'm not well-versed in the subject, but the other ones are in the 18th and 19th c. Andre🚐 02:05, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Herostratus's work on this suggests that the events are real and his is not a HOAX. What may be recorded in local folk memory is not necessarily to be written off as unreliable, though it is far from an ideal source. Whether "battle of ..." is the right title is a different question. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:55, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No sources. Abhipedia (note the pedia) is not even remotely reliable. I've removed other sources that don't contain material on this battle. Of the two remaining sources, one is from 1899 and Raj era sources are explicitly not considered reliable and the other, unfortunately not easy to get hold of, according to Amazon "covers the macro historical, social, religious, and political highlights in Kashmir from about 1840 to 1950" which is not anywhere near the time period of Timur. Simply put, there are zero sources for this battle. --RegentsPark (comment) 01:03, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Online and in English, you mean! Johnbod (talk) 01:29, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for now The only modern bio of Timur seems to be: Marozzi, Justin. Tamerlane: sword of Islam, conqueror of the world, London: HarperCollins, 2004, which has a 34-page Chapter 7 on the Indian campaign. Someone with access to a good library needs to check out if that mentions it. If there's nothing, I'd be ready to delete. The only sources for a minor battle in India in 1399 are likely to be Muslim chronicles close in date to the events, including Timur's own account. "Raj era sources" sources were perfectly capable of collecting and summarizing these. Timur fought lots of battles, with monotonous success, & historians writing on broader subjects probably wouldn't say much about most of them. Regent's Park says: "Timur's campaigns in India are actually fairly well covered by historians" - can we have some examples of modern detailed narrative accounts please? That nothing turns up on the internet means little. Actually, though I can't see Marozzi's bibliography, his page xx mentions two books by modern historians (Manz & Hookham) which sound like they might have this. Johnbod (talk) 01:29, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If nothing shows up over the next couple of days, I'll pick it up from my library and take a look. --RegentsPark (comment) 01:48, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Also look for descriptions of "Tamerlane" the old name that Timur was known as. Andre🚐 01:46, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per RegentsPark. Fowler&fowler «Talk» 15:11, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

To get an idea of the notability of Timur in the history of India, you might want to start with the middle-level books and go lower (I mean in resolution); the high-level books will likely have little or nothing. The little might be a brief mention as one of several final nails in the coffin of the Delhi sultanate. He apparently didn't do much beyond killing and plundering. He shed so much blood in Delhi (of Muslim and Hindu alike) that it was said the red stain on the streets was no longer from betel leaf. Who said this I can't say. No novel items of equestrian cuisine or warrior apparel were infused into the culture for the hungry and bedraggled to style after. There is really not much there a general historian can write about. So, what middle-level books? Here is a short list:
Satish Chandra's A History of Medieval India, which has this pronouncement, "The raid into India was a plundering raid, and its motive was to seize the wealth accumulated by the sultans of Delhi over the last 200 years. ... Timur then entered Delhi and sacked it without mercy; large number of people, both Hindu and Muslim, as well as women and children lost their lives. ... It resulted in the drain of large amount of wealth, gold, silver, jewellery, etc., from India. Timur also took with him a large number of Indian artisans, such as masons, stone cutters, carpenters, etc. Some of them helped him in putting up many fine building in his capital, Samarqand. ... But the direct political effect of Timur’s invasion of India was small. "
Catherine Asher and Cynthia Talbot's India before Europe, CUP, early 2000s.
Peter Jackson's Delhi Sultanate: A political and military history, CUP, late 1990s
Aniruddha Ray's THE SULTANATE OF DELHI (1206-1526) Polity, Economy, Society and Culture, Routledge, 2019
Andre Wink's AL-HIND THE MAKING OF THE INDO-ISLAMIC WORLD VOLUME III INDO-ISLAMIC SOCIETY

14th-15th CENTURIES (pardon the capitals), BRILL 2004

In reference to RegentsPark's observations, I note that in modern parlance, i.e. the new-found emanations of Hindu majoritarianism, "Jammu" is the counterpoint to "Kashmir," of the Hindu to the Muslim, the folk to the imperial, the brave to the cowardly, the "would have been but for" to the "what was," ... Fowler&fowler «Talk» 18:51, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As you say, his Indian foray was perhaps like a natural disater, with huge loss of life and treasure, but little long-term effect except weakening the powers that were. Histories of India won't give much detail; the 3 authors I gave wrote specifically on Timur, and perhaps will have more - or not. Johnbod (talk) 19:14, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I do have Manz (formerly Forbes), The rise and rule of Tamerlane, CUP, 1989. But she has more on his army, his rise and fall in the various organizations he rose and fell in. She says, "Timur did not treat all conquered regions and people alike and the variations in his policies illustrate the challenges and opportunities which different regions offered him. In many of the territories he conquered, such as northern India, Syria, Anatolia, Moghulistan and the Quipchaq steppe, Temur contented himself with the collection of ransom money and the destruction or chastisement of unfriendly leaders, leaving no permanent administration behind. The areas over which he did assert control were those which were similar to the Ulas Chaghatay in population and structure: lands of mixed populations which had previously been ruled by Chinggisid dynasties. These areas — Ferghana, Khorasan, Sistan, Khorezm, western Iran and 'Iraq — Temur and his Chaghatay emirs could adapt to easily and rule directly." Fowler&fowler «Talk» 23:39, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No mention of Jammu or his retreat in the face of the king of Jammu? --RegentsPark (comment) 01:16, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The thing that gets me about all this is: OK Timur took Jammu on that date, probably. But where the did the author get all the other details? They don't read like the're just made up (altho that's possible). He must have a source. Herostratus (talk) 03:44, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The article (rather a game of 2 halves) initially cites the Zafarnama (Yazdi biography) .... It was commissioned by Ibrahim Sultan, Timur's grandson between 1424–28, and remains one of the best-known sources of Timur's life.^[1] But the final "aftermath" section, giving different accounts, seems to rely on local tales, no doubt collected in the refs given. Johnbod (talk) 04:18, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not according to User:TheChunky. They said they vetted the refs and found nothing. Herostratus (talk) 19:19, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No. But I did look at a fascinating book, The Legendary Biographies of Tamerlane: Islam and Heroic Apocrypha in Central Asia Ron Sela,

Cambridge UP, 2011. Many legendary biographies were first written in India in Indo-Persian (just as the first Persian dictionaries were first written in India) and became known in the Timurid heartland only in the 19th and 20th centuries. One such is about the brahmin from Kashmir,

The next encounter of the people of Central Asia with a false prophet was with Nāsir-i Khuraw’s son. The son, Shāh Mansūr, fled to India where he was trained in magic by “Brahmins of Kashmir.” He began preaching to his followers, claiming that he was the mahdī. The ‘ulamā’ who rejected him sooner or later found their demise. Shāh Mansūr challenged Tīmūr in a letter from Kashghar. Tīmūr decided to assign twenty thousand troops to this matter, under the command of his son Jahāngīr, and to send him to face Mansūr. The latter challenged him to a contest, telling him that he could not be killed. They chained Mansūr, dug a grave, buried him alive, and lit a fire on top. For three days the fire burned until they decided to dig him out. Mansūr emerged completely unharmed. When Jahāngīr commanded to untie him, the chains disintegrated on his body, showing everyone that he could have easily gotten away had he wished so. This, of course, greatly increased his following. Mansūr demanded that Jahāngīr and his troops believe in him and gave them a seven-day ultimatum. For a week Jahāngīr was baffled, thinking that, “If Mansūr were not a prophet, how was he able to perform such miracles?” ...

So, T-lane Jr may have gone to Jammu. But maybe, more likely, he trekked up the Hindutash Pass through the Kunlun mountains, crossed the Karakash River into Aksai Chin where no doubt some brahmins met him on the frozen salt flats. I don't know about this article, but T Lanes Sr and Jr are looking mighty interesting. If someone has the energy, a Legendary biographies of Tamerlane page might be very encyclopedic.I mean seriously. Fowler&fowler «Talk» 00:16, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Finally, there is also Lost Enlightenment CENTRAL ASIA’S GOLDEN AGE FROM THE ARAB CONQUEST TO TAMERLANE by S. Frederick Starr, Princeton, 2013. in which "Tamer the Lame known in the west as Tamerlane" constitutes the last of the 15 odd chapters. That would not normally constitute exhaustive coverage, but the book does have 724 pages. So, betting on some 50, I read on, but again, nothing about Jammu,

Following the age-old routes pioneered by the Kushans, Mahmud of Ghazni, and Chinggis Khan, Timur then swept deep into India, devastating Delhi and other cities. Reversing course once more, he attacked the Ottoman Turks and captured their hapless sultan, Bayazit, in 1402. By unintentionally delaying the fall of Constantinople for half a century, Timur gained Europe’s gratitude, which found expression in diplomatic contacts between him and England and France and in visits like that of the diplomat Clavijo from Spain. After spending only a scant few years in his capital, Samarkand, Timur hatched a plan to conquer China as well. Even Indians in distant Bengal were now paying tribute to Timur, but not China. Now he}wanted to correct this deplorable situation. Since the new Ming dynasty had defeated the Mongols only in 1368 and was still consolidating its power, he might well have succeeded. But just as he was launching his China campaign, Timur came down with a fever at Otrar and died in 1405.

So a Solomon Grundy level basic biography. But it had Timur's response to the Pillars of Ashoka:

Timur’s ceaseless conquests were accompanied by a level of brutality matched only by Chinggis Khan himself. At Isfahan his troops dispatched some 70,000 defenders, while at Delhi his soldiers are reported to have systematically killed 100,000 Indians. At Damascus Timur herded thousands of residents into the Friday mosque and set it ablaze. At Izmir on the eastern Mediterranean he beheaded all the captured soldiers of the defending Ottoman army and then lobbed their heads by catapult onto the ships on which others were fleeing the port. At Aleppo, Baghdad, Tikrit, Isfahan, Delhi, and other conquered cities, Timur ordered the construction of what he called “minarets” of the skulls of the defeated populace."

Again nothing about Jammu but fascinating fellow. No one gave him something to smoke in India? How did he injure his leg enough for last name inclusion?

But after this exhaustive search this page itself is a delete as a straightforward history, but a possible keep as a legendary history if combined in the theme. Fowler&fowler «Talk» 01:01, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

^ Woods, John E. (April 1987). "The Rise of Tīmūrid Historiography". Journal of Near Eastern Studies. 46 (2): 86, 99–101. JSTOR 545014.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. I think this closure should be decisive and that a little more time is needed to get there.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:53, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Time should be given to add notability 🙈🚶🧭 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 20:00, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for now per Herostratus. Seems to be enough evidence that there was a battle. Needs a search for offline sources. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:20, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Necrothesp, There were battles in Jammu, but this particular year's battle was not found. You can see Battle of Jammu (1808) (likely notable), Battle of Jammu (1712) (no notability) and this Battle of Jammu (1399) (no notability).❯❯❯ Chunky aka Al Kashmiri (✍️) 01:21, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- We have ample sources for the invasion of India by or under Tamerlane. What we are short of is references for Jammu's part in it, but from its location is is unlikely that it was not involved. However precisely how, and whether the present content is correct needs verification. Except in BLP cases, a dearth of good references is not a ground for deletion. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:02, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's not, usually, but it would be if we think that either sources do not exist, or are not reachable by the reader with reasonable effort.

I assume that the writer had some sources somewhere and didn't just dream this up. His sources may be some guy he met in bar or otherwise unreliable tho. Anyway, if it's not possible for us to probably ever find them, they're no good and the article's in danger. I think extensive tagging is enough, but deletion is a reasonable stance too.

The reader has to be able to get to the sources too. If, for instance, we are given access to read a source that's in a private collection, that might satisfy us, but if the reader can't check it we are saying "just take our word for it" and we don't do that. I think even if the sources are in a obscure book of which few copies are extant and get to one you would have to go to India and also hire a translator, that is beyond "reasonable effort" I think. If a copy exists in the United States and it's possible to subscribe to some organization, library or whatever, where you can get to see it even if its a hassle and costs some money, that's "reasonable effort" I think. Herostratus (talk) 23:43, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Don't be silly please. As has been said above (more than once) the article names in the text a clear source for at least part of it - the Zafarnama (Yazdi biography). Pages 517-522 here are a partial English translation, by Henry Miers Elliot in his pioneering The History of India, as Told by Its Own Historians. This confirms much of the two main sections, though not all of it. Johnbod (talk) 02:13, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. "Accordingly my forces fell to plundering and secured an enormous booty in grain, goods of all kind, and cattle" raised to the level of "Battle of Jammu" seems like a stretch to me. Are we in the business of making an article for every raid on a village by Timur or other invaders? There is also the issue of the sole reliance of a source from 1871. A "battle" that seems to go unmentioned elsewhere seems scarcely notable. --RegentsPark (comment) 12:58, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that was before the battle proper, but it clearly wasn't earth-shaking, though it did lead to the capture & conversion of the local leader. Other sources, potential & seen, are discussed above. At least I hope we have disposed of the "hoax" theory. The full account, in the 18th-century English translation, should appear ealy on here, but I can't get it to load. Johnbod (talk) 19:04, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. There are clearly divergent views about the set of sources presented here, and having looked at those sources, neither view is so unreasonable that it can simply be set aside. Given the healthy participation, I don't see relisting serving a purpose. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:06, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jim Ablancourt[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. A few interviews and the usual database sources exist, but not much more. There's also this [14], but two paragraphs aren't enough to establish GNG. BilletsMauves^€500 18:24, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, Africa, and France. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:01, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - He has sources such as [15], [16], [17], and [18] among many many other sources (many articles about him on clicanoo.re - over ten more not referenced here - are unacessable since clicanoo.re, Reunion's largest news source, updated its website which removed all articles from before 2020s which is why there articles are archived, also, having been a French Ligue 1 and Slovak and Reunion top flight player in the early 2000s, there are many offline sources as well). He played for AS Monaco FC, one of France's most successful and well known teams in French Ligue 1 which is regarded as one of worlds top 5 leagues, and played fully pro football in the Slovak and Reunion top flight. He is clearly significant figure in Reunion football, and one of few to ever play abroad. I look at the other Sports WikiProjects (or any WikiProject) and they don't nearly have an article deleted per day, let alone 30. By the time I finish writing this, another 30 will probably be deleted. Article may need improvement, but definitely not deletion. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 01:21, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The first three are interviews, so not independent. For the last one, see what I wrote in my rationale for deletion. BilletsMauves^€500 07:46, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Das osmnezz why do you keep posting non-policy arguments in AfD discussions? You know full well that playing professionally no longer contributes to notability. And it doesn't matter if a lot of football articles are nominated for deletion. MarchOfTheGreyhounds (talk) 08:23, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Whilst we can rant about 30 GNG-failing articles being deleted every day, has anyone ever cared to rant about the number of GNG-failing permastubs that get created each day? I suspect that the number for the latter is significantly higher. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:26, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. There isn't enough substantial, secondary sourcing here to prove notability. But with the sources we have, I feel we are right below the borderline for this article to pass. Das osmnezz, you say there are many more sources, so is there one more substantial one that isn't based around an interview? If sop please provide it here. Or why not perform a HEY? You have the potential to change my vote with a little more quality sourcing. MarchOfTheGreyhounds (talk) 09:15, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@MarchOfTheGreyhounds:, I spent a few hours and have performed a HEY by writing a lot more as well as adding more sources. Also, before today the page said he only made 1 appearance for AS Monaco FC but I corrected it since I found he actually made 8 appearances. On top of that, when I was making his Wikipedia page, clicanoo.re had 10-20 more articles about him but they are unacessable since clicanoo.re removed all articles from before 2020s, hence why the clicanoo.re articles on his page are archived. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 01:43, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That's a really good HEY. But we're still right below the borderline. At this stage, I think he probably is notable, but I'm just struggling to find that last piece of coverage. As you say, there was probably something good on clicanoo.re but their site is very difficult to use. I wonder if we could find something archived, possible with the help of Wayback Machine? I shall continue looking and see what I can find. MarchOfTheGreyhounds (talk) 09:23, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot find anything to change my !vote, so delete it is, unless anything additional shows up. MarchOfTheGreyhounds (talk) 19:09, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 09:20, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sources above which show notability. Giant Snowman 09:22, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per MarchOfTheGreyhounds' analysis. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 02:27, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep clearly passes GNG.--Ortizesp (talk) 23:05, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. myliptov is almost entirely quotes from Ablancourt: N. clicanoo 1 is almost pure interview, and what little is said about him by the interviewer is totally primary and therefore unusable: N. maxifoot is a routine recap with a passing mention: N. TLM S'En Foot has a blurb on him summarizing his prior sides, but is little more than proseified stats: N. clicanoo 2 is another interview with very little independent commentary: N. L'equipe is a namedrop: N. L'express is another namedrop: N. nouve l'obs is his name in a transaction list: N. Nothing approaching SIGCOV. JoelleJay (talk) 01:22, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep notable a- meets GNG. Lightburst (talk) 16:22, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the article needs cleanup. But sources exist. Article should be tagged and improved. Bruxton (talk) 16:55, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Which sources contain SIGCOV? JoelleJay (talk) 17:24, 5 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!} 19:51, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify or delete - The only online coverage that appears to approach an in-depth level is the article from TLM S'En Foot which summarizes his (rather brief) European career. Perhaps there is more available somewhere, but I'm not seeing SIGCOV so it fails WP:GNG. Jogurney (talk) 15:42, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - sorry, but, as stated by other users above, the sources reported above are not valid WP:SIGCOV to me. Being mentioned online is not an element of notability, if the sources are not deemed as independent, secondary and non-trivial. --Angelo (talk) 23:38, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Many of the sources listed here are independent, non-trivial, and secondary. He is not merely mentioned online, also, having been a French Ligue 1 and Slovak and Reunion top flight player in the early 2000s, there are many offline sources as well. For example, many of the sources are archived and many articles about him on clicanoo.re - over 10 I saw when making his page years ago - are unaccessable since clicanoo.re updated its website which removed all articles from before 2020s. To the closer: keep in mind I performed a HEY through hours of vastly expanding the article with these sources as well as adding many sources and also keep in mind one of the non keep votes is a Weak Delete and another of the non keep votes is a Draftify. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 05:25, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Jon Wiener. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:04, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Start Making Sense[edit]

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

The show is hosted by Jon Wiener and produced by The Nation in partnership with LA Review of Books. Nearly every source currently cited is either written by Jon Wiener or published in The Nation and the LARB. The podcast does not pass WP:GNG and I can't find better sources to demonstrate otherwise. Jon Wiener and The Nation are potential redirect targets. TipsyElephant (talk) 17:59, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio, Entertainment, Politics, Internet, and United States of America. TipsyElephant (talk) 17:59, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Jon Wiener. Per nom, the available sourcing fails to meet WP:GNG standards, so a standalone article is unwarranted. A redirect to the aforementioned page would be appropriate, however, where the show is mentioned in the lead and in other sections. Sal2100 (talk) 20:12, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:50, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Jon Wiener, the podcast's host. Fails WP:WEB per nom. SBKSPP (talk) 00:51, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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!} 07:45, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Vishal Saroye[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Created as a draft which was declined in AfC and then moved to mainspace by the draft creator. The previous AfD ended in a soft delete, and the article was then restored upon request by its creator.

I came across it again today and started cleaning it up. When I checked the sources, it was very quickly obvious that all 6 sources in the then-current version had been added with fake titles, such as "Vishal Saroye and Thiagarajan as political mastermind in Yaman" (actual title "Thiagarajan as a political mastermind in Yaman"; the article doesn't mention Vishal Saroye). In reality, none of the sources was correctly presented, and none of them shows a shred of notability. The Times of India source is not an article but an autogenerated page listing all the articles about him in ToI (which at this point is zero). The only source with any content that actually mentions him is his Cinestaan profile page.

The filmography lists a number of roles, but from what I can tell none of them is at all significant. No sign of WP:NACTOR or WP:GNG being met, and a rather dishonest attempt to make him seem more notable by inserting sources that don't mention him, and falsifying the source titles. bonadea contributions talk 17:34, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and India. bonadea contributions talk 17:34, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maharashtra-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:50, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article was created in an act of bad faith to deceive editors into believing there was sourcing when there was none. Because of this, I do not feel like doing the otherwise required search for sources before making such a !vote. casualdejekyll 19:18, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:50, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all I see are linkedin pages and a story about the person being blessed at a temple. Nothing for GNG that we can use. Oaktree b (talk) 20:11, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Judi Dench. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:27, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Go Inside to Greet the Light[edit]

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

Unsourced article about a short documentary film, not making any strong claim to passing WP:NFILM. The closest thing to a notability claim here is that a notable actress narrated it, but that isn't an automatic inclusion freebie in the absence of WP:GNG-worthy coverage -- and the closest thing to "referencing" here, until I stripped it as an WP:ELNO violation, was offsite links to the film's own self-published production website and Facebook profile threaded directly into running body text rather than being listed as external links. And even on a Google search, I'm not finding any strong or notability-supporting sources -- I can find a fair number of sources that link the title to the film's subject as a quote from him, but the only things I can find that link them together as a film title are Wikipedia mirrors and a short blurb in a directly-affiliated Quaker magazine which would not be sufficient sourcing all by itself.
Nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt this film from having to have much better sourcing than this. Bearcat (talk) 13:17, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and United Kingdom. Bearcat (talk) 13:17, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge To Judi Dench and Deershelter Skyspace/James Turrell#Artistic career#Skyspaces#Deershelter Skyspace.--PiccklePiclePikel (talk) 13:27, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Judi Dench or Delete. I couldn't find any refs that support WP:GNG or WP:NFILM being met, without any RS, there's nothing to merge, though a redirect seems sensible IMO. VickKiang (talk) 03:01, 2 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!} 19:45, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 21:26, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Maribel Núñez-Valdez[edit]

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

I don't see how the subject meets WP:NPROF or WP:GNG. "W2" seems to be a pay grade for a professor looking at Academic ranks in Germany, not a named chair. Citation counts don't seem to be especially high. Maybe just WP:TOOSOON. Kj cheetham (talk) 18:54, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Women, and Germany. Kj cheetham (talk) 18:54, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. With a permanent academic position, she appears to be on a promising career track, but her research has not yet achieved the impact (as measured e.g. in citations or awards) needed for academic notability, nor the publicity needed for other forms of notability. I agree, WP:TOOSOON. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:48, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete also agree TOOSOON. She's almost at the notability for academics. Oaktree b (talk) 19:55, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. If any editor wishes this to be moved into Draft space, contact me. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:26, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

1984 Primera División de Fútbol Profesional[edit]

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

Article without relevant information, as most of it is unknown The Banner talk 18:50, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and El Salvador. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:05, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:35, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 20:50, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Move to draftspace unclear whether it passes WP:GNG or not based on the sources. Moving to draftspace gives an opportunity to improve the article by finding some more of the information, and should give time to prove notability. Just because this season existed and we have other similarly poor articles for many other seasons of this league, that isn't a reason to keep this in article space. Joseph2302 (talk) 14:38, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: no sources to suggest notability. ––FormalDude (talk) 21:52, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. It's snowing. A redirect can be created at editorial discretion, but history created by a blocked editor does not need to be maintained. Star Mississippi 22:50, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Newer Super Mario Bros. Wii[edit]

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

There is no reliable sourcing for this, fails WP:GNG. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:36, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:36, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. i disagree, it has sources FROM newer team itselfs, and there is 13 even more indepent sources. TheSecondComing10 (talk) 18:37, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete already covered in the previous target, the sources suck and this is basically a fandom entry. PICKLEDICAE🥒 18:37, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not a single reliable, independent source. Clear WP:GNG fail. - MrOllie (talk) 18:38, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've added more Independent sources (Personal attack removed) [removed personal attack Andre🚐 19:18, 5 September 2022 (UTC)]. TheSecondComing10 (talk) 18:39, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Stellar choice to insult experienced editors, @TheSecondComing10. Especially after you've edit warred and created utter nonsense. Brilliant, truly. PICKLEDICAE🥒 18:41, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, you are not experienced wikipedia editor. This isnt esports or FIFA tf? TheSecondComing10 (talk) 18:42, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Gee, I guess you're right, with our collective edits of 433k plus, we're just all idiots and don't know what we're talking about. My bad. PICKLEDICAE🥒 18:49, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Certified Wikipedia Addict. Having that many edits doesnt make you "good" or "experienced" TheSecondComing10 (talk) 18:50, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
East there friend, you've added links to websites connected to the project. We need independent discussions of the game, CNET for example, and several of them, to meet GNG. This is fluff article with next to nothing we can use for proper sourcing and is a long way from GNG. Wikipedia isn't someone's personal website where we can post whatever pleases us, we have to follow notability guidelines. Personal attacks are never welcome. Oaktree b (talk) 20:01, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
SecondComing10 has been blocked for a week, so that's the end of that. Please keep it civil folks. Oaktree b (talk) 20:08, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable fan-mod Andre🚐 18:39, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Has sources from notables like eurogamer. 97.106.2.84 (talk) 18:41, 5 September 2022 (UTC) (Sock vote striken -- ferret (talk) 16:24, 6 September 2022 (UTC))[reply]

Eurogamer is notable? Google returns almost nothing for a search on eurogamer. The same is true for the latest source added by TheSecondComing10 to the article, "nintendo wire". Largoplazo (talk) 20:40, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Eurogamer is a WP:RS and has a Wikipedia article, but believe they may be conflating coverage of the Wii version of the mod with the Nintendo DS version, which got more mentions. Not that I think the sources are WP:SIGCOV either way. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 20:54, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Concur with Zxcvbnm, Eurogamer is a valid source, but doesn't help in this case. Andre🚐 21:01, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - sigh.... why do we need to spend our time doing this. For all the reasons noted above. Fails WP:GNG and the "discussion" above is a very convincing proof of an editor (together with their sock follower) who is not here to benefit Wikipedia. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 18:50, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails the WP:GNG. Could have a mention at a New Super Mario Bros#Legacy type section if the "sequel" section was reworked to something like that, at most. Sergecross73 msg me 19:14, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Most publicity for this mod seems to come from the fact that Nintendo accidentally used it as the basis for designing Super Nintendo World, which while humorous, is not evidence of notability and could easily be mentioned on another page. Otherwise, fails GNG. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 19:19, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per the other rationales above. --ProtoDrake (talk) 19:30, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete GNG hasn't been met. And the discussion with the accusations above does nothing to advance the situation here; please keep it civil folks. Oaktree b (talk) 19:58, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:GNG; promotional article. Nythar^T^.^C 20:27, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Article creator has been checkuser blocked as a sockpuppet of TzarN64. -- ferret (talk) 21:39, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Merge Upon inspection of the edit history of this article, it turns out that the "article" was recently (i.e. within the past 24 hours) an article. It isn't really fair that the "Newer Super Mario Bros. Wii" page should be deleted considering that the page was a redirect between 2018 and several hours ago. The only reason why the page became a mainspace is because of a certain user "mainstream-ifying" it and reverting reverts in bad faith. AlphaBeta135(talk) 23:53, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Note and rollback Redirects are not subject to notability, so it is possible that the article won't get deleted and rather through other means (see WP:ATD). Also, I am not sure that this AfD is justifiable because, again, a certain vandal who, several hours ago, just "un-merged" this page and created this most likely not notable article (see WP:N). While there is a subpar amount of sources in the article to warrant notability status, the majority of the sources are either primary, non-independent, or irrelevant sources. I believe that it is in the best interest to just rollback this whole page to before September 5, 2022 (when it was merged to New Super Mario Bros. Wii), instead of just outright deleting the article without considering any alternatives. AlphaBeta135(talk) 01:30, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  I don't think you understand what is happening here. We're discussing deleting the article, this does not mean a redirect cannot be recreated. PICKLEDICAE🥒 13:11, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  
  There is no reason to stop now after days of discussion and a relatively clear consensus emerging. Sergecross73 msg me 14:07, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Sources are not independent and meeting of WP:GNG. Also reeks of blatant promotion. --MuZemike 00:58, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete Creation by blocked user User:TzarN64 casualdejekyll 13:29, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete per casualdejekyll. Otherwise, delete per above. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 16:01, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete The article meets G11 and G5 --2600:1700:9BF3:220:A419:A74B:C65:46D1 (talk) 17:29, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) ––FormalDude (talk) 21:53, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Concubine Rong[edit]

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

A Draft:Concubine Rong exists. This article was moved to draft but the editor ignored the draft and ~~restarted an article~~ recreated the article. This should be deleted as it is circumventing the NPP process. Bruxton (talk) 17:25, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Royalty and nobility, and China. Bruxton (talk) 17:21, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. The draftification process should not have been ignored by the original article creator here. BD2412 T 17:31, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Editors are allowed to object to a draftification per WP:DRAFTOBJECT, and no other reason has been provided to delete the article. Seems sourced, can't verify as they seem to be WP:OFFLINESOURCES located in the First Historical Archives of China (per the zh article which has more details regarding the sources) ebut WP:AGF. Jumpytoo Talk 19:33, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I understand what you are saying, but this was not a WP:DRAFTOBJECT - the original page was moved to draft during NPP and the original page was deleted R2. Rather than objecting or discussing the editor ignored the drafted page and recreated the page and it came up at NPP again. Deleting this page is a matter of housekeeping. Thanks Bruxton (talk) 20:30, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Are you saying to delete this so we can move the draft pace article back to the main space? In that case a WP:HISTMERGE can solve this without a need for deletion. Jumpytoo Talk 20:38, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Jumpytoo and Mx. Granger: If someone with permissions wants to approve the drafted article. This one came before NPP and I recalled that I had previously sent it to draft. Draft:Concubine Rong. Bruxton (talk) 20:42, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – seems to be notable, and the drafting process is not required (WP:DRAFTOBJECT). —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 20:02, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: this appears to be notable by the zh sources, and per WP:DRAFTOBJECT, the draft process is not required. Recreating the page is an attempt to object, even if the editor did not do so "correctly". No copyright issues, as there was only one substantial author to the draft article. The draft can probably be redirected to the mainspace article. House Blaster^talk 15:11, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@HouseBlaster: NPP is tough work, and situations like this create more work for reviewers, AfD participants and admins. WP:DRAFTOBJECT is not a policy or guideline it is an essay. And it specifically says: If an editor raises an objection, move the page back to mainspace. None of that happened. Bruxton (talk) 21:03, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Bruxton: I am well aware that NPP is tough work. I am a NPR myself. Yes, this creates more work for us. But this version of the article has an additional paragraph not present in the draft. As I said, this topic appears to be notable. If this is deleted, we are harming the encyclopedia by deleting good content for purely bureaucratic reasons. The quote above instructs the editor performing the draftification to move the page back to the mainspace, if an editor raises an objection. It does not say that someone has to explicitly object for the page to be moved back to the namespace. House Blaster^talk 21:30, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@HouseBlaster: it is an essay. We should use our policies and guidelines. The paragraph can be moved to the draft. Much simpler. Bruxton (talk) 23:00, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Bruxton: or it could stay in the mainspace, which would save someone at AfC and NPP from reviewing it again. House Blaster^talk 00:06, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. AfD is a forum for establishing notability, not addressing user conduct. The entry should not have been sent here if the objection is procedural and not about the topic’s notability. Innisfree987 (talk) 12:44, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Innisfree987: I was previously advised by an admin that this was the correct procedure. But I have begun a discussion at NPP talk today. See discussion here: NPP discussion Bruxton (talk) 17:54, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Innisfree987 (talk) 12:45, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Inappropriate deletion rationale. pburka (talk) 13:10, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict?)Keep -- The content of the article is somewhat slender of content, other than her promotions within the imperial court. She was outranked by 3 empresses; 4 more senior concubines (all with articles) and had three others of similar rank, of whom one other has an article. Procedural deficiencies are not a ground for deletion. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:15, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If there are duplicates, of course they must be merged or redirected. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:15, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. It seems to be WP:SNOWing, as non-keep voters (and the nominator) have been retracting their votes in droves as the article was improved. (non-admin closure) — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 01:56, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Barbara Dawson[edit]

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

Fails WP:SIGCOV, WP:BIO and WP:NPROF. Adjuct professor. Non-notable. Minor coverage. scope_creep^Talk 17:05, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closer – this BLP is not about a professor per se, so NPROF does not apply, even though she is an adjunct prof. This is a simple GNG that easily passes. This is the first female art gallery director of Hugh Lane Gallery, "the first known public gallery of modern art in the world." Not only is she a notable director, she is also a notable author, editor, and curator of highly notable art gallery exhibits. Atsme 💬 📧 00:25, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per WP:HEY - nice work Atsme! ~~Delete~~ - a non-notable academic. Does not meet criteria for notability for WP:NACADEMIC ~~or WP:GNG.~~ One of a series of articles by the same editor making articles on non-notable alumni awardees of the University College of Dublin. Possibility of a coi or upe, or just a fan of UCD? Netherzone (talk) 17:21, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Or possibly a new editor participating in an Wikipedia:EDITATHON as part of a Dublin WP group, or university. It really is better to AGF. Look at this article now. Hopefully, the other articles you mentioned were not mistakenly deleted despite WP:CONTN and NEXIST or SNG, simply because no one took the time to fix it. Atsme 💬 📧 13:02, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. No prejudice against moving to draft or recreating as a draft to build upon for the future. BD2412 T 17:33, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Withdrawing !vote per excellent rehabilitation effort by Atsme, and the expectation that more will be found along these lines. BD2412 T 22:56, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Changing to keep per continued addition of content. BD2412 T 01:26, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I found the following sources, and this is just the beginning:

This BLP is quite notable as an author, and art director for an inner city municipal art gallery
Irish Echo and BBC ^{added 00:25, 6 September 2022 (UTC)}
Lookthebusiness
Author
Irish Times
RTE Public radio interview
interview
Hugh Lane : founder of a Gallery of Modern Art for Ireland
Brooklyn Rail
We do not delete based on WP:CONTN and WP:NEXIST - this BLP just came back into main space. We can draftify but we get yelled at for draftifying. It will be expanded before this AfD is over. Atsme 💬 📧 18:00, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Atsme: True. I saw several of them, when I did the before, but I still think it is below borderline. Most of them are primary. Good work on finding the ones I missed. If you can find some book reviews, she may pass WP:NAUTHOR yet. Two would do it. scope_creep^Talk 18:08, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I respectfully disagree, scope creep, but I really do have a good reason because it would have been much easier to simply delete, redirect or draftify. This lady truly is notable, and now I want to work on it. I first came across this BLP when my new grad from NPPSCHOOL, MaxnaCarta, posted about it at WT:NPP/R. My initial reaction based on his comments and the article's history, was to consider A7, but knowing better than to jump to conclusions (the only exercise I've been getting lately) I asked if he did WP:BEFORE. He is on a different time zone, so I wasn't expecting a quick response, and with that in mind, I decided to go ahead and do it myself. At least doing it that way I'd know which direction to guide him. As I already mentioned, this lady is quite notable as is the Hugh Lane Gallery, which according to the article, is "the first known public gallery of modern art in the world." Dawson is the first female director of that gallery, and being a first is notable in and of itself, but not quite enough, so I kept researching and finding books she authors, articles written about her, a public radio interview, and so forth. I had just started working on that article when I saw this AfD – and that is the long and short of it. Atsme 💬 📧 18:51, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Women, and Ireland. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:06, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Women artists. Atsme 💬 📧 00:25, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect (no merge) to Hugh Lane Gallery. Head of a public art museum would seem to be more appropriate for WP:GNG or maybe WP:ARTIST notability than WP:PROF. I don't think the alumni award counts for much, and I can't find other evidence of independent notability through any of these criteria, but redirects are cheap. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:05, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

David Eppstein, you might want take a look at the article now - and this is just a start. The woman is notable without question. Atsme 💬 📧 21:36, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I was assessing this article and turned to Atsme for assistance in determining how to go about it. I think we need to be careful of the halo effect (or in this case anti-halo). The article was in bad shape when it was moved to main. Personally I would not move an article to main in the state it was, it needed to be more complete and better sourced. The sources have been proved by Atsme to exist, and so for that reason I consider notability to be established. The article needs significant improvement, and I would encourage the article creator to move their article back to draft until it is more complete. However deletion is not appropriate. Thanks all. MaxnaCarta (talk) 23:07, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The sources that are mostly primary and there very little in the waay of real WP:SECONDARY sources to prove the Dawson is notable. I can't see one reference that give me confidence that she is notable. Lastly process doesn't define notability, only sources do and they are lacking. scope_creep^Talk 23:52, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I highly recommend that you read WP:PRIMARY. I just added another secondary source above, and will be citing it when I add more material to the article. Atsme 💬 📧 00:25, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak~~ Keep - As of right now the article needs further clean up and better sourcing but appears to meet GNG. PigeonChickenFish (talk) 00:49, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Strike out of "weak", Atsme and Bridget did a lot of clean up. PigeonChickenFish (talk) 02:18, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
In addition to ones other editors have recently added, I was able to add reviews in Irish Art Review of two publications she has coauthored. There is also this profile of her in The Phoenix (of which I have requested a copy at WP:REX). Bridget (talk) 02:04, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Bridget, I found the Irish Art Review in JSTOR, Reviewed Works: The Swiss Cottage by Sean O'Reilly; Glenveagh Castle by William Gallagher; The Casino at Marino by Sean O'Reilly; Medieval Church Sites of North Dublin by Mary McMahon; The Glebe House and Gallery by Francis Bailey. Review by: Barbara Dawson Irish Arts Review Yearbook Vol. 11 (1995), pp. 231-232 (2 pages) Published By: Irish Arts Review https://www.jstor.org/stable/20492847 Atsme 💬 📧 02:37, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Atsme: Good find! So Dawson has also contributed to Irish Arts Review. Just to clarify my comment, I meant that I added two articles by other people (Mulcahy and Campbell) who reviewed one of her books. So I think they would help Dawson pass WP:NAUTHOR guidelines in addition to her other achivements. Bridget (talk) 04:30, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Atsme, who has found enough sources to push it over the edge of Wikipedia:Notability. --GRuban (talk) 19:39, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Atsme.... Twopower332.1938 (talk) 02:03, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per Atsme.--IndyNotes (talk) 16:01, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The article I think is more than borderline notable. I'm willing to Withdrawn the Nomination, if its ok with everybody else. scope_creep^Talk 19:22, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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!} 23:24, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pashtun Rebellion in Pakistan[edit]

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

This article has alot of problems as to its neutrality and seems like typical ethnic nationalist POV based original research. We don't need this article on Wikipedia for many reasons:

It's undue to have this article when we have other articles with fair coverage of events mentioned in this article like 1947 North-West Frontier Province referendum, Bannu resolution Pashtunistan, Afghanistan-Pakistan relations, Afghanistan-Pakistan border skirmishes, Bajaur Campaign etc.
It's also important to mention that what is being presented as Pashtun rebellion is actually Afghanistan's interference in Pakistan. Pashtun rebellion against British was still a thing but it was not in Pakistan.
A brief resistance in Pakistan by Faqir Ipi and his group which was supported by Afghanistan was ended with their surrender to Pakistani authorities. Bacha Khan of Khudai Khidmatgars too accepted Pakistan sometime after 1947 refrendum.
Article itself states that Afghanistan government which sent Afghan Army disguised as tribals failed to trigger Pashtun rebellion.

So it doesn't constitute Pashtuns Rebellion in Pakistan in anyway and this article be deleted from Wikipedia. USaamo ^(t@lk) 16:06, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. USaamo ^(t@lk) 16:06, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The subject fails WP:GNG. Insight 3 (talk) 03:56, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have some personal offence to this article? I am not even Afghanistan I am from Pakistan. Please lets not devolve into monkeys. If there are legitimate concerns over any neutrality then change it yourself. The logic that this information can be found in a combination of other articles so it should be deleted is quiet ridiculous. That is the case for plenty more wikipedia articles, so if we go by that logic let us take down hundreds of wiki pages because they contain information present in other articles. PreserveOurHistory (talk) 06:47, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The article and title are misleading. Pashtuns are among the major Ethnic groups in Pakistan. They never rebelled against Pakistan. The insurgency by minor groups, who have separate organizational identities may not link to the Pushtuns. --Ameen Akbar (talk) 17:41, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Its as simple as changing the title then. "Afghan Sponsored Pashtun Rebellions in Pakistan". PreserveOurHistory (talk) 11:45, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Misleading article No original research copy pasted from above mentioned articles. War Wounded (talk) 12:08, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator. Pashtun rebellion isn't the same as Afghan claims on Pakistani territory. Pashtun tribal militias even counter attacked Afghan border forces if chronologies of the Durand Line issue are taken into consideration.--Sylvester Millner (talk) 21:20, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Article may be renamed to say "Afghan Sponsored" at the start. But Yes such rebellions did exist whether it is through Haji Mirzali Khan or some members of todays terror groups (Tehreek-E-Taliban Pakistan) it did happen. PreserveOurHistory (talk) 11:47, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Article may be renamed as Afghan interference in Pakistan but that needs to be rewritten with well researched sources. For now the best for article is to WP:NUKEANDPAVE.
Secondly Mirzali against Pakistan was precisely a brief and limited resistance on Afghan sponsorship. As to TTP, that's a terror group and has least to do with Pashtuns or rebellion of any sort.

I have no personal problem with you and that's not at all my concern who you're. We're here only to improve this encyclopedia and such propaganda articles have no space in it. You need to understand what Wikipedia is Not. WP:NOTEVERYTHING Thanks! USaamo ^(t@lk)
Delete as yet another WP:SYNTH compilation. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 07:16, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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!} 06:31, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Identical case[edit]

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

Unsourced since its creation in late August 2014, although mentioned in the Manchu language article as part of its system; original author, Alumnum (talk · contribs), resurfaced as Munmula (talk · contribs) five years later. Outside WP and mirrors, preliminary searches across regular Google, GBooks, and GScholar--as well as JSTOR and Open Library--yield a host of tangential results at best. Looks like a daunting job for someone with a university library account or something.

Cf. the similarly named equative case, but I'm not having any better luck with references to any use in Manchu.

Beyond its appearance in my conlang project, I'm afraid that's a goner wiki-wise. (Pity I had to say that as a conlang creator...) --Slgrandson (How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 11:27, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unless...we look up this clue from Manchu language#Less used cases hard enough (and even that's unsourced as well):

identical — used to indicate that something is the same as something else. Suffix -ali/-eli/-oli (apparently derived from the word adali, meaning "same")

--Slgrandson (How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 11:39, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Almost forgot about @Munmula: Got any time to provide whatever source(s) you saw this term in? --Slgrandson (How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 11:42, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language and China. Slgrandson (How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 11:27, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, it should go. I check through a few Manchu grammars and saw no cases listed other than the basic structural cases. Biktor627 (talk) 03:18, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 16:01, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above; it seems we have no reliable sources about this at all. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 09:42, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 11:54, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Péter Károly[edit]

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

Non-notable ski mountaineer. Before search doesn't bring up any third party sources to establish notability, only passing mentions. No medal record, doesn't meet WP:GNG. SPF121188 ^{(talk this way)} ^(contribs) 14:49, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Romania. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:40, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No participants yet.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 15:52, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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~~. Doczilla _{@SUPERHEROLOGIST} 05:37, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This result was overturned to no consensus at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2022 September 13. Stifle (talk) 09:48, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

President of Japan[edit]

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

Japan doesn't have a president, this is potentially misleading readers 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 15:28, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:43, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:10, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as utterly ludicrous and completely made up. Mccapra (talk) 19:58, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 21:12, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I see what the creator was going for, but it's erroneous until Emperor Naruhito declares himself president for life. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 05:57, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This should be kept in some form, either as a redirect or a dab. In the worst case, this should go back to being a redirect to the office of the Prime Minister; note that Vice President of Japan is a stable redirect to Deputy Prime Minister of Japan. There is also a manga series called The President of Japan: Sakurazaka Mantarō. The second part is a subtitle and the definite article at the start of the title is an artifact of translation, so it could reasonably be called "President of Japan", though that's likely rare. It is silly for the emperor to be mentioned on this page, so I've taken it off entirely, but we still have enough for a dab if preferred. It seems harmless in its current form. Dekimasuよ! 10:53, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete another highly implausible DAB. Argument for keeping is both extremely technical and tl;dr (ergo not a likely mistake) and based on WP:HARMLESS, which is a non-argument Dronebogus (talk) 21:38, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is not an article—disambiguation pages are navigational tools. The standards for navigational tools and entries on disambiguation pages are different from the criteria for deleting standard articles. WP:HARMLESS (which is an essay) specifically states that whether something is harmless or not is a valid argument when discussing the deletion of redirects (see WP:RFD#KEEP #5). WP:DABCOMBINE says to include "The President of Japan" on the dab; that's probably a better solution than putting an unlikely hatnote on the Prime Minister page. The page receives 60 hits a month, so it is not a common target, but it is not an implausible one. And it does not mislead readers to help them navigate to the article they are actually looking for. It's not like this is an article on a non-existent office. (Sorry if 5 lines is tl;dr). Dekimasuよ! 23:00, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There is no President of Japan. Forcing American conventions on leader titles is not needed. Fulmard (talk) 06:19, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as DAB page per Dekimasu. --Privybst (talk) 10:14, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Following up, the delete !votes do not appear to be grounded in policy or to account for the goals of disambiguation pages and redirects. This is a plausible search term in regards to the prime minister's office, as reflected in its use in otherwise reliable sources (say, those of C-SPAN or Newsweek or NPR). It is also a valid search term in the case of certain other articles. Having a dab page at this title does not mean Wikipedia says that the head of the government in Japan is a president. Dekimasuよ! 07:10, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:D it does not disambiguate and users are unlikely to need this dab to navigate. Lightburst (talk) 01:31, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This perfectly useful WP:DAB page does exactly the opposite of what the nomination claims. It takes a potentially misleading term that is commonly misused even in reliable sources, and presents legitimate navigational targets suggested by that term. There is no primary topic, which might be what is confusing people. If there were a clear primary topic, we could just redirect. But there are multiple plausible targets as well, both literal (The President of Japan) and analogical (Prime Minister of Japan), so the article serves a specific useful purpose as a beneficial aid to navigation for readers. Of course, if someone later tries to hijack it and create some fake article about a fake president of Japan, we should stop that. But that's not what's happening here, so we should keep it. Indignant Flamingo (talk) 02:15, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 per WP:SNOW. (non-admin closure) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 07:14, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Truss ministry[edit]

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

This article got there first, but theres also Premiership of Liz Truss , which is the proper name for this very distasteful subject. IMO the title of this article suggests that it woud be about her attempt at being foreign secretary. TheLongTone (talk) 15:24, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and United Kingdom. Shellwood (talk) 15:43, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Its content is not meant to resemble or be a duplicate of Premiership of Liz Truss, as far as precedent goes. Ex. Premiership of Boris Johnson, First Johnson ministry, Second Johnson ministry; Premiership of David Cameron, First Cameron ministry, Second Cameron ministry; etc. In other words, the "Premiership of Liz Truss" is going to cover the events of her tenure as Prime Minister, while "Truss ministry" will cover the people in her administration. Keivan.f^Talk 15:57, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - It will be a matter of days before Truss names her Cabinet, at which point this article is justified. OGBC1992 (talk) 16:32, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – huh? I don't understand this nomination. This is the same format as it has been for other UK prime ministers; the article will be filled out in the coming days. I'm also not sure what you're referring to by "this very distasteful subject". Endwise (talk) 17:03, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - not too sure what this is all about to be honest XxLuckyCxX (talk) 17:15, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This is for the list of Ministers appointed, not for the events of her premiership live the other article. PoliceSheep99 (talk) 17:37, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- Pages that list cabinet members are standard. Truss will become Prime Minister tomorrow, so I don't see the point in deleting it now. Khronicle I (talk) 17:55, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Undeniably jumping the gun, but only by a matter of 24 hrs or so. Moscow Mule (talk) 17:56, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Truss will be appointed by the Queen tomorrow, after which she'll begin to announce her cabinet. This article is just getting everything ready and set up for when she does.GandalfXLD (talk) 18:01, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per everything said above, especially GandalfXLD's comment. —Sundostund (talk) 18:36, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep The new ministry will be formed tomorrow on 6 September. —Moondragon21 (talk) 19:41, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Kinda weird deletion nomination. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 19:17, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
must not be delete this page — Preceding unsigned comment added by 183.179.74.249 (talk) 00:27, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and note that the WP:SNOWBALL is rolling down the hill at pace. -- M2Ys4U ^(talk) 01:30, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is clear precedent as to how the articles are named for the different ministries formed by British PMs. A shame that at this important time, when everybody will want to read this article, there will be a deletion request notice above it just because of this deletion request. CrazyPredictor (talk) 01:53, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. If it's being formed tomorrow, no point deleting, especially since one is created for every PM. Not worth the hassle of deleting then recreating when she's sworn in. echidnaLives (talk) 02:04, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The nominator might have been confused, as discussed above, and the article is both relevant and typical. Oswako (talk) 03:41, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:22, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of restaurants in Baltimore[edit]

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

Wikipedia is not a directory. There are many restaurants in Baltimore that aren't listed but there isn't anything here that shows notability to be a stand-alone list. Wozal (talk) 14:33, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business, Lists, and Maryland. Wozal (talk) 14:33, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

delete This isn't even as advertised, as many on the list are chains or are defunct, or both. Right now a category makes more sense. Mangoe (talk) 14:51, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Being defunct is irrelevant. They also aren't chains. PICKLEDICAE🥒 14:54, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, I'm not sure how the list "isn't even as advertised". This is a list of notable restaurants, similar to List of restaurants in New York City, List of restaurants in Portland, Oregon, etc. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 14:56, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Neither of you know what you're talking about, and didn't bother to look at the listed articles. Ginos was a chain, Little Tavern was a chain, and Looneys is a chain still in operation. All of them had or have locations well outside Baltimore. I also note that looking at the NYC discussion, the result was actually "delete". Also, defunct restaurants, by definition, aren't in anywhere. I remain unconvinced of the value of these lists or more or less unrelated things, so I stand by my original stance. Mangoe (talk) 19:52, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"Neither of you know what you're talking about" -- that's unnecessary and untrue. We're just going to have to agree to disagree here. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 20:20, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Looney's is a Baltimore chain. And I think I have a clue what I'm talking about considering I've been to nearly every one of these places, their articles are well sourced and this is perfectly suitable as a standalone list, but by all means, do go on. PICKLEDICAE🥒 13:06, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand, there are several more restaurants that can and should be added (I'll work on that later myself.) But I don't see how this is any different than other lists of restaurants in xyz city aside from the noms apparent distaste for articles created by Another Believer. PICKLEDICAE🥒 14:59, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
1. I don't have an "apparent distate" for articles created by another user.

2. This discussion is meant to be on the post, not the nominator.

3. Stand-alone lists must be notable; while the individual restaurants might be notable, them being in Baltimore doesn't make them notable.

4. They already seem to be in a category of the same listing which is often seen as more desirable as lists expand. Wozal (talk) 13:07, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Praxidicae. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 15:00, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No defined inclusion criteria. WP:NOTDIR. MB 15:48, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's a list of notable restaurants. Why is more specific inclusion criteria required? ---Another Believer _(Talk) 16:05, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The outcome of similar AFDs would indicate you're incorrect.
And about a dozen more...you'd have a point if these were just a generic list of restaurants akin to a guide, but it's not, it's notable restaurants in major cities. PICKLEDICAE🥒 16:14, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, and clarify in the lede that this is a list of notable restaurants local to Baltimore. Obviously every major fast food chain has locations in Baltimore that we would not be listing. BD2412 T 17:36, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Every single one listed has its own article. A valid information and navigational list. Dream Focus 22:33, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and include notable names only. Lorstaking 04:22, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ Is this not just WP:YELLOW? The fact that each of the restaurants on this page has their own articles, then this page is nothing more than just a WP:CAT. KSAWikipedian (talk) 13:45, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently, there is a policy contrary to my !vote. I will withdraw. KSAWikipedian (talk) 15:06, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:21, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of restaurants in Cincinnati[edit]

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

Wikipedia is not a directory. There are many restaurants in Cincinnati that aren't listed but there isn't anything here that shows notability to be a stand-alone list. Wozal (talk) 14:28, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people, Business, and Ohio. Wozal (talk) 14:28, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:50, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per User:Praxidicae at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of restaurants in Baltimore ---Another Believer _(Talk) 15:01, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No defined inclusion criteria. WP:NOTDIR. MB 15:48, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's a list of notable restaurants. Why is more specific inclusion criteria required? ---Another Believer _(Talk) 16:05, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per my reasoning in the AFD about restaurants in Baltimore. PICKLEDICAE🥒 16:15, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, and clarify in the lede that this is a list of notable restaurants local to Cincinnati. Obviously every major fast food chain has locations in Cincinnati that we would not be listing. BD2412 T 17:37, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Every single one listed has its own article. A valid information and navigational list. Dream Focus 22:32, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree with other commenters that this is a useful article for navigation for those restraunts that do indeed have articles, it's not likely that the majority of restraunts in a given city would be notable anyway. I could see a move to "List of notable restaurants in Cincinnati", which would clear up the confustion. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:59, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Until we don't have same standard for all other articles. GenuineArt (talk) 16:16, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ Is this not WP:YELLOW the fact that each of the restaurants on this page has their own articles, then this page is nothing more than just a WP:CAT. KSAWikipedian (talk) 13:43, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently, there is a policy contrary to my !vote. I will withdraw. KSAWikipedian (talk) 15:07, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 WP:CSD#G5. Kinu ^t/_c 15:56, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Marcia Smith[edit]

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

Promo piece on a non-notable businessperson. Sources cited are passing mentions and churnalism, and a search finds nothing better. Fails WP:GNG / WP:NBIO. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:35, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Businesspeople, Women, United States of America, and Texas. DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:35, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete paid for vanity spam sourced to blackhat SEO with nothing better available. Preferably speedy, g5 (see Jaz421.) PICKLEDICAE🥒 13:08, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, and I have also not been able to find sufficient independent and reliable sources to support notability. Preferably speedy, because this also appears to be unambiguous advertising or promotion. Beccaynr (talk) 14:41, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete army veteran isn't notable, rest is rather routine stuff. Bowling scholarship was interesting, but not enough for GNG. Oaktree b (talk) 15:07, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 12:07, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WorldCard[edit]

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

Not notable, defunct, without reliable sources. WP:BEFORE didn't help much. Should be deleted Oliver Virk (talk) 12:06, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Hong Kong, Malaysia, and Singapore. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:11, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – robertsky (talk) 02:38, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 11:55, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

President of the Bahamas[edit]

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

The Bahamas doesn't have a president 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 11:55, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:13, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Here I agree to the deletion. Privybst (talk) 14:22, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as utterly ludicrous and completely made up. Mccapra (talk) 20:06, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and Caribbean. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 21:12, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This isn't a real title, and Wikipedia isn't in the business of making up titles. We report what is really used out there in the world. Other articles of this type have already been speedy deleted, which should show which way consensus lise on this matter. --Flopsy Mopsy and Cottonmouth (talk) 08:13, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 12:07, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

President of Belize[edit]

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

Belize doesn't have a president 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 11:55, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:12, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is like having a page "Monarchs of the United States" with links to List of British monarchs (because before 1776 British monarchs were monarchs of the American colonies), List of presidents of the United States (even though the presidents aren't monarchs), and Speaker of the United States House of Representatives. Largoplazo (talk) 12:19, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree with the nomination. I don't think so this article is needed on Wikipedia. There is no use of it. Thanks Fifthapril (talk) 13:57, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Here I support deletion. Privybst (talk) 14:15, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Belize-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:12, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as utterly ludicrous and completely made up. Mccapra (talk) 20:07, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 21:13, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. CSD G3. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:07, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

President of the United Kingdom[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

The UK doesn't have a president. As there is the Lord President of the Council and the Prime Minister, a redirect to the former could be even more misleading. So just plain delete. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 11:48, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:13, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 12:09, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Upromise[edit]

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

Not verifable and notable per WP:NCORP. Plus, many prnewswire and own website links referencing Oliver Virk (talk) 11:46, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Massachusetts. Shellwood (talk) 12:14, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Wall-to-wall press releases, primary sources, casual namedrops in the "X company acquired Upromise for Y dollars, the end" line. Substantive coverage of the subject in reliable sources is utterly lacking. Ravenswing 02:41, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 12:10, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hearst Shkulev Digital[edit]

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

Not verifable and notable per WP:NCORP Oliver Virk (talk) 11:45, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Russia. Shellwood (talk) 12:15, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 11:43, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

HGC Apparel[edit]

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

Promo piece on a non-notable business. Sources cited are passing (or no) mentions and churnalism, and a search finds nothing better; none of this comes even close to meeting WP:GNG, let alone WP:ORGCRIT. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:43, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fashion, Business, Companies, and United States of America. DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:43, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
delete preferably G11 and G5 - this is a paid for vanity spam article, see Jaz421. PICKLEDICAE🥒 13:02, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - There is nothing in this article that satisfies general notability or corporate notability, because none of the coverage is independent secondary significant coverage. This article is also entirely the work of blocked paid editors and their sockpuppets. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:52, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Request to closer: Please do not close as G11. The disadvantage to G11 is that it doesn't support a subsequent G4. The spammer can keep submitting the same spam until the title gets locked. Please let this AFD run for 7 days. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:52, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I reckon this is a G5, rather. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 18:00, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment to User:DoubleGrazing - The spammer hadn't been blocked when they wrote most of this. G5 might involve time travel, and that has too many paradoxes. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:12, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No, they were a sock of an already blocked user, therefor G5 absolutely applies. PICKLEDICAE🥒 18:17, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Robert McClenon: Oh, I love the predestination paradox. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 18:27, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:ARTSPAM. Fails WP:GNG. Honestly, not saying it is, but if this is the product of WP:UPE, someone is owed a refund.-- Deepfriedokra (talk) 18:25, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It is a product of UPE and arbcom/cus have already been provided with the receipts. PICKLEDICAE🥒 18:32, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It looks it. Why people take money to do something they do this badly is beyond me. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 21:07, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Doczilla _{@SUPERHEROLOGIST} 05:35, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

President of Australia[edit]

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

Australia doesn't have a president. Also, as Australia is a constitutional monarchy, this page is potentially misleading people because "president" is associated with republics worldwide because of the influence of the United States 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 11:36, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:12, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:12, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as utterly ludicrous and completely made up. Mccapra (talk) 20:20, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 21:13, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Ridiculous invented title. There is no Emperor of Australia for the same reason. Davidelit (Talk) 00:13, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ Redirect to Republicanism in Australia, per Devonian Wombat, below. This title doesn't exist, and Wikipedia isn't in the business of creating the idea that such a title does exist. Also, there are several other articles of this kind that should also probably be deleted for the same reason. --Flopsy Mopsy and Cottonmouth (talk) 07:01, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There is no such person, so this article is confusing. --Bduke (talk) 07:55, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Not a viable search term worthy of its own DAB page, as Australia does not have a president nor is it a republic. Liamyangll (talk to me!) 08:56, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Republicanism in Australia, while Australia does not have a President the idea of it getting one has often been raised, and there has been a substantial amount of political and academic debate around what powers this President might have and the like. This isn't enough for it to have an independent article, but it is a viable search term. Devonian Wombat (talk) 12:01, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, that is a great idea. I'm changing my !vote, since the article you linked says that the plan would be to replace the Queen with a President. Flopsy Mopsy and Cottonmouth (talk) 12:22, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think a redirect to Republicanism in Australia would be confusing because there is already the President of the Senate (Australia) (an actual office, not a hypothetical one). 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 12:36, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is an argument for keeping the disambiguation page, since you are talking about multiple plausible targets. Dekimasuよ! 23:11, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete made up title, implausible suggested redirects. Dronebogus (talk) 21:33, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect in the worst case; this is a helpful navigational page and not an implausible search term, as it receives 1000 hits a month. I have cleaned up the dab and removed the entry for the monarchy, which is not a valid target. Dekimasuよ! 23:09, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Republicanism in Australia per Devonian Wombat; there's a large body of research and comment on the (envisaged) office.Some examples: Linda Burney (current Federal Minister for Indigenous Australians) in 2009: "I have every hope that the first President of Australia will be one of the people of the First Nations."^[1] "No president of Australia could step into the lineage of the monarchy and be certain of his or her present position as part of the heritage of conflict and restraint which has produced the constitutional monarchy."^[2] "The Australian Presidency"^[3] "As Gough Whitlam (1994) recently remarked, 'there is no surer way of absolutely guaranteeing that the President of Australia will always be a party politician than by making the presidency directly elected.'"^[4] There's even discussion as early as 1918 of a President of Australia.^[5]

References

^ Burney, Linda (December 2009). "An Australian Sense of Xenophobia". Development. 52 (4): 479–482. doi:10.1057/dev.2009.61.
^ Maddox, Graham (2000). "The Split Republic". AQ: Australian Quarterly. 72 (1): 2–51. doi:10.2307/20637873. ISSN 1443-3605.
^ Kowalik, Michal (2000). "Directly electing the Australian President: A proposal". Australian Rationalist (55): 19–24.
^ Winterton, George (1995). "Choosing a Republican Head of State". Agenda: A Journal of Policy Analysis and Reform. 2 (2): 135–147. ISSN 1322-1833.
^ "THE FUTURE "PRESIDENT OF AUSTRALIA."". The Telegraph. No. 14, 378. Queensland, Australia. 24 December 1918. p. 2. Retrieved 7 September 2022 – via National Library of Australia.

Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 07:36, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Most foreigners searching for "President of Australia" are probably looking for the head of state (Governor General/the Queen) and/or the head of government (Prime Minister), so this redirect would be inappropriate and confusing. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 07:39, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hazarding a guess about the intention of hypothetical "foreign" searchers cannot outweigh reliable sourcing. Even if one was to accept this reasoning, given a central issue of Republicanism in Australia is the head of state, the redirection would correct their hypothetical misunderstanding. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 10:02, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Goldsztajn, none of those sources are actually indicative that that would be the title of a republican head of state - they are merely what they conceive that to be. The title has not been decided on and there should not be a page about it. Deus et lex (talk) 11:04, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There's three problems with this argument. First, mentioning that since the office does not exist therefore we should not have a page is irrelevant, this encyclopedia is full of fictional, non-existent concepts. Second, there is clear consensus here that an article should not exist, the question is whether there should be a redirect. A redirect in this case would indicate that we consider the concept of the President of Australia a not implausible search term related specifically to a subject which does have an article, Republicanism in Australia. Third, the overwhelming preponderance of sources speak of the head of state of a proposed Australian Republic as a president. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 15:09, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the redirect is inappropriate as there is no decision that the head of state in a republican Australia would even be called the President. Deus et lex (talk) 11:02, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"A proposed law: To alter the Constitution to establish the Commonwealth of Australia as a republic with the Queen and Governor-General being replaced by a President appointed by a two-thirds majority of the members of the Commonwealth Parliament. Do you approve this proposed alteration?" Other than the 1000s of sources available mentioning a President, the entire country voted in a referendum which explicitly mentioned a president. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 14:48, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- And that referendum didn't pass, so it's no more than a hypothetical about what a future proposal could encompass. Deus et lex (talk) 18:21, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well yes, that's why we're proposing to redirect this instead of creating a massive article on it. Devonian Wombat (talk) 21:49, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as this title does not exist as of this vote and is therefore misleading. A redirect is not right here because it implies an equivalence (if to Prime Minister). David Stargell (talk) 23:30, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, this is a DAB page, not an article, it is a navigational tool. The page is not an implausible target. And it does not mislead readers to help them navigate to the article they are actually looking for. It's not like this is an article on a non-existent office. --Privybst (talk) 11:43, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:D it does not disambiguate and users are unlikely to need this dab to navigate. Lightburst (talk) 01:32, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 11:23, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Massoud riyazi[edit]

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

Violation of WP:Promo, WP:ANYBIO and WP:GNG n Oliver Virk (talk) 11:22, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – It is clear that the article, a biography, violates WP:ANYBIO. Suasufzeb 11:57, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Capitalization error in the title, non-notable otherwise. Oaktree b (talk) 15:11, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Politicians, Sportspeople, Wrestling, and Iran. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:13, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. subject is not notable. Fad Ariff (talk) 12:19, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 11:13, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

President of New Zealand[edit]

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

Nonexistent title; DAB based on the unlikely notion that someone in a presidential state will assume New Zealand is a republic and search for this made-up position instead of just looking at the article on New Zealand to find out its head of state/government. Dronebogus (talk) 11:13, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:16, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete NZ doesn't have a president. And worse, we're potentially reinforcing the mistake. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 11:39, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to New Zealand Government, or delete per all above. Waggers TALK 14:56, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:14, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as utterly ludicrous and completely made up. Mccapra (talk) 20:24, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 21:13, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Pointless article form a recidivist time-wasting editor. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 22:43, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Prime Minister of New Zealand as a misnomer that is more plausible than the other options. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 04:04, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete NZ clearly does not have a president, so any article that suggests they do should be deleted. --Bduke (talk) 07:53, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Just rubbish. Not even worth redirecting to Republicanism in New Zealand. Nurg (talk) 08:18, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt so that it doesn't get recreated. Schwede 66 08:21, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per a similar rationale to President of Australia a little further up. Not a viable search term worthy of its own DAB page, as New Zealand does not have a president nor is it a republic. Liamyangll (talk to me!) 09:00, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as not a thing. Paora (talk) 11:32, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as this title does not exist and is therefore misleading. - David Stargell (talk) 23:26, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 12:13, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Primus Power[edit]

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

Non-notable failed startup, fails: NCORP. WP:BEFORE didn't help much. RS are absent. 30% of the article are filled with original research of what is written on the CEO's LinkedIn page and company's website. Oliver Virk (talk) 10:20, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and California. Shellwood (talk) 10:24, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete agree with analysis above, primary sources and nothing found otherwise. Oaktree b (talk) 15:12, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 12:14, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Natasha Tsukanova[edit]

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

Notability questionable, not enough (or at all) reliable sources needed for BLP. Oliver Virk (talk) 10:14, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

the author is already blocked on Wikipedia Oliver Virk (talk) 10:15, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Women, and Russia. Shellwood (talk) 10:24, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete "patron of the arts" is vague enough that it could mean anything. No sourcing found. Oaktree b (talk) 15:22, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy deleted per G7. (non-admin closure) –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 21:14, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

President of Denmark[edit]

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

Denmark doesn't have a president 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 09:11, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:30, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Ficaia the same as President of the United Kingdom, President of Jamaica, President of Australia, President of New Zealand etc. But President of Denmark may refer to Monarchy of Denmark or to Prime Minister of Denmark, right? Privybst (talk) 09:31, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think any sources refer to the Prime Minister of Denmark as the President. Normal people (especially from the US, I imagine) might make that mistake, but I don't see why Wikipedia should reinforce the mistake. ~~The UK might be an exception as they have the Lord President of the Council, and a disambig might be needed to avoid confusion with the Prime Minister.~~ 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 11:32, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no such title, or possibly redirect to the prime minister. Hughesdarren (talk) 11:02, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete without redirecting. This is not a real position and the disambigs are implausible. Dronebogus (talk) 11:16, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete with no redirect since there are no presidents in Denmark. Fad Ariff (talk) 12:00, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

OK, delete it. Privybst (talk) 14:23, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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!} 08:04, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

President of the Netherlands[edit]

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

The Netherlands doesn't have a president. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 09:07, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:30, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Ficaia the same as President of the United Kingdom, President of Jamaica, President of Australia, President of New Zealand etc. But President of the Netherlands may refer to Monarchy of the Netherlands or to Prime Minister of the Netherlands, right? Privybst (talk) 09:30, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I’ve redirected or trimmed all of those to versions that only include “President” in the name Dronebogus (talk) 11:09, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no such title or possibly redirect to prime minister. Hughesdarren (talk) 11:04, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete nonsense. Makes about as much sense as “King of the USA” redirecting to “President of the USA” or disambiguating between that and King George III and Emperor Norton. Dronebogus (talk) 11:05, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, by the way, in Dutch the Prime Minister is called minister-president, thus it could be a plausible mistake (see [19]). I still think that a DAB page is better but if not then at least redirect to prime minister. Privybst (talk) 12:14, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:14, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as utterly ludicrous and completely made up. Mccapra (talk) 20:26, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 21:14, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Prime Minister of the Netherlands, because I still think the confusion between president and prime minister is real and worth a redirect; the positions are more similar than a PM is to a monarch. Also, all of these AfD's should have been bundled into one since they share a common issue which does not require a case-be-case evaluation. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 21:17, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This isn't a real title, and Wikipedia isn't in the business of making up titles. We report what is really used out there in the world. --Flopsy Mopsy and Cottonmouth (talk) 08:11, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Doczilla _{@SUPERHEROLOGIST} 05:37, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lightning strikes of 2022[edit]

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

A list of rather random, mainly non-notable examples of common events. While, according to the lead, about 2,000 people each year die of lightning, 7 of the 10 first entries don't even have that impact and just have some injuries. Inclusion criteria for this list don't seem to exist, and even restricting it to strikes resulting in deaths would create a very long list. The most recent entry, "A lightning bolt hit an elderly man causing heart arrythmia." is rather typical of the whole, where probably only the second entry (Congo, 26 deaths) could truly be a notable event beyond the WP:NOTNEWS cycle. Basically a list of trivial news stories with one common (in both meanings) element. Fram (talk) 08:52, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Science, and Lists. Fram (talk) 08:52, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — Article was (and still is being) created as a way to expand the yearly weather articles. Similar process to how I expanded Weather of 2022 timeline with any fatality. The “inclusion criteria” was any injury or fatality reported, which surprisingly, injuries and fatalities aren’t reported often by government organizations. For example, the European Severe Storms Laboratory, which has an entire severe weather database for all of Europe, did not record a single lightning injury or fatality in February or March 2022. The lead is also using sources from over a decade ago, so information is most likely outdated or estimated. I highly oppose full deletion and as the article’s creator, will be getting it refunded if it somehow is deleted. If you editors think it has no “inclusion criteria”, which is does, but if you don’t believe so, the inclusion criteria can be only fatalities (similar to the Weather of 2022 timeline, which no one has an issue with and numerous discussions created that inclusion criteria. Elijahandskip (talk) 13:55, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Even the vast majority of lightning strikes with fatalities are ignored by this list though, it is just a completely random selection of some of the thousands of incidents. No idea why you think it surprising that "injuries and fatalities aren’t reported often by government organizations", why would they make public reports on all deaths in their country or region? Totals, yes, but government organizations have hardly a need to publish individual natural accident reports. Fram (talk) 15:41, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is actually a good list for obstructing creation of tons of new articles that would otherwise fail WP:NOTNEWS. Abhishek0831996 (talk) 15:20, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- That is a tarrible reason to keep an article. Because the alternative would be worse? Especially since, judging from redirects to this page, no such new articles ever existed. Fram (talk) 15:37, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Please delete this. A list of non-notable events which have newsy articles attached to them does not make for a notable subject. Drmies (talk) 15:44, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Conditional weak keep If only fatal lightning strikes are included. Might need to be divided by region. If it is not kept to fatalities only, then Strong delete. We don’t need to document hundreds of thousands of lightning strikes. 74.101.118.197 (talk) 15:46, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – per nom. United States Man (talk) 23:34, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A complete list of verified lightning strikes causing injury or death in a given year would likely too long to be of value. Additionally, as the vast majority of lightning strike events would/will not rise above the WP:NOTNEWS threshold, this list is nothing but a collection of trivia. Drdpw (talk) 23:47, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete but maybe we can make a page of notable lightning strikes that caused deaths, injuries, and/or very severe damage throughout history instead of just one year. (i.e. this case where lightning strikes caused an explosion of dynamite in a water tunnel that was under construction) ChessEric (talk · contribs) 00:04, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Whether we should keep only notable incidents or the one that caused at least a fatality can be decided elsewhere but I don't see any point in deleting this list. Orientls (talk) 09:30, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTNEWS and WP:NLIST, if there were several individual lightning strikes that were themselves notable than this article might have served a legitimate navigational purpose for readers, but since as far as I can tell not a single individual lightning strike in 2022 has its own page that does not apply here. Devonian Wombat (talk) 11:58, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lightning deaths each year have been trending downward, though there are still many thousands of injuries. While these are sometimes reported in the news, they aren't the sort of notable events that we should be compiling. There are likewise far too many power outages, fires, and other incidents for us to pretend to have a useful list of. Reywas92^Talk 14:25, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as clear WP:DOGBITESMAN routine unencyclopedic material. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 16:02, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Procedural close. Nominated by a sockpuppet and no editors voiced their support for this nomination. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:38, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Colin Fassnidge[edit]

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

Recently deleted as per A7 speedy. I also can't find any significant coverage. And thus it fails WP:GNG. The references used here are either self published or Book selling websites. Twisterdel (talk) 08:24, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Authors, Food and drink, and Australia. Twisterdel (talk) 08:24, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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!} 07:56, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Tati McQuay[edit]

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

Non-notable singer/dancer/influencer/etc. Sources cited are non-RS, provide passing or no mentions, or consist of interviews and celeb gossip; search finds only more of the same. Fails WP:GNG / WP:ENTERTAINER / WP:MUSICBIO. DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:46, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Bands and musicians, Women, Canada, and United States of America. DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:46, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The text of the article does not speak for itself as to notability. Article was moved from article space to draft space, then declined twice, but then moved back to article space by originator. The article has been reference=bombed with 25 low-quality sources, many of which are YouTube. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:14, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete another non-notable influencer. Movies and other roles aren't notable, ACTOR doesn't apply. Not much found for sources. Best I could find was a Rolling Stone article about Dippin Dots and the L2M group she was in, mentioned in passing. Oaktree b (talk) 15:17, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete but repurpose She does fail the GNG on her own, but I think that some of the content on here would belong somewhere else. L2M in itself could be a merged article of the five group members if neither of them are able to make it all on their own; they used to be pretty prominent. InvadingInvader (talk) 01:58, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I will, however, support keeping the article online if during this deletion process, something comes up in which she would meet the GNG. InvadingInvader (talk) 07:24, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Brahmāstra: Part One – Shiva#Future with the option to merge any viable content. Vanamonde (Talk) 07:35, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Brahmāstra Trilogy[edit]

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

WP:TOOSOON and WP:CRYSTALBALL for a planned trilogy. It has only one film so far (Brahmāstra: Part One – Shiva) and there's no certainty that trilogy will be made. Also see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Astraverse where its planned cinematic universe is deleted. Ab207 (talk) 06:44, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and India. Ab207 (talk) 06:44, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The page for Astraverse is deleted, which is right because only one of their preject (Brahmāstra Trilogy) was announced. But this page should not be deleted because the announcements are already made for the whole trilogy. Vikenviksingh (talk) 07:25, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Trilogy will be made its officially announced under cinematic universe called Astraverse. SRV (talk) 01:05, 5 September 2022 (IST)

Yes, it will be too soon (premature) for a page of the whole Astraverse to be added but not for the trilogy and even if the films are cancelled, the page can be deleted then only. Vikenviksingh (talk) 07:41, 5 September 2022 (IST)

Merge with Brahmāstra: Part One – Shiva: as a section. The sourced content can be used there as it is informative. The trilogy article is WP:TOOSOON. Venkat TL (talk) 10:03, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Don't Merge as both pages are different in many ways. Many hollywood films have trilogy page along with film ones. I ask for moving Trilogy page into draft space till the second film comes. Then it can be transfer to mainspace. User:Vikenviksingh (talk) 11:04, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Vikenviksingh my suggestion is better than yours while doing the same thing. What if the next film does not come out in 6 months. then the draft will get deleted and information lost in deleted revisions. Venkat TL (talk) 11:26, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Venkat TL Let's consider one thing if any news regarding second film doesn't come in six months then the draft will be get deleted. Let me ask you one thing. Trilogy is already announced, isn't it? Yes it is. Now consider another thing that if this page get deleted now but somehow the updates regarding second film comes, the information will already be lost including all the hardwork-ed contributions of editors. And editors have to make new page for this again. As like prevention is better than cure, drafting is better than deletion. I'd like to give you examples of MCU drafts of rumoured projects still exist (please see it) and this page has no right to be even exist as draft even if it is announced tilogy? It'll automatically get deleted if there isn't updates and save us from discussion like this for deletion. User:Vikenviksingh (talk) 02:18, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Vikenviksingh both you and me are not supporting deletion. I am saying merge is better than draft. Drafts are automatically deleted if no edits in 6 months. Can you give any guarantee that someone will keep updating the draft. There is no surety. So Merge is better. Venkat TL (talk) 13:28, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect to Brahmāstra: Part One – Shiva#Future per TOOSOON. 1. There is no certainty if these plans will move ahead (depends on this film's commercial prospects). 2. At this stage there is no clarity on whether the planned trilogy is the Astraverse or the Brahmastra movies are a subset of a planned cinematic universe. 3. It is standard practice in film articles to talk about planned future adaptations in a Future section. 2001:8F8:172B:369E:B9C5:68A9:75E:F823 (talk) 15:15, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not sure if the other two parts will release anytime soon/ever release. DareshMohan (talk) 23:53, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Draft or Merge/redirect (not to keep article space) to Brahmāstra: Part One – Shiva#Future. For now the article should be merged and it can have its own articlespace once more films are made. Agreed with @Venkat TL, User:VikenviksinghHas good point to keep it in draft as other instalments are announced. Either it can be draft or merge but not in main article space for now Give Up (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 12:40, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The so-called trilology has not been released nor started shooting nor started casting.Wikipedia articles cannot be created just because when some director come and say one day that he is going to create a trilogy. The present film itself is a flop. These are pov pushes for film promotion — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.66.121.55 (talk) 23:48, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Brahmāstra: Part One – Shiva: as a section per norm. If the sequel of the film released in future then the section can be split to the present article again. Mehedi Abedin 15:03, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. There's general agreement that the coverage here is borderline: given that, the argument that an exclusive reliance on local news coverage implies a lack of notability, is persuasive. Will draftify per request. Vanamonde (Talk) 07:32, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hobson Snead[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. The only source is his fraternity(?). Clarityfiend (talk) 05:38, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, American football, and Virginia. Shellwood (talk) 08:18, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I've expanded this article with sourcing that establishes notability of subject. Nominator did not perform a WP:BEFORE prior to nomination. Jweiss11 (talk) 16:58, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep with added sources from Jweiss11. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 17:20, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Snead's only claim to notability is as football coach for two years at a junior college. See Bluefield University#History. Jweiss11 has done thorough research, and there is some minor coverage in the local Bluefield newspaper. Also some coverage in the Richmond newspaper when he coached high school football there. IMO it's not deep enough to pass WP:GNG. If it were enough, we could/would have articles on just about every high school and junior college coach. For a junior college or high school coach to have a stand-alone article, I would want to see something truly out of the ordinary and strong, in-depth coverage. Cbl62 (talk) 18:18, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The sourcing is much improved, but I don't think of the sources amount to significant coverage. There isn't a suitable merge target either; Bluefield Rams football redirects to Bluefield Rams. High school/junior college coaches by themselves, absent some other accomplishment, probably aren't notable. I'm open to being convinced otherwise. @Jweiss11 and PCN02WPS: talk you folks into helping create an article about the program, as a possible merge target for Snead and a few others? Mackensen (talk) 19:01, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete Despite significant improvements made by User:Jweiss11 I think the level of WP:SIGCOV falls a little short of WP:GNG. A head coach of high school and junior college football shouldn’t be notable for that alone. Frank Anchor 19:26, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, currently searching for sources, so far I have found "HOBBIE SNEAD TO HEAD BOYS CLUB" from the Bluefield Daily Telegraph which I would argue is SIGCOV. BeanieFan11 (talk) 19:45, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Other articles that I could find:
  - SCOTTSVILLE BEATS RED SOX NINE, 8-4: "Hobby" Snead, Ex-Spider Star, Pitches Against Billy Ricker's Team from The Times Dispatch.
  - Snead Is Appointed Coach of Justices; to Succeed Miller from The Times Dispatch.
  - Tarheels Winners By Close Score of 2-1: Snead, U of Richmond Pitcher, Is Outhurled by Rival, Johnson from The Times Dispatch.
  - COACH BLUEFIELD COLLEGE RESIGNS from the Bluefield Daily Telegraph.
  - EMSWELLER WILL COACH DEACONS from the Bluefield Daily Telegraph.
  - Hobby Snead and the Spiders of 1922 from The Times Dispatch.
  - This Boy Does Spiders' Punting from The Greenville News.
  - Hurt in auto wreck from The Bee. BeanieFan11 (talk) 20:10, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- BeanieFan11 (talk) 19:50, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the piece found by BeanieFan11 from the Bluefield paper (announcing his election as superintendent of the local boys' club) can be categorized as SIGCOV. We can stipulate he received SIGCOV in the local Bluefield newspaper. But here's my take: Bluefield, Virginia (home of Bluefield College) was a city of about 2,500 persons in 1920. If we search the Bluefield newspaper (or other micro-small-town papers), we can find similar coverage about every high school or junior college coach or boys' club official. For me, I still expect more depth and breadth of coverage when the subject has such a low level of actual achievement. I'd rather we focus our collective energy on more substantial efforts than biographies of run-of-the-mill junior college coaches. Cbl62 (talk) 19:58, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

How are these sources anything other than routine coverage of game results, hirings, and firings? Etzedek24 ^{(I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record)} 22:58, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Very Weak Keep. Alright, I finished searching. I would say that this is definitely SIGCOV. This is probably SIGCOV, this may be as well. Maybe this counts? Then there is a lot of passing mentions I was able to find, as well as several pictures of him put in the local newspapers (see for example "This Boy Does Spiders' Punting"). I would say that considering he was a coach of a college football team (although junior college at the time), has at least two pieces of SIGCOV from different newspapers, and a bunch of mentions and other brief articles from other newspapers, he just barely gets by GNG. BeanieFan11 (talk) 20:16, 5 September 2022 (UTC)'[reply]
Also, looking at NewspaperArchive.com, I would say this may be SIGCOV ("HOBBY SNEAD TO PILOT KEYSTONE BALL TOSSERS"). BeanieFan11 (talk) 20:22, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Reasonable minds can differ. Yes, it can be argued that this "barely passes GNG". And a similar case can be made for tens of thousands of run-of-the-mill high-school and junior-college coaches. IMO "barely passes GNG" isn't a good enough reason to create and maintain stand-alone articles on JC/HS coaches. Cbl62 (talk) 20:26, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The extra sources are helpful, but ultimately his most notable claim is coaching a now-NAIA program, and most NAIA coaches are not notable. His coverage is limited to a small-town newspaper. Perhaps a redirect to Bluefield as an ATD is possible as well, but I cannot in good faith vote to keep this. Etzedek24 ^{(I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record)} 13:54, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Etzedek24 Rlendog, note that the claim "most NAIA coaches are not notable" is false if we're talking about head football coaches; see Wikipedia:WikiProject College football/Coach Navboxes/NAIA. Jweiss11 (talk) 20:26, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Having navboxes doesn't guarantee that all those coaches would stand up to deletion scrutiny. In this case, whether or not I'm going against WPCFB consensus (to be fair, I do not edit much college football content), by mentioning his NAIA coaching status, I follow @Cbl62's reasoning here. We are running into WP:MILL here. Naturally his local paper will have coverage, but the coverage is just not adequate for a standalone article. I tend to fall on the inclusionist side of things, but I cannot in good faith see a reason to have a standalone article on this guy, especially when you take away his Sig Ep sources for not being independent. The paper coverage just doesn't cut it. Etzedek24 ^{(I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record)} 22:56, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Etzedek24, the point is not that the navboxes exists. The point is that hundreds of such articles exist—and I supplied that project page with all the navboxes, because the articles are all linked there. Many of them have been challenged for notability and have passed. Many others are clearly notable in their current state. The claim about most NAIA head football coaches not being notability is false. That's my point—irrespective of Snead's of notability. Jweiss11 (talk) 23:26, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - enough coverage in multiple sources to meet GNG, and given the vintage it is likely that even more sources existed but are not ready available on line. Even if most NAIA coaches are not notable, that doesn't mean this one isn't.Rlendog (talk) 14:05, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Etzedek24's reasoning. Best, GPL93 (talk) 20:08, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closing admin: in the event of a delete, I would like to userfy this article so that its contents can be used at some later date to build Bluefield Rams football or List of Bluefield Rams head football coaches. Jweiss11 (talk) 20:30, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ I see this as passing WP:GNG from the sources. Arguemnts like "It's an NAIA program today" should have no affect because the NAIA wasn't even formed until 18 years after his term at Bluefield. This puts it in the NCAA, which had no divisions until 1956. Note also the NFL was formed in 1920 and was in its infancy. This team was performing at the highest level of the sport and he was a head coach. I'm not shocked that online sources haven't caught up.--Paul McDonald (talk) 20:36, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bluefield was still a junior college during his tenure, so it was likely not an NCAA-affiliated school. The 1925 team's schedule appears to have been other junior colleges, Virginia Tech's freshman football team, and a private military boarding school. GPL93 (talk) 20:52, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Striking my position--this is getting interesting, the article Bluefield University (which is linked from the Hobson Snead artilce) says it begain in 1922, but Snead was coaching before then... there are multiple issues here that seem to be in conflict and validation is necessary. I think we need to at least userfy this one and possibly others until we can confirm what was really going on here--and that's before we do any assessment of notability.--Paul McDonald (talk) 21:56, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Paulmcdonald: Snead graduated from the University of Richmond in 1923 and began coaching that year at Bluefield. Jweiss11 (talk) 22:00, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The article on Snead says He served as the head football coach at Bluefield College in Bluefield, Virginia from 1923 to 1924. 1923 comes after 1922. BeanieFan11 (talk) 22:03, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per reasoning from Cbl62 and Etzedek24. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:13, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I think Cbl62 has it right. Fairly weak case for notability (coached largely high school) backed up by entirely local coverage. We need more for such a WP:ROTM figure, of which there are thousands.
Very Weak Keep The things that the deleter said is now done, but there is still litte notablity. Sportsfangnome (talk) 02:36, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Cbl62. Simply no claim to fame here. Reywas92^Talk 23:41, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 07:27, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lenwood S. Sharpe[edit]

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

Little coverage from secondary sources. The article's claims to notability come from a website run by the subject and then his resume. Secondary coverage is a podcast and several brief mentions that don't come close to WP:SIGCOV. Related: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lumberwoods. hinnk (talk) 05:24, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Virginia. Shellwood (talk) 08:18, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (Personal bias, willful vandalism). So I went to review hinnk's contributions thinking it was a little off that a user with few edits in the subject of fearsome critters and folklore would suggest the deletion of two adjacent articles in less than a week. I found several edits that suggest a pattern of bias against the subject of this article:

00:31, 1 September 2022 diff hist −346‎ List of vampire films ‎ non-notable, no coverage by reliable sources current
00:42, 1 September 2022 diff hist +415‎ Lumberwoods ‎ AfD: Nominated for deletion; see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lumberwoods
00:37, 1 September 2022 diff hist −4,376‎ Lenwood S. Sharpe ‎ redirecting to Lumberwoods, little significant coverage outside of WP:SELFPUBLISH articles Tags: New redirect Reverted
05:06, 5 September 2022 diff hist +427‎ Lenwood S. Sharpe ‎ AfD: Nominated for deletion; see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lenwood S. Sharpe current

The first of these was the removal of a film by Lenwood S. Sharpe, Lamp the Movie (That Really Shouldn't Exist); *A Dracula Film, from the article List of vampire films. Afterwards, hinnk went about making a series of edits to remove any content from Wikipedia related to that film's creator (Lumberwoods is a virtual museum directed by Lenwood S. Sharpe). Now, I do not think all of hinnk's point are invalid. The article could certainly use improvement. But I do feel hinnk's motivation for removing Wikipedia content does constitute "malicious removal of encyclopedic content, or the changing of such content beyond all recognition, without any regard to our core content policies of neutral point of view." However, hinnk has made significant contributions to Wikipedia, and I feel this is likely a one-off matter warranting merely a warning. As for the claims of notability, "Sharpe compiled the most comprehensive catalog on fearsome critters of North American folklore" the website referenced is ranked third in a Google search for fearsome critters. I do firmly believe this information is accurate, but it would benefit from secondary sources. Overall, I do not feel deletion can proceed given the circumstances surrounding the proposal (i.e. not liking a bad movie). Similar to the consensus in Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Lumberwoods, I think it would be better to to add more-citations-needed template and go from there. Tripodero (talk) 15:46:49, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I keep getting these responses that give highly unusual policy interpretations before veering off the topic at hand. It's hard to follow, and it ends up reading like you're mischaracterizing a content dispute as a conduct dispute to obscure just how loose you're being with WP:GNG. I mean, how would you like me to interpret the excerpt you're using to establish notability being cited to the subject himself? How seriously would you take someone who did that, while representing a content dispute with you as vandalism? I'd invite you to take some time and review the relevant guidelines (WP:N, specifically WP:SIGCOV, and WP:V, specifically WP:BURDEN). hinnk (talk) 03:12, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Were you planning on disclosing that, according to your old user page, you are the subject of this article? hinnk (talk) 06:50, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I have absolutely no issue with that. Hi everyone, I'm Lenwood S. Sharpe. Honestly, you could have saved yourself quite a bit of research there if you just asked me to clarify. But to be clear, I have two accounts on Wikipedia. One personal use and another for uploading media I release into the public domain. The second one is to verify authorship for purposes of the copyright waiver, as these are released in the public domain under the operating name "Thrill Land" not my own. As for the other two users you have outlined elsewhere I do not know. They could be visitors of the site or persons with a passing interest in fearsome critters. Now, I have nothing to do with neither the Lumberwoods article nor this present one. Admittedly, I've wanted to remove the description of me as a "game designer" for quite sometime, but I've resisted the temptation to edit. I did think, however, I was allowed to participate in this discussion, so I did. You may correct me if this is incorrect. Nevertheless, I feel the points raised are still valid. I'm don't believe I'm stopping anyone from deleting this article, but still feel it's a little off process to delete the article without a notice placed on the article was my point. Tripodero (talk) 16:59, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Tripodero: While legitimate alternative accounts are allowed, it is recommended that you disclose the names of your alternative accounts, unless doing so would defeat the purpose of the legitimate account. In your case (where the alternative account exists solely to associate the named account with the name of the copyright holder), disclosing the names would not defeat that purpose and is recommended. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 17:20, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads up. I went ahead and made a note on my user page for future reference. Tripodero (talk) 18:29, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete Not a single WP:SECONDARY source in what is WP:BLP. Refs are mix of sps sources, other sundry sources, all unrelated to proving the individual is notable. Fails WP:SIGCOV scope_creep^Talk 08:10, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Sharpe is one of the millions of internet users who has created a bit of a niche: writing about fearsome critters and other campfire lore. Nothing in the article lays a credible claim of notability and none of the cited references are significant. Google searches provide no significant hits either. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 11:56, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete there is no claim to notability whatsover. Best, GPL93 (talk) 20:02, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can't find any RS for this entry. In the article, most sources are podcasts (not considered RS in most circumstances), his own content (e.g. "Thrill Land" and "Fearsome Critter"). The one possible RS is Wausau Daily Herald, but this is a mere mention. Lamona (talk) 04:30, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. There's a lot of off-topic argumentation here. If you have issues with deletion nominations being too frequent, that's a matter for the noticeboards: mentioning it here isn't productive. There is some substantive source analysis that has not been convincingly rebutted, and for both these reasons, the arguments to delete are considerably stronger. Userspace copy available on request, in the understanding that recreation will not happen without better sourcing than was presented here. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:10, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Amir Ben-Shimon[edit]

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

WP:BLP. Fails WP:SIGCOV, WP:V. scope_creep^Talk 06:53, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Israel. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:02, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:27, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It's tough doing WP:BEFORE in Hebrew sources, I see him in databases, @SuperJew:. Anything on this guy? I see he played for F.C. Ashdod and Hapoel Jerusalem which are big clubs in Isreal so I would assume there should be some sourcing to be found. Govvy (talk) 20:40, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment A quick search brought this up. He's played for a decade at the top level in Israel and has played overseas (which is usually praised in Israeli media). I would assume there is enough about him to pass GNG, but right now with a newborn baby I don't have the time or focusing abilities to look through properly. Perhaps Number 57 or Eranrabl have sources and the time to have a search. --SuperJew (talk) 05:16, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:GNG, WP:V, WP:SIGCOV, WP:RS, and WP:BLP. Speedy keep per WP:BEFORE and WP:NEXIST. Combining because the outcome of these two would be the same. gidonb (talk) 18:57, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 20:51, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Hewiki with four valid sources is only 1 click away. A 5th is mentioned right above. This is a mistaken nomination. WP:N puts it big, bold, and named: Notability is based on the existence of suitable sources, not on the state of sourcing in an article. AfD is not cleanup. When an article has no references and it is VERY notable, it should only be tagged with the correct template. Not AfDd. Mazal tov to User:SuperJew! gidonb (talk) 21:32, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Those references you so gleefully expound as good source, incorrectly as per your usual, are just routine coverage. Not one of them is in-depth, i.e. significant for this BLP. They are no more than significant that the equivalent of a normal person being interviewed and getting a job. That is extent of it. So they not significant sources that are in-depth. scope_creep^Talk 07:00, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The only thing I was gleeful about was someone sharing they had a baby. The rest doesn't hold any water either. There is no case for deleting. The intro seems unrelated to the subject. gidonb (talk) 16:49, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Gidonb: Cheers thanks for the congratulations. I'll be gleeful when we start sleeping at night again ;) --SuperJew (talk) 20:09, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And before your frame or completely false and disgusting personal attack ("incorrectly as per your usual") starts living a life of its own: the reason why the outcome of AfDs is usually the same as my opinion is that I thoroughly look for sources and at the contents of the article and these will lead to my conclusion, whatever it may be. Looking at my stats, the AfD outcomes delete, keep, merge, and redirect, have usually followed my opinion. When the outcome was speedy delete and keep, I usually suggested delete and keep respectively. Same outcome, less drama. Looking at your stats, for the outcomes keep, delete, speedy keep, speedy delete, merge, and redirect, you had usually suggested deleting. In fact, you support deleting in 93% of the cases. I support keeping in only 52% of the cases. In 33% of the cases, I supported deleting. In 6% and 7% of the cases respectively (i.e. near-equal), I supported merging or redirecting. In 1% each (i.e. equal), I supported speedy keep or speedy delete. My findings, including my keep here, are evidence-based! gidonb (talk) 12:40, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If you've found sources why haven't you added them to the article? Dr vulpes ^{(💬 • 📝)} 00:48, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean with "IF" I found sources? In my opinion, I refer to 4 VERY SPECIFIC sources that are visible to all. Didn't look much. The sources are just one click away. A fifth source is provided above. User:SuperJew actually did some research to find a fifth source. I understand that it is difficult to find sources in a foreign language. Nominations and opinions in AfDs, however, should build on WP:BEFORE, WP:NEXIST, and capacities, otherwise be discounted. Looking at the home article is the most basic action of a before. Nothing special!!! gidonb (talk) 16:41, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per @Gidonb: and @SuperJew:. I look at the other Sports WikiProjects (or any WikiProject) and they don't nearly have an article deleted per day, let alone 30. By the time I finish writing this, another 30 will probably be deleted. Article may need improvement, but definitely not deletion. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 14:58, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG. No sources beyond the one listed above have been brought forward, meaning this article also fails WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 03:44, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Less Unless (talk) 04:26, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Draft If folks want to keep this article then go add the sources to the article so we can be done with this. If you don't want to add the sources then send this to draft until someone else does it. As it stand this article does not meet quality standards or expectations. This whole thing could have been a 20 minute quick speedy keep if y'all just put the sources into the article. Dr vulpes ^{(💬 • 📝)} 04:54, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There is no sources. It is almost a decade old, if there was sources available, they would be in there, but its never been updated. scope_creep^Talk 11:03, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine then it'll run its course and be deleted. Dr vulpes ^{(💬 • 📝)} 00:44, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You are mixing up sources with references. Sources are "out there". There are sources. The proof is that you try to argue with one of the sources (!) below. You called sources references below. References are sources in an article. You call references sources above. The only reference (!) in this article supports data rather than notability. Per WP:N that doesn't matter as long as the sources exist. Your comments above and below suggest that you use the complete inverse of the WP terminology. From here probably the difficulty to develop a basic grasp of WP:BEFORE and WP:NEXIST and to get AFDs right. gidonb (talk) 20:13, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The supposed fifthr ref, which isn't, is more routine coverage. Its a listicle event article and is not significant coverage. All the current references are routine coverage and are not significant. scope_creep^Talk 10:42, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The he.wiki sources are: 1: (First ONE article) a routine injury report N. 2: (Walla article) a routine transactional release N. 3. (Second ONE article) another routine transactional release N. 4. (Third ONE article) passing mention in a routine coaching update N. These sources are very obviously not SIGCOV. JoelleJay (talk) 18:01, 3 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!} 04:36, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lacks sigcov per source analysis above, permastub unlikely to be expanded. Avilich (talk) 21:25, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 07:25, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Save the Tiger Fund[edit]

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

This shouldn't be a standalone article but rather merged into ExxonMobil or another related article. Most of this seems to be written like an advertisement meant to promote ExxonMobil's fundraising abilities and attentiveness to climate and animals (itself subject to debate). Other than maybe to promote ExxonMobil, what's important about this? InvadingInvader (talk) 04:29, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Animal and Organizations. Shellwood (talk) 08:19, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:54, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because subject fails WP:GNG; any significantly wide coverage is limited to sources that aren't independent of the subject (as per Google News and Google search). The correct procedure for a merger would be WP:PAM, not AfD. The ExxonMobil article is 182kB large. The argument to Merge would somehow be contradicted by the WP:SIZERULE which says that articles >100kB Almost certainly should be divided. ‎⠀Trimton⠀‎‎ 10:47, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It was never developed to be recognizable enough. Accesscrawl (talk) 06:29, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Limited and non-independent coverage means it fail GNG. There's also the issue of it being written in a promotional rather than encyclopedic manner. --SilverTiger12 (talk) 17:32, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I note that nobody has commented on the many sources that can be found by clicking on "scholar" and "books" above. Phil Bridger (talk) 11:56, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- @Phil Bridger: Google Scholar in this case would only support notability in tandem with the press. An organization or event like this would not have its notability established by scholarly articles alone. InvadingInvader (talk) 21:37, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the nominator and others. The subject is a WP:GNG and WP:NORG fail. A. Randomdude0000 (talk) 14:28, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Yesugei#Life. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:15, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bartan Bagatur[edit]

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

The entire article consists of genealogical entries (failing WP:NOTGENEALOGY), with no independent claim of notability and even a suggestion of the contrary (historians and accountants mentioned him little in the sources of his bio-datas). Similarly, the article's sources only refer to the subject in the context of lineage (grandfather of Genghis Khan, or relation to another ancestor), and I found no additional sources that would suggest independent notability as required by guidelines. ^Complex/_Rational 01:48, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and Mongolia. ^Complex/_Rational 01:48, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Royalty and nobility-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:12, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect somewhere rather than delete. I suspect the truth is that we know little of him, other than that he was a progenitor of Genghis Khan. I have not investigated whether he should be the redirect target or whether there is a better one. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:39, 4 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!} 04:27, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Yesugei#Life (and also maybe retarget Bartan Baghatur to the same), a search of both Google Scholar and JSTOR brought up no coverage more extensive than a passing mention. Searching Google Books led me to this book, which briefly conjectures that Yesugei inherited the title of Baghatur from Bartan, but again this is nothing more than a passing mention, and all other sources literally consist of just mentioning the man's name. Even if sources are uncovered and the article is kept, it should be renamed to Bartan Baghatur, since that is by far the more common spelling based on my search efforts. Devonian Wombat (talk) 11:43, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support that redirect. This is a good solution. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:49, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:50, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dynata[edit]

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

Sources rely on press releases masquerading as legitimate sources. The CNN article is more about Meyerson, a non notable figure. Appears to be primarily written by someone close to the subject with little more expansion from third parties to meet notability guidelines realistically possible. Outdatedpizza (talk) 01:54, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Internet, Connecticut, and Texas. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:10, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete zero hits on the company, hits on the name for anything and everything else though. Oaktree b (talk) 14:40, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Why would this article be a candidate for deletion? Dynata is a real company that does real business that annoys real people. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:6C42:657F:972A:5545:693F:5816:F534 (talk) 00:49, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia has specific objective criteria at WP:N and the claim is that this article fails those criteria. Bluerasberry (talk) 21:15, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unsure The sources are poor as claimed. I want to share something - this is not a rationale for keeping, but this is weird -

https://pageviews.wmcloud.org/?project=en.wikipedia.org&platform=all-access&agent=user&redirects=0&range=all-time&pages=Dynata

According to Wikipedia Pageviews, this has been a very popular (top 1%?) Wikipedia article by traffic for some months, and rather popular before that. It is very uncommon for an organization to have such popularity without there existing good media coverage. I presume we are missing sources, or otherwise, there is something weird happening here. Bluerasberry (talk) 21:15, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Phones on the T-Mobile network are now saying the company's name. People want to know what scam or whatever is calling them and Google it, and Wikipedia is one of the top hits. It is just another nonnotable company per the sources.Outdatedpizza (talk) 03:59, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Could be someone messing with their Google rankings to try and get page views to support whatever funding project the company might have going on. "Look we're in the top 1% on wikipedia, give us a loan" as proof of a viable business. Who knows. Oaktree b (talk) 04:06, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's a market research company, so a PR company. That's what they do, is drum up business by getting more page views. Oaktree b (talk) 04:07, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You guys are the experts (I can tell by the special language you use) whereas I am just a common reader who mostly contributes money. But it seems that if this article (Dynata) receives a lot of hits it probably shows that people have a lot of interest in this real company.

On the other hand, the experts say it (the Dynata article) is poorly written so the rules say it should be deleted.

Isn't there room for a more moderate position? — Preceding unsigned comment added by HefnerHarperHall (talk • contribs) 18:06, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@HefnerHarperHall: I know you are just talking things through, but in practice what you are requesting is the elimination of third-party fact checking. Wikipedia already has the lowest possible standards anyone in the world can imagine, short of eliminating quality control. There is a 20-year near unanimous agreement that we should keep fact checking and not accept material which cannot be fact checked. What we really need are published reliable sources - find those and bring them here, if they exist. They seem to not exist. Bluerasberry (talk) 20:53, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:41, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, came here after I googled the spam calls I keep getting from a number that's clearly not local, despite having the same area code. The large spike in page views is likely related. 68.36.170.135 (talk) 00:13, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 23:43, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sri Sangamitta Balika National School, Matale[edit]

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

When this article was previously nominated for deletion, it was kept on the basis that all verified secondary schools were considered notable. This is no longer the case whereby WP:NSCHOOL now requires that all universities, colleges and schools must satisfy WP:NORG or WP:GNG. In this case there are no reliable independent secondary sources that I can find that support the school's notability. Dan arndt (talk) 01:26, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools and Sri Lanka. Dan arndt (talk) 01:26, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:07, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 02:35, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:40, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, a search brought up no references that would contribute to a GNG pass. Devonian Wombat (talk) 11:32, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:SCHOOLRFC - Secondary schools are no longer considered inherently notable, Fails NSCHOOL & GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 18:30, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 per WP:SK#1. The nomination is only proposing a merge. I suggest adding merge templates to the articles denoted and starting a discussion on a talk page. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:56, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sač[edit]

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

As far as I can tell, same thing as Tava. Should probably merge them. Mebigrouxboy (talk) 02:50, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Mebigrouxboy (talk) 02:50, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Snow Star Mississippi 01:37, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kim Klassen[edit]

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

This stub was PROD'd and I de-PROD'd it after seeing in the page history that this article had been subject to a previous VFD (the predecessor to AFD). But, apparently, it was an incomplete VFD proposal and no discussion occurred. So, I'm following through on my mistaken de-PRODding and nominating this stub article for a full deletion discussion.

The deletion rationale for the PROD was "non-notable, could find no news articles on this artist". Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:57, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists and Canada. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:57, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This article was created as an unreferenced biography of a living person by an IP editor back in 2005, in the early days of the encyclopedia when IPs could write articles and unreferenced BLPs were permitted. This encyclopedia has come a long way since then and we have much higher standards now. The article asserts that she is "well known" and that she "has exploded onto the scene with her unique style". Setting aside the non neutral aspects of this wording, if any of this was remotely true, it should be easy in the 21st century to find evidence of that. So, I searched online for significant coverage of her in reliable, independent sources and found nothing. Yes, there are commercial sites that sell her kitchy signs, but I can find no evidence that she is notable. Cullen328 (talk) 01:25, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable, no sources found. I doubt it ever was eligible, but here we are. Oaktree b (talk) 01:57, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This folk artist does not meet our criteria for notability per WP:GNG nor WP:NARTIST. There is no record of distinguished exhibitions, museum collections, reviews of shows that one would normally find for an artist. Netherzone (talk) 02:26, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Netherzone (talk) 02:27, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete for all the reasons above. Quick search of Wikipedia Library and Newspapers.com yielded nothing of interest. (There was this photo of someone with the same name in the Calgary Herald but it really is just a photo at a folk music festival.) Safe to delete and embarrassing that it has stayed in its current state for so long. Cielquiparle (talk) 07:23, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Seventeen years without in-depth coverage in a reliable source is enough. BD2412 T 17:40, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:04, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I could not find any RS to improve this article. WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 21:32, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No effective references. scope_creep^Talk 09:59, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not even 1 reliable source. And I couldn't find any that would deem the subject eligible for Wikipedia.

Spiggotr6 (talk) 11:52, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:58, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Andrea Prodan[edit]

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

Has not had sources since the article was created in 2009. The guy certainly exists, but there's no sources fit for a Wikipedia article. Fails WP:BIO. Asparagusus (interaction) 00:47, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Bands and musicians, Italy, and Argentina. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:14, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:NEXIST. I've already added a number of inline citations to the article.--Darius (talk) 12:28, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:48, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Darius adding multiple citations. Liliana ^(UwU) 02:13, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

[:3-1] Woods, John E. (April 1987). "The Rise of Tīmūrid Historiography". Journal of Near Eastern Studies. 46 (2): 86, 99–101. JSTOR 545014.

[2] Burney, Linda (December 2009). "An Australian Sense of Xenophobia". Development. 52 (4): 479–482. doi:10.1057/dev.2009.61.

[3] Maddox, Graham (2000). "The Split Republic". AQ: Australian Quarterly. 72 (1): 2–51. doi:10.2307/20637873. ISSN 1443-3605.

[4] Kowalik, Michal (2000). "Directly electing the Australian President: A proposal". Australian Rationalist (55): 19–24.

[5] Winterton, George (1995). "Choosing a Republican Head of State". Agenda: A Journal of Policy Analysis and Reform. 2 (2): 135–147. ISSN 1322-1833.

[6] "THE FUTURE "PRESIDENT OF AUSTRALIA."". The Telegraph. No. 14, 378. Queensland, Australia. 24 December 1918. p. 2. Retrieved 7 September 2022 – via National Library of Australia.

[1]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]