Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 June 26

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< June 25 June 27 >

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 keep‎. If editors are interested in a possible Merge or Redirect, please start a discussion on the article talk page. Liz Read! Talk! 22:28, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ratonhnhaké:ton[edit]

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

Article's reception is mostly pulled out from game reviews and only a passing mentions about the character (also contains listicles that does not directly talk about the character). I also disagree with the character's native American name being the title anyway as its not his common name at all. Trying to do research with WP:BEFORE shows nothing (at first glance). GreenishPickle! (🔔) 23:55, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge into/redirect to List of Assassin's Creed characters. --Slgrandson (How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 00:02, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep Per WP:NEXIST - as expected there is significant commentary about his indigenous background in books, such as Manifest Destiny 2.0 pp. 67-68, and Virtual History: How Videogames Portray the Past. That combined with the TIME article about him and this (which is not 100% interview) makes me think that he just barely scooches past notability and it is a WP:SURMOUNTABLE issue. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 07:22, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I should also note that the books, at least, use Ratonhnhaké:ton as his primary name, the devs went through pains to pick a unique Native American name for the character, and since he is also mainly notable due to his heritage, I'm not sure Connor is fitting. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 07:29, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Still ruminating about this, so no position yet. List of Assassin's characters is already a severely bloated article and a coatrack for cruft so I am not sure if it is an appropriate merge.
    Part of the reason why the nominator may have had issues finding sources as part of WP:BEFORE is that the character's likely common name would be Connor, and from my experience that's how the majority of reliable sources have mainly referred to him in their discussions. So we shouldn't keep the current title while the majority of sourcing insist on discussing him as "Connor" most of the time, hence Connor (Assassin's Creed). Haleth (talk) 22:20, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Video games. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 17:23, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: One could theoretically throw the entire reception section in the trash, and this character still meets GNG based on coverage of character creation alone. An entire piece in Time covering creation is half way to GNG already, plus the already used Billings Gazette piece gives enough coverage to character creation beyond just the portraying actor. That's already multiple sources, and the additional material uncovered by Zxcvbnm could only improve the article further if utilized.
    No stake in the article title, but resolving that can be handled outside of AfD via the WP:RM process. -2pou (talk) 21:23, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I say keep Ratonhnhaké:ton's wiki article due to other main Assassin's Creed characters having their own article pages like Altair, Ezio, Haytham, Edward and ect. So it wouldn't be fair to Connor if he wasn't given his own wikipedia article since both his father and grandfather both have one. So I say keep the article page up and leave it alone. 108.14.232.17 (talk) 16:38, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

*Withdraw With Zx findings, the article seems to be barely notable now. GreenishPickle! (🔔) 11:01, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • As someone already !voted to merge the article, and Haleth has indicated they're not sure about their stance on it, withdrawal would be a type of WP:SUPERVOTE. See the "withdrawal supervote" section. I would not suggest withdrawing unless ALL editors are in favor of keeping the article. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 09:32, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep. I previously bold merged the article when it was Connor (Assassin's Creed), not because I felt that there's no reliable sourcing providing significant coverage, but because the article at that point (and as is now) was more or less a regurgitation of plot info and I didn't feel particularly inclined to improve the article myself at the time. That said, the other editors seem to agree that whatever coverage exists justifies the existence of a standalone article. I do believe however, that a name change discussion would be in order to change it back to Connor (Assassin's Creed) so that might cause less confusion with whether the character does in fact have WP:SIGCOV, but that is outside of the scope of this AfD. Haleth (talk) 01:47, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Wasn't aware there was a previous page that got redirected. It seems to have been rewritten under the current title, but it should be checked for any evidence of copy and paste moving due to attribution issues. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 06:16, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 22:29, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

YouTube Spammer Purge[edit]

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

Article was declined for CSD A7 by Whpq (I thought it qualified under web content but I appear to be mistaken) but I still think it is not notable. Of the existing references, one only briefly mentions the subject, two are user-generated content, and one is a walkthrough of using the software. Plus I can't seem to find any reliable in-depth coverage about the topic. Giraffer (talk·contribs) 23:33, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What about https://lifehacker.com/how-to-stop-annoying-youtube-bots-from-spamming-everyon-1848924366? ChippyTechGH (talk) 15:02, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The coverage is not significant. The article is about youtube spam, and just mentions this program. -- Whpq (talk) 15:54, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nonnotable software Karnataka (talk) 20:53, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. Liz Read! Talk! 22:31, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Manly pride jersey player boycott[edit]

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

As per WP:NOTNEWS. 12 of the 13 sources are from when the event happened in July 2022. Already mentioned in 2022 Manly Warringah Sea Eagles season. LibStar (talk) 23:22, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 22:33, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher Stoll[edit]

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

This biographical article seems to be purely for promotional or advertising purposes. Except for a couple promotional articles, it largely is supported by primary sources from sites like Kickstarter, Etsy, and DeviantArt. Additionally, the article was originally created by a user who appears to be the subject. I do not believe the article meets notability requirements for encyclopedic inclusion and does not meet quality standards. Indefensible (talk) 23:19, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment on the borderline WP:GNG. Note that I found an additional source as part of my own WP:BEFORE included at bottom of table below. Does not meet WP:NARTIST. Article would certainly require some cleanup. I don't see confirmation that there is COI, and there's some "negative" information about kickstarter campaigns in the article as well. In fact, the negative info itself is an issue given the lack of verifiability. It's just not a great article as it stands.

Leaving out the clearly non-independent sources, we have:

Source assessment table: prepared by User:siroxo
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
"Buzzfeed Princess Avengers". BuzzFeed. Yes presents artist work as if in an independent gallery ~ Buzzfeed (not news) ~ Several pieces of art present as primary focus ~ Partial
"Huffington Post Princess Avengers". HuffPost. (two versions cited separately) Yes hat-tip to buzzfeed and no author attributed, but seems independent Yes HuffPo non-politics ~ presents similar art as buzzfeed, with some words about it ~ Partial
"Babble Butt Kicking Superheroes". No large part interview in captions Yes By Denver Post columnist moonlighting on babble Yes ✘ No
"Comedy Central Article on Stoll's Pokénatomy work". Yes ~ Comedy Central contract writer ~ Gallery of different work ~ Partial
book not yet sourced in article Yes Yes university press ~ again covers only the art, but discussion is much more in-depth ~ Partial
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.
  • Look at the profile history of the article creator, I am pretty sure that is COI. - Indefensible (talk) 02:24, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I would believe it, but it could be a mistake so I just don't know for sure. Would not really affect my !vote either way. —siroχo 03:20, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. All that I can find on Google are the Pokemon works, and the articles aren't focused on him. I don't see WP:SIGCOV. SWinxy (talk) 15:04, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. In the light of the core policy WP:IINFO, the "delete" arguments are stronger. They make the point that since anything can be a heraldic charge, the list has a limitless scope. JPxG is the only "keep" advocate who addresses this problem by proposing inclusion criteria, but there is no indication in this discussion that these proposed criteria have a prospect of obtaining consensus. The other "keep" opinions vaguely express a preference for retaining content they find useful, which is a weak argument (WP:ITSUSEFUL). Sandstein 07:56, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of heraldic charges[edit]

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

This list fails WP:LISTN as there is no single source that discusses every heraldic charge. However, the main issue with this article is that it has a literally limitless scope. In heraldry, any noun can be a charge. "List of heraldic charges" is as vague and limitless as "List of subjects that have been drawn". There are thousands of objects that have been used as charges, and it is impossible to have a good list of them. If we were to have an article it would need to be much more specific, like "List of charges used by the Canadian Heraldic Authority", but that would also fail LISTN. Di (they-them) (talk) 19:08, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Visual arts and History. Di (they-them) (talk) 19:08, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:09, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I'm utterly baffled what the point of this is. I don't need a Wikipedia article to tell me you can put a rhinoceros, a salmon, a palm tree, a volcano, and a rake on a coat of arms. It'd be a cool design, but this isn't necessary. The original version of this was even worse! Reywas92Talk 00:36, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – This has been on my watchlist for years, and every time I have spelunked through it looking for a kernel worth building around I have come up empty. —jameslucas ▄▄▄ ▄ ▄▄▄ ▄▄▄ ▄ 13:46, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete charges that have unusual terminology or meaningful established symbolism can be covered at Charge (heraldry). It’s utterly ridiculous to “list” every charge because literally anything can be a change. For example, a snake vert, gorged by tire sable, holding a knife au natural is a perfectly legitimate charge, but we don’t need to list it. Dronebogus (talk) 21:53, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Charge (heraldry). That said. I think it should not be deleted. --evrik (talk) 18:57, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Charge (heraldry) is already a massive article, to the point of becoming unreasonable. I cannot think of any way to add more stuff there that wouldn't be a mess. However, it does not seem reasonable to me that we could include every charge ever used in an article and have it clock in under a gigabyte. I believe the crest of Strong Badia would be "Fess gules and tenne, a fess argent, a serpent vert glissant nowed gored of a tire natural bearing a knife natural" (although Strong Badia is a made-up nation even in the canon of its originating media)... see also Wangen-Brüttisellen, whose coat of arms is weed lmao. That said, it seems incredibly easy to come up with inclusion criteria that bring it down to something manageable. For example, Coat of arms of Finland has its own article, whereas Coat of arms of Wangen-Brüttisellen or Coat of arms of Strong Badia do not. Maybe there are issues here, but they do not seem insurmountable. jp×g 17:31, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for correcting me Dronebogus (talk) 01:08, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per JPxG, caring for a garden is better than digging it up. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:22, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Are you guys confusing this with “list of coats of arms” or do you really think it’s plausible to have a list of things you can put on a heraldic shield that isn’t wildly indiscriminate? I’m a little lost by these keep votes. Dronebogus (talk) 11:39, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per JPxG. I understand the charge (pun intended) that this could be seen as indiscriminate, but there is enough useful information in this list to make it viable (it's more than just a "List of anything that could be an heraldic charge"), and it is clearly too large to be merged into Charge (heraldry). -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:18, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I don't see a consensus yet.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:27, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - While yes, there are a lot of different examples, that shouldn't really be a knock against the article. I would like to see some of the examples listed that are not referenced have references added, but that shouldn't be much of an issue. KatoKungLee (talk) 17:33, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. I'd like to see some policy-based arguments on either side as there is no consensus and a lot of "I like it"/"I don't like it" opinions offered.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:08, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep WP:NLIST says "One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources...; notable list topics are appropriate for a stand-alone list. The entirety of the list does not need to be documented in sources for notability, only that the grouping or set in general has been. Because the group or set is notable, the individual items in the list do not need to be independently notable, although editors may, at their discretion, choose to limit large lists by only including entries for independently notable items or those with Wikipedia articles.". Bolded sections seem to refute the existing arguments for deletion, and the quote as a whole suggests this is an acceptable stand-alone list. —siroχo 00:10, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete per, uh, I'm gonna say WP:TNT and WP:IAR. Unusual case of an article that seems fine as a matter of policy but unsalvageable as a matter of practice. That is, I believe Siroxo's analysis of NLIST is entirely correct, and IMO the nom's insistence that there be a single source that covers all heraldic charges is not a correct statement of the rule. The subject matter of this list seems to be NLIST-compliant, and I don't think it's truly indiscriminate. But even so, looking over the actual list I just don't see anything to work with. The list provides no information for the vast majority of its entries beyond "this is a heraldic charge that may occur somewhere". A list that did provide such information (such as e.g. cross-references to notable coats of arms that include each charge) would be an entirely new list, with new inclusion criteria. To the extent having such a list would be desirable, this list is probably doing more harm than good by being in the way. -- Visviva (talk) 00:10, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Very roughly it seems like half of the items are sourced externally or explained in the list via an image or use, so WP:TNT might lose some value. I think it might be reasonable to remove everything that has no source or explanation. I'd be willing to do that pruning if there's support for it. —siroχo 02:04, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well, here is a proposal: we knock it down from its current state to two entries, the lion and the eagle, and then see what it expands into from there. jp×g 18:05, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as @Reywas92 stated, a list isn't needed for this topic since it can be anything. Important information regarding charges are already in Charge (heraldry) and doesn't necessarily require expansion, but a few bits can be added if needed. Karnataka (talk) 21:07, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Draftify‎. Liz Read! Talk! 22:34, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lalita Devi Temple,Naimisharanya[edit]

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

Lalita Devi Temple,Naimisharanya

This article is incomprehensible. It was moved to draft space once by User:Eejit43 who stated that it both needed better sources and had too many problems of language or grammar. Sources were then added, and the article was moved back to article space without addressing the grammatical issues, which render the article of very little encyclopedic value. The article has already been draftified once, and the originator has contested the draftification, so a second unilateral draftification would be move warring. The article should be either stubbed, or sent back to draft space for rework with instructions to use AFC for review so that it will be reviewed by an English-proficient editor prior to being returned to article space. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:56, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please send back it to draft space,until the grammatical errors are not resolved, I will not resubmit it as an article. Opliappan (talk) 04:30, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify per nom. The topic may be notable (or not) but at the moment the main issue is that this is incomprehensible and effectively uneditable by the community. More work is needed to make the article readable by non specialists before a judgement can be made about it. Mccapra (talk) 05:00, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify at the title Draft:Lalita Devi Temple, Naimisharanya: the article is clearly not ready for mainspace due to the poor prose quality but can be incubated in draftspace and then reviewed through AfC. InterstellarGamer12321 (talk | contribs) 06:49, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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! 07:42, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Takanobu Takahashi[edit]

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

The whole article describes his trivial academic merit (studies, academic positions, even travelling), but there is nothing for WP:BIO, WP:PROF. His most well-know publication is "Tamil love poetry and poetics" which received good reviews according to my research, but still there is nothing to prove significant academic notability. Chiserc (talk) 08:43, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:45, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:44, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Likely language barrier in the listing here. I do think this subject meets WP:NACADEMIC even when viewing easy-to-find English sources alone. Google Scholar puts this subject's most famous work Tamil Love Poetry and Poetics at 50 citations, and Google Scholar tends to under-count citations for such disciplines. I wonder if someone with access to a citation index can help. It's cited by other academic books to be sure searcheg1eg2. We don't have a callout policy on notability of translators, but certainly translating the Kural boosts the academic notability. But still, keep in mind, this person is translating from Tamil to Japanese, there aren't going to be a lot of easy to find English language sources, but they've clearly published even more in Japanese language: [1][2][3][4]. —siroχo 00:44, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, seems very likely to meet point 1 of WP:NACADEMIC. Even his English-language scholarship has attracted no small amount of critical attention. -- Visviva (talk) 01:10, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. – Joe (talk) 10:56, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Anbe Vaa (TV series)[edit]

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

Insufficient references, fails WP:GNG and WP:RPRGM, and WP:SIGCOV Tirishan (talk) 19:53, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Soft Delete or Keep The show is still airing. There may be important updates in the future.--P.Karthik.95 (talk) 10:02, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Source 1 is routine coverage that talks about an actress' participation in the serial
    • Source 2 is routine coverage that talks about an actress' participation in the serial
    • Source 3 is routine coverage on the serial starting
    • Source 4 is tabloid coverage spammed with actor pictures and is about the serial starting
    • Source 5 is routine updates on actor joining
    • Source 6 is routine updates on actress leaving
    This is all mainly starting fluff/hype, and coverage does not extend to this point in time. Please elaborate on these 'important updates' too. None of this shows how the serial is notable for Wikipedia Karnataka (talk) 15:55, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 09:16, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:42, 19 June 2023 (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! 22:42, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep We don't seem to have a straightforward guide on soaps. All I can find is Wikipedia:WikiProject Soap Operas#Notability standards. That makes some reference to coverage of soaps. Ultimately, we need to understand that the way media covers soaps is different than the way media covers other TV shows or film, it's all character and cast updates and so on. There seems to be what amounts to SIGCOV for a soap in Tamil language in The Indian Express, which is reliable per WP:ICTFSOURCES —siroχo 00:55, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, I think some participants above may be overinterpreting WP:SIGCOV, which states "Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. In other words, significant coverage does not mean extraordinary or remarkable coverage, it just means coverage that has enough depth that it can be used as source material without violating WP:NOR. I am a bit confused by the above discussion of sources, as there are currently only three cited in the article and on review of the history it doesn't seem that any have been removed. But taking it as given that at least six such sources exist, it seems like this would comfortably meet the GNG. Moreover, I think it meets the GNG even if relying only on the sources adduced above and in the article. -- Visviva (talk) 01:21, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Restoration and/or a move can be handled editorially. If the move needs a redirect deleted, just ping me. Star Mississippi 02:01, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Schools in PRC[edit]

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

Redundant article. Information is/could be covered in Education in China. 33ABGirl (talk) 14:57, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and China. 33ABGirl (talk) 14:57, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It looks like the article used to be called Private and public schools in China and was much more detailed, but Rastinition (talk · contribs) not only strip-mined the article of content under the rationale that we dont use the APA citation style (easily repairable, but instead, they just ripped out sources wholesale), said the article was from "a PRC citizen" (so?!) and then moved it to "Schools in PRC" purposefully so nobody could find this article and it would be easily deleted; there's also not a byte of discussion on the talk page before they went forward. I'd love to hear from @Rastinition: as to why they did this, and instead of the current dicdef version, we decide based on the merits of this edit before they came in and tore up the article, along with scaring off a new student editor in HaoweiDaBeast (talk · contribs) from ever editing here again with vicious edit summaries as they tried to address concerns. Because of this, I have no vote! at this time; I do think a merge should happen, but not with this neutered version hammered in by one user with PAs. Nate • (chatter) 01:02, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I only respond to the part where the name is changed.
    1. In my understanding, schools include public schools and private schools
    2. If the theme of the narrative includes both public schools and private schools, then its theme should already include all schools.
    Other parts I need time to check past edits.Since this was an event that happened 2 years ago, I'm unlikely to remember the details. Rastinition (talk) 03:46, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I probably glanced at the version I didn't edit.That version has very large sections without source.
    I know that he uses APA for some unsourced sections, but like (Lin, 1999) does not provide which paper or which author. Because there is insufficient information, it is impossible for others to help him make up the correct citation. Rastinition (talk) 08:56, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The best way to handle such a thing is to show the editor the proper Wikipedia citation template and ask them to convert APA to the Wikipedia citation template. The next step is that there is a specific template for sections which do not yet have inline citations: {{inline}}, which tells the readers that there are sources but they aren't matched to inline citations. WhisperToMe (talk) 00:04, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:29, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:41, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • I recommend a procedural keep given issues brought up in comments above, an appropriate rollback to older version, with a possible following merge into Education in China if it's determined appropriate. I've skimmed both articles and information differs enough that we'd lose something with a straight deletion. I appreciate Rastinition's attempt to improve the state of the encyclopedia, but removing citations, converting to a stub, leaving the article as such, later leading to an AfD feels like an accidental misuse of tools and processes. As a note, to respond to a comment by that editor above, I am able to find the papers that were referenced using alternate citation formats, so it would not be impossible for others to convert the citation. —siroχo 01:09, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, move back to the previous title, and revert the uncalled-for removals. A merge may make sense eventually, but let's not lose the information that was in the article before it was gutted. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 03:09, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and restore to previous title and content. Not sure what happened here but it definitely wasn't an improvement. Reviewing the above-linked version, a reference such as "(Lin, 1999)" is not actually ambiguous (or even IMO at all problematic) because the article's references contain exactly one source with that author and year. -- Visviva (talk) 00:28, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. When Nate first commented, I started a draft in my sandbox to restore the content, but I haven't had a chance to finish it yet. 33ABGirl (talk) 16:26, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Tea bag#Production. Liz Read! Talk! 07:47, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Soilon[edit]

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

NN product - fails WP:GNG UtherSRG (talk) 19:23, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:24, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect to Tea bags#Production where Soilon is mentioned and there is content on the various materials used in teabag manufacture. Rupples (talk) 23:52, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to see whether editors would argue for an article deletion, rewrite or redirect to Tea bag#Production.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:38, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect at least, and perhaps merge the two cited paragraphs there as a single paragraph. Seems to have some encyclopedic significance even if lacking quite enough material to build an article out of. (Notwithstanding the current opening sentence, "soilon" seems to be largely genericized in English, which also suggests a certain level of encyclopedicity.) -- Visviva (talk) 01:38, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect Its an ideal redirect target as its already mentioned in the destination with an almost identical description. scope_creepTalk 06:47, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 00:30, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Shirzad Peik Herfeh[edit]

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

Can't find any evidence he meets WP:PROF or WP:NAUTHOR, his books are not cited in scholar as I would expect for a notable moral or political philosopher. - car chasm (talk) 15:21, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Not eligible for Soft Deletion. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 20:16, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A few hits in Gscholar [6], all in Iran. Seems to only have been cited by 2 papers. Not seeing notability for PROF. Oaktree b (talk) 00:12, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: As stated, not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:21, 19 June 2023 (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! 22:37, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 00:31, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

After Dark (Dick Morrissey album)[edit]

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

Fails WP:NALBUMS and WP:GNG. I was able to locate two (period) sources that mentioned this album, which I have added to the article, but they are passing mentions at best and the only results in Newspapers.com or (reliable results in) Google. This does not appear to satisfy any of the criteria for NALBUMS or GNG. TheSandDoctor Talk 23:10, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:34, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 00:32, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Rykard Jenkins[edit]

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

Does this meet notability requirements? Anonposeidon (talk) 23:24, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:15, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete A couple of weeks on two reality shows (with no content or references mentioning film, TV, state or other productions) does not make a person notable. David notMD (talk) 21:14, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:34, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete probably not enough here to justify a standalone article IMO. For reality TV shows/competitions, we generally look for those who are finalists - and Rykard doesn't meet that threshold. Also, the media coverage is mostly tabloid fodder.-KH-1 (talk) 05:51, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. Liz Read! Talk! 22:37, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Heather Kuzmich[edit]

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

Fails WP:NSUSTAINED which states "If reliable sources cover a person only in the context of a single event, and if that person otherwise remains, and is likely to remain, a low-profile individual, we should generally avoid having a biographical article on that individual." All significant coverage in secondary sources dates from October to December of 2007, coinciding with her appearance on America's Next Top Model. Since she has had no significant coverage before or since, and all coverage is directly related to her appearance on the show, it is clear she is only notable for being on ANTM. Wikipedia doesn't have specific notability guidelines for reality show contestants, but people who are not notable outside of appearing on a single season of a reality show usually don't have their own Wikipedia article. Baronet13 (talk) 22:31, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • In 2008, she received local news from the Post-Tribune for "MTV wrapped up shooting video of her [...] back in town to do a photo shoot for Wedding Essentials, a local quarterly bridal magazine." ProQuest 344156560.
  • In a 2008 Visalia Times - Delta article titled "Autism keeps parents, schools busy," she is also listed with a few other people as examples for "Autism symptoms vary widely, from debilitating to these high-functioning cases:" ProQuest 416349134
  • In 2009, Glamour writes, "The attention, good and bad, has made it somewhat easier for adult autistics to find acceptance in the world. Former America's Next Top Model contestant Heather Kuzmich—who has Asperger's syndrome (considered an autism spectrum disorder) and who had trouble making eye contact in TV interviews—has become a role model."
  • A 2009 Edmunton Journal article "Asperger's: A powerful identity, a vanishing diagnosis," she is mentioned: "Heather Kuzmich brought national attention to Asperger's syndrome after appearing in America's Next Top Model in 2007." ProQuest 250606052.
  • She is also mentioned in Grinker, Roy Richard. “Commentary: On Being Autistic, and Social.” Ethos, vol. 38, no. 1, 2010, pp. 172–78. JSTOR: ("Despite the persistence of stereotypes of the autistic person locked inside his or her own world, the image of the person with autism today is as likely to be Heather Kuzmich, the model who competed on a popular American television show, "America's Next Top Model," or ...").
  • via the Wikipedia Library, in April 2010, she was mentioned by North & South: "Since reality TV outed 21-year-old Heather Kuzmich on America's Next Top Model, Asperger's has become an international pop-culture epidemic." And she was included in a list of "popular media" representations in "Autism, Rhetoric, and Whiteness" By: Heilker, Paul, Disability Studies Quarterly, 10415718, Fall2012, Vol. 32, Issue 4.
  • In a 2012 New York piece, she is referred to as an example of a "self-outer."
  • A 2012 Press-Telegram article titled "Learning how to fit in" states: "Those diagnosed range from model Heather Kuzmich, who was featured on "America's Next Top Model," to Pokemon creator Satoshi Tajiri, to McManmon." ProQuest 923421005
  • The 2007 New York Times coverage is quoted in Parmentier, Marie-Agnès; Fischer, Eileen (1 February 2015). "Things Fall Apart: The Dynamics of Brand Audience Dissipation". Journal of Consumer Research. 41 (5): 1228–1251. doi:10.1086/678907. after "On ANTM, contestants like Heather Kuzmich (Cycle 9) embody the underdog type."
I think according to these sources, there is support for notability that transcends ANTM and supports keep - the coverage mostly does not appear focused on ANTM, but instead on Kuzmich and a larger cultural impact of her participation on the show. So according to WP:BLP1E, all three conditions do not appear to be met, because this event appears to be considered significant, and her role appears substantial and well documented, based on secondary sources, and the persistent coverage. Similarly, WP:GNG/WP:BASIC notability seems supported. Beccaynr (talk) 00:51, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The NYT, People and ABC articles are from the October-December 2007 time span when her season was airing and are not proof of sustained coverage. As for the others, every single one of these mention her in the context of having been an ANTM contestant and are not significant, mentioning her in only a single sentence. The relevant question is not whether or not she has been completely forgotten after her season ended, but if there any examples of coverage after 2007 that are both significant and covering her for something other than having been on the show. Baronet13 (talk) 06:35, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The nomination statement links to WP:SUSTAINED which states, "If reliable sources cover a person only in the context of a single event, and if that person otherwise remains, and is likely to remain, a low-profile individual, we should generally avoid having a biographical article on that individual." That is a link to WP:BLP1E, which does not require further significant coverage; and the persistent secondary coverage is about something other than the show, so she appears to be independently notable for her impact as a person. Beccaynr (talk) 07:04, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
WP:BLP1E criteria:
1. If reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event.
Yes, she is only covered in the context of having been an ANTM contestant.
2. If that person otherwise remains, and is likely to remain, a low-profile individual. Biographies in these cases can give undue weight to the event and conflict with neutral point of view. In such cases, it is usually better to merge the information and redirect the person's name to the event article.
Yes, she has had no significant coverage since December 2007, so she is likely to remain a low-profile individual.
3. If the event is not significant or the individual's role was either not substantial or not well documented. John Hinckley Jr., for example, has a separate article because the single event he was associated with, the Reagan assassination attempt, was significant, and his role was both substantial and well documented.
It goes on to clarify "The significance of an event or the individual's role is indicated by how persistent the coverage is in reliable sources." Since the coverage of her was only as persistent as her appearance on the show, she also meets this criteria.
She meets all three criteria for WP:BLP1E and, therefore, should not have her own Wikipedia article. Baronet13 (talk) 17:37, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
From my view, according to WP:BASIC, her notability is supported by persistent nontrivial coverage she has received in secondary sources, and per WP:BLP1E by showing her substantial and/or well-documented role as well as the significance of the event. Years after her participation on ANTM, she is referred to e.g. as a role model, as having brought national attention to Asperger's/autism, and in scholarly works and popular media that examine or refer to well-known people with autism, etc. Her independent notability seems well-supported by this secondary coverage, which appears to have a persistent focus on her and the significance of her actions. Beccaynr (talk) 18:16, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What "persistent nontrivial coverage" has she received after her season of ANTM? If you're referring to the single sentences mentions of her in the sources you listed earlier, those are trivial. Can you provide one example of significant secondary source coverage of her after 2007? Baronet13 (talk) 20:01, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I cited secondary sources above that appear nontrivial due to the context and commentary. The excerpts I quote above are attempts to highlight how she is discussed. From my view, sources that have for years continued to discuss her, refer to her as a prominent example, and/or include her in scholarly analysis and commentary are not trivial. Beccaynr (talk) 17:07, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Disability, Television, Entertainment, and Fashion. Beccaynr (talk) 01:26, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Beccaynr's phenomenal WP:BEFORE sourcing, also noting that such as a non-low-profile individual WP:SUSTAINED doesn't apply (and neither does WP:BLP1E as Beccaynr mentioned). —siroχo 03:50, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    She does meet the criteria for WP:BLP1E, which I have outlined above. And if WP:NSUSTAINED does not apply, what is she known for other than being on ANTM? Baronet13 (talk) 17:41, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    BLP1E suggests "We generally should avoid having an article on a person when each of three conditions is met:...2. If that person otherwise remains, and is likely to remain, a low-profile individual. And as described in WP:LPI Persons who actively seek out media attention are not low-profile, regardless of whether or not they are notable.. —siroχo 21:00, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Siroxo and Beccanyr.--TempusTacet (talk) 17:53, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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! 07:55, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

An Ji-hyok[edit]

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

Article fails WP:GNG. Lack of WP:SIGCOV Simione001 (talk) 22:24, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already PROD'd so not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:32, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete A database entry, nothing to indicate notability. Avilich (talk) 18:27, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Im Ki-sun[edit]

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

Article fails WP:GNG. Lack of WP:SIGCOV Simione001 (talk) 22:22, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already PROD'd so not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:30, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete A database entry, nothing to indicate notability. Avilich (talk) 18:26, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete agree with the nom and previous comment. Pumpkinspyce (talk) 05:09, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bae Jong-min[edit]

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

Article fails WP:GNG. Lack of WP:SIGCOV Simione001 (talk) 22:20, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already PROD'd so not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:30, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete A database entry, nothing to indicate notability. Avilich (talk) 18:25, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 22:38, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Edlorn Williams[edit]

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

Four official international caps for the Antigua and Barbuda national football team. No indication of notability. Unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage on the subject from third-party sources, failing WP:GNG. JTtheOG (talk) 21:39, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 22:39, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak River (disambiguation)[edit]

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

Only a primary topic and one other item. Weak River has a hatnote directing to Ruo Shui. Leschnei (talk) 21:39, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 22:39, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ashton Cyrillien[edit]

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

Nine international caps for the Antigua and Barbuda national football team. No indication of notability. Unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage on the subject from third-party sources, failing WP:GNG. JTtheOG (talk) 21:36, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 22:40, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Joel Jacob[edit]

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

Five official international caps for the Antigua and Barbuda national football team. Unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage on the subject from third-party sources, failing WP:GNG. JTtheOG (talk) 21:33, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 22:40, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Chadwick Russell[edit]

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

One international cap for the Bahamas national football team. Unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage on the subject from third-party sources, failing WP:GNG. JTtheOG (talk) 21:29, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 22:41, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ethan Willie[edit]

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

Unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage on the subject from third-party sources, failing WP:GNG. JTtheOG (talk) 21:25, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 22:42, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Joshua Fernander[edit]

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

One international cap for the Bahamas national football team. Unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage on the subject from third-party sources, failing WP:GNG. JTtheOG (talk) 21:23, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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! 07:57, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

King of Cards (manga)[edit]

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

No RS, no SIGCOV. Two reviews are from a defunct blog of dubious reliability. Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 20:39, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as there is a disagreement over the reliabiity of the sources and reviews offered.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 21:12, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. I'm not a fan of this manga, but it does meet the WP:NBOOKS policy, since the source material is deemed appropriate by WP:ANIME/RS. In short, it should be kept, rather than deleted or merged. Pumpkinspyce (talk • contribs) 00:55, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment After further investigation, I accept these reviews as RS. However, is that enough to establish notability? What is the notability standard specifically for manga/anime/manhwa, etc.? Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 20:55, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • WP:NBOOK#Coverage notes states that Though the concept of a "book" is widely defined, this guideline does not provide specific notability criteria for the following types of publications: comic books; graphic novels (although it does apply to manga), so there is no question that NBOOKS applies here (as for whether it applies to manhwa, manhua, OEL manga, etc is not elaborated on, so I would assume it does not apply). WP:NBOOKS#Criteria states that The book has been the subject of two or more non-trivial published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself. This can include published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, other books, television documentaries, bestseller lists, and reviews. Manga Life is a review, and I assume Newtype USA is one as well, thus it is the subject of two or more non-trivial published works independent of the book itself, so it meets that criteria. Regarding the notability of anime, it depends; manga that are notable often contain information about their adaptations, as is common with other book articles. Anime may be eligible for WP:NTV, WP:NWEB, or WP:NFILM depending on its method of distribution. The general notability guideline also applies. Link20XX (talk) 23:31, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Yes, Newtype is a reputable publication well known to fans of Asian pop culture. So that means it meets WP:NBOOK. Does it also meet threshold standards? According to WP:BKTS, it needs an ISBN and it needs to be catalogued in Japan. Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 00:15, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Tom Green. Liz Read! Talk! 22:46, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Prankstar[edit]

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

Article about a film that was never completed or released, not properly referenced as passing WP:NFILM criteria. As always, films that have never been released are normally not notable enough for Wikipedia articles at all -- and while it's possible that there could be occasional exceptions for unreleased films that have generated an unusual volume and depth of reliable source coverage and analysis, that's not in evidence here at all: three of the four footnotes are primary sources (Tom Green's own self-published website and the self-published website of the studio that tried to make it) which aren't support for notability at all, and the only one that comes from a media outlet is a Q&A interview in which its existence gets briefly namechecked but which isn't about the film in any non-trivial sense, which isn't enough "coverage" to get the film over WP:GNG all by itself.
This just doesn't have enough notability-building coverage in proper reliable sources to earn an exemption from having to have been completed and released. Bearcat (talk) 18:23, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and United States of America. Bearcat (talk) 18:23, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Merge "Little is known about the film". It can be a one-liner in the main Tom Greene article then, using the AV Club source. I don't see anything about this unreleased film. Oaktree b (talk) 19:45, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. If you are proposing a Merge, please specify the target article. Thank you.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 20:04, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: Oaktree did specify a target article for a merge: Tom Green. I certainly have no objection to that. Bearcat (talk) 15:19, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Tom Green - The film is already briefly mentioned in the main Tom Green article, using the above mentioned AV Club source. All that really needs to be added there at this point is a sentence stating that it was never released, which would not really require a merge to do. Rorshacma (talk) 16:32, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Consensus is that there are not enough reliable sources to make the existence of the topic verifiable. Sandstein 08:02, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Autism spectrum in animals[edit]

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

As established at Talk:Autism_spectrum_in_animals#Misrepresentation_of_sources there is no reliable source for the existence of autism or autism spectrum conditions in animals – neither as an observation nor as an idea/concept/hypothesis. (Note that there are animal models of autism, which is not the same and already covered in a well-sourced standalone article.) TempusTacet (talk) 17:57, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Biology and Medicine. TempusTacet (talk) 17:57, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment: It is irrelevant whether there is any example or reliable evidence of autism spectrum in animals, merely that the topic of it has reliable sources. High quality refs commenting on junk science or lay-public misunderstandings are completely sufficient to make the topic notable. DMacks (talk) 18:02, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    So far, no such sources have been presented and I could not find any.--TempusTacet (talk) 18:09, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Finally found a ref:
    This topic isn't my field, so I don't know this ref's quality, but it looks secondary as WP:MEDRS, with an impressive list of notable authors from multiple research groups (and it's it's definitely not from Grandin). This article was widely highlighted and discussed in science-commentary websites and similar publications. DMacks (talk) 18:43, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for looking into this. However, this source is already used in the article as it is the topic of the podcast episode that has remained as the only somewhat credible source. This source is not concerned with "autism in animals" but investigates the question: "Do animals sometimes show forms of extreme (though, of course, different) cognitive skills confined to particular domains that resemble those shown by autistic savants?" which is apparently a claim made by Temple Grandin (who wrote a long and detailed commentary/response that is presented alongside the article in the link you shared). As far as I can see, neither Grandin nor the authors ever claim that animals "are autistic" or autism (as a condition) exists in animals. The claim is that (potentially) animals exhibit cognitive features similar to that of autistic savants, which certainly could be discussed in an article on animal cognition but is very different from ideas like "my dog has autism".--TempusTacet (talk) 19:30, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Further, the podcast episode's title is the only mention of the term "Animal Autism" in a reliable source and for all we know the Grandin book and the PLoS paper that was written in response (and is arguably not really about "animal autism") are the only time this idea seems to have been discussed
    Again, we only need sources that the topic is discussed, not that the topic has a basis in reality. The article titled "Are Animals Autistic Savants", with statements such as "Hence, we disagree with the claim that animals are similar to autistic savants" is obviously an article about the idea of animals actually having some sort of autistism, even if only to the extent to debunk it or distinguish between certain behaviors and an underlying cause. DMacks (talk) 19:40, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I fully agree that contested or debunked claims can be the topic of articles but autism is significantly more complex than exhibiting particular styles of thinking. (Exhibiting "autistic" traits and behaviors, as a large part of the general population does (see eg the concept of the broad autism phenotype), does not make one autistic.) The statement that "Whether autism exists in animals is a contested claim", as the article currently does, is just not true. No reliable source has claimed anything like that, except perhaps for the headline (but not the description) of the podcast episode. Autism is very much a human condition. The article could be moved to a title such as "similarities in cognitive processing between autistic savants and animals", which would then cover a scientific debate presumably sparked by Grandin's book, but I assume this discussion is not notable on its own and best covered in an article on animal cognition and/or cognition in autistic people.--TempusTacet (talk) 19:59, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's the only ref I could find. And [7] from five years later notes "I could only find one study that rigorously addressed the question, "Do Animals Think like Autistic Savants?"", and that study is this PLOS one. So I think that is a good example of that PLOS being a strong source but one that is substantially in response to Grandin. Unless there are others, either from some other group of authors (multiple sources and research groups==notable topic) or more recent (ongoing interest and work==notability not transient interest), I would lean merge. Choice of target is best left to others who know this field better than I do. DMacks (talk) 19:48, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to the relevant autism article (perhaps the main one itself). All this says is that it's hypothesized to exist in animals, and based one one paper and a podcast. I don't show notability for a stand-alone article. Oaktree b (talk) 19:35, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There aren't any RS in here, so I'm not sure what content from here is worth merging?
The PLoS article is not about whether specific animals have autism,. it's where animals in general think the same way that autistic savants do (and the article concludes no, but as @DMacks rightly points out, that doesn't necessarily matter here).
There are some unreliable sources that talk about animals being autistic, but there isn't the kind of RS debunking them that would be necessary for an article on the contested or debunked claim; to make an article about that, it seems like WP:OR would be required. (I did search for these RS and found nothing). SomeoneDreaming (talk) 20:17, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not enough MEDRS to make this a notable topic in its own right. AryKun (talk) 13:37, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Merge or strong keep: If you can’t find major ways of sources, especially the medical to cite on Wikipedia then please merge rather than delete: it’s better to merge this rather than erase! Angela Kate Maureen Pears 18:49, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    If there are no appropriate RS (and MEDRS has a significantly higher bar than regular RS), there is nothing to merge. Some random podcast is not good enough for notability. In the case of medical topics, it is definitely better to TNT something and recreate it later if sourcing is found than to keep inaccurate, potentially harmful material. AryKun (talk) 13:13, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks to @Chamaemelum there is now some coverage of research on autistic traits in animals (or claims thereof) that could potentially be sufficient for an article autistic traits in animals, see the discussion on Talk:Autism spectrum in animals. But as we've established in the discussions here and over there, that's a topic distinct from "autism in animals".--TempusTacet (talk) 13:37, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete scientists are supposed to think freely and generate new theories, but we need to base our articles on evidence. I wouldn't merge anything beyond the question being a topic of debate. Draken Bowser (talk) 19:53, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    To clarify: I'm not opposing the creation of autistic traits in animals using some of these sources, but I'm hesitant to suggest a merge to a non-existent article, using material written with a different scope in mind. Draken Bowser (talk) 20:09, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Draken Bowser: Just FYI the article has been entirely rewritten since it was created and one could say that the current article's content does not match its title. So while I would generally share your concern I don't believe it applies in this situation.--TempusTacet (talk) 07:37, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you, but I disagree. The current version is sorta' in between the old scope and the proposed one. To much space and weight is given to Grandin's theories. The lede suggests that the claim is "contested", yet by the end of the body we learn that there is no evidence that animals have autism. "Move" is as far as I can tell not a valid AfD-vote, and I hesitate to !vote "Keep and rename" given my concerns. Draken Bowser (talk) 11:46, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    To me that feels like arguing about a technicality but I'm also not sufficiently familiar with the deletion process and its consequences. It seems obvious to me that the content in the article will find a place in either an article or a section about "autistic traits in animals" independently of the decision regarding "autism spectrum in animals", which an overwhelming majority here agrees is not a suitable topic for a Wikipedia article. Of course, the lead sentence would need to be changed to reflect the new topic and content of the article. A couple of sentences regarding Grandin's work (who's a major figure & whose claims have sparked a scientific debate) doesn't seem too much weight to me but that could (and has to) be discussed & resolved independently of a merge or move or deletion decision.--TempusTacet (talk) 13:24, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename or merge I do not think that there should be an article which has a title implying autism definitely exists in animals. However, there is lots of research on autistic traits in animals so I think the page could be just be called "autistic traits in animals" instead. Alternatively, it could be merged into animal models for autism. Chamaemelum (talk) 16:34, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge or Keep/Rename - This article contains high level sourcing could be merged into Animal model of autism or a subsection of Autism spectrum. Justwatchmee (talk) 20:05, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge (to what autism article, I'm not sure). There are enough sources here to make a reasonably-referenced subsection in a large treatment, but blowing it up into a separate article seems somewhat strained. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 16:41, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Add: to suggest a specific merge target, I think the main article (Autism spectrum) would do. Animal model of autism has a different focus, and combination of these two may be misleading. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 06:14, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Between Delete, Keep, Merge and Rename, I don't see a consensus on how this discussion should be closed. If suggesting a Merge, please specify target article that you think would be most appropriate.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 20:02, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think the move to Autistic traits in animals is a good solution. It accurately reflects the sources, does not lead to further confusion between animal models of autism and the observation of "autistic traits" in animals, and does not imply that animals can "have autism". There are probably more studies/reports where animal behavior has been described as "autistic" or compared to autistic behaviors that can be added to the article over time.--TempusTacet (talk) 20:32, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please do not move an article being discussed at an AFD. It makes the discussion closure more complicated. If the article is Kept, then a discussion can occur on the article talk page and what its title should be. Thank you. Liz Read! Talk! 05:16, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Notifying @Chamaemelum who performed the move.--TempusTacet (talk) 07:33, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Autism is a profoundly human disorder and it is hard to see how it could even be diagnosed in animals. If there were sufficient high quality sources here I could see an article being warranted, but I don't think that's the case. I'm highly sceptical of the hypothetical target for the merger for similar reasons. At best, both articles seem to have a major WP:FRINGE issue. I'll also note the two votes at the merge discussion at Talk:Animal model of autism so far both point out that there's no real material to be merged. An assessment with which I am inclined to agree. --Licks-rocks (talk) 11:40, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree it's a human disorder and has never been diagnosed in animals. Since there are relevant studies and coverage on autistic traits in animals, but not autism itself, then what do you think about re-naming the article to "Autistic traits in animals", which doesn't imply animals have autism? Additionaly, I agreed with the comments on Animal Model of Autism at the time. Now, however, the page is much better and has sourced, reliable information. Chamaemelum (talk) 15:26, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that would improve the situation, no. If you can't diagnose autism in animals, calling any traits those animals have "autistic" is a form of anthropomorphism at best. Hence my calling it a FRINGE issue. --Licks-rocks (talk) 17:54, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment: Those who think of deleting anything related to this particular article on Wikipedia need to rethink that. Merging with similar articles is better than deleting it off English Wikipedia altogether, so I’d understand those who feel like this article should be deleted, but there are better ways. I agree, however, that not enough reliable sources exist at this point but the subject is highly controversial and disputed between animal medical people or veterinarians and psychiatric/psychologist people and experts with autism. I’ve been studying this since September 14, 2006 although information references have changed since through now. Angela Kate Maureen Pears 18:36, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Please provide a reliable source to back up your claim that "the subject is highly controversial and disputed between animal medical people or veterinarians and psychiatric/psychologist people and experts with autism". Several people with knowledge (and, I would assume, academic training) in at least some of these areas have tried to find sources and have failed to do so.--TempusTacet (talk) 21:17, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If the article is autistic traits in animals, it has nothing to do with calling animals autistic: it's discussing a particular trait, not actual autism. Chamaemelum (talk) 00:12, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's a distinction without a difference to me. Traits are only autistic in the sense that they're an aspect of autism. If there's no autism there's no autistic traits either. --Licks-rocks (talk) 18:13, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Traits are only autistic in the sense that they're an aspect of human autism. If there's no autism in humans, there's no autistic traits in general. Since traits are only autistic in the sense that they're an aspect of human autism, it is totally possible that, since there is human autism, animals can have (and do have) autistic traits (that is, traits commonly seen in autistic people).
Analogy: plorg is defined as containing the combination of morp, borg, and flop characteristics. Plorg is observed only in Zorp. However, morp, a plorg characteristic, can be observed in non-Zorp because non-Zorp only have morp and not borg or flop. This means it is possible to have a characteristic of plog in non-Zorp even though plorg exists only within Zorp. Chamaemelum (talk) 18:29, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete due to a dearth of reliable sources. --SilverTiger12 (talk) 23:22, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • At this point, the time it took to have this discussion could have been used to add the relevant it into another article or articles. Chamaemelum (talk) 00:10, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Rajput. Liz Read! Talk! 22:48, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Shaktawat[edit]

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

The article fails WP:GNG. A standalone article on this topic is not required here as it is one of the clan of Rajput caste. Though it lacks content too, but whatever it contains should be moved into Rajput article and this page should be deleted.-Admantine123 (talk) 17:31, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 19:57, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Withdrawn by nominator‎ before this discussion starts to look like WP:SNOW. It's obvious I didn't WP:BEFORE this beforehand. (non-admin closure) Jalen Folf (talk) 20:44, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Otto von Helldorff[edit]

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

Setting aside sockpuppetry issues, no WP:SIGCOV of this individual. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NPOL. Jalen Folf (talk) 19:33, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 19:37, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Beyond the clear NPOL pass, the article also contains sources providing WP:SIGCOV, most clearly this entry in Deutsche Biographie, with sources like [8] and [9] providing pretty good supplementary coverage as well. Curbon7 (talk) 19:50, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    He also appears to have an entry in the book Biographisches Handbuch der Abgeordneten des Norddeutschen Reichstages, des Zollparlaments und der Deutschen Reichstage 1867-1918 (Biographical Handbook of the Members of the North German Reichstag, the Customs Parliament and the German Reichstag 1867-1918) by Heinrich Best [de], but the book does not appear to be digitized and the weblink for his entry is a permanent dead link. Curbon7 (talk) 19:54, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The references already in the article constitute WP:SIGCOV. As TulsaPoliticsFan pointed out, as a member of the German Empire's parliament, he passes WP:NPOL. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 20:03, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Also, the German Wikipedia lists several people at de:Heinrich_von_Helldorff who probably pass the English Wikipedia's notability standards. One is Otto's father, I think. Those German articles are probably worth translating, although I'm not volunteering to do the translations. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 20:10, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 22:49, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Harsha Bahadur Budha Magar[edit]

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

NN bio fails WP:GNG. UtherSRG (talk) 18:36, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Academics and educators, and Nepal. UtherSRG (talk) 18:36, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Evidence of passing WP:Prof not found. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:53, 26 June 2023 (UTC).[reply]
  • Delete. His 1990 dissertation was published in book form as Is Gorkhaland a reality or simply mirage? (Kathmandu 1994 : Pushpawati Bura Magar); I only found a single citation for that on google scholar. I can't find the source this article is based on, either. If this is about him, it's a strong indicator of notability: [10]. But that's all I've found. -- asilvering (talk) 23:33, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 22:49, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jed MacKay[edit]

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

Unsourced BLP that has a single EL so is not eligible for CSD. UtherSRG (talk) 18:32, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 22:51, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dan Flannery[edit]

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

Non notable actor, From what I can gather he's only ever had 2-bit parts in films and tv shows (nothing substantial), Cannot find any evidence of any notability, As always if anyone can find anything then I'm always happy to withdraw, Fails NACTOR, SIGCOV and GNG –Davey2010Talk 18:00, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. It's snowing. Star Mississippi 17:51, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Film/video-based therapy[edit]

Film/video-based therapy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This poorly titled page (named after a specific, likely non-notable, therapy technique propounded by the article creator) covers a hodge-podge of techniques that don't go by that name. At a minimum the article needs to be renamed Video therapy, or redirected to Art therapy. But WP:TNT may be preferable given that most of its content is generated by a COI editor (editing under various aliases) and ChatGPT.
See related ANI discussion. Abecedare (talk) 17:35, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as a dumpster fire of WP:MEDRS noncompliance. Self-promoters using ChatGPT to edit Wikipedia should be stymied at every turn, and their "contributions" should be nuked from orbit. XOR'easter (talk) 20:13, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I am a university professor who has taught at schools including USC, UCLA, Chapman, Emerson, and Pepperdine here in Los Angeles. I met Dr. Joshua L. Cohen in 2016 and we have worked together in parallel since then. I can attest wholeheartedly that Dr. Cohen is a real person, has written a real academic book, and that his therapy is a real thing. it is not for profit, but for the advancement of science and psychology that Dr. Cohen, and not ChatGPT, wrote his book. I have read it and can say for sure that it is beneficial. It has helped me personally. Film/video-based therapy has helped me in some of my struggles as well. The attacks on this category, this article, and the references to Dr. Cohen are unfortunate, untrue and misguided. Those attackers are better served to find actual fraud and misconduct. They can rest knowing that Dr. Cohen is a validated man of science who promotes a good and verified cause. Frankchindamo (talk) 23:24, 26 June 2023 (UTC) — Frankchindamo (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Psychology-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 21:52, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for the rampant WP:MEDRS failures and the fact that the editor who posted it was unaware of just how oddly it read. This is quite obviously written by a nonhuman. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v Source assessment notes 22:33, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I am a university professor who has taught at schools including USC, UCLA, Chapman, Emerson, and Pepperdine here in Los Angeles. I met Dr. Joshua L. Cohen in 2016 and we have worked together in parallel since then. I can attest wholeheartedly that Dr. Cohen is a real person, has written a real academic book, and that his therapy is a real thing. it is not for profit, but for the advancement of science and psychology that Dr. Cohen, and not ChatGPT, wrote his book. I have read it and can say for sure that it is beneficial. It has helped me personally. Film/video-based therapy has helped me in some of my struggles as well. The attacks on this category, this article, and the references to Dr. Cohen are unfortunate, untrue and misguided. Those attackers are better served to find actual fraud and misconduct. They can rest knowing that Dr. Cohen is a validated man of science who promotes a good and verified cause. Frankchindamo (talk) 23:25, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Copypasta'ing a wall of text that attacks the people participating in the debate does not help your case a whit, especially as it doesn't address the concerns with the Wikipedia article. We're not debating the doctor, his writings, or his findings; we're debating whether or not the Wikipedia article should be deleted as not compliant with Wikipedia policies. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v Source assessment notes 23:47, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Counting this comment at the Talk page, you've said the same thing three times. Repeating a statement three times does not make it three times as true. In these parts, we consider it good etiquette to make one's case and then let the matter be, only making further replies when necessary to address genuinely new points. XOR'easter (talk) 00:03, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Honestly, I can't find anything to say more to the point than XOR'easter's words; well phrased. That being said, I need no automated cut-and-paste responses from Frankchindamo, who surely has the skills from his putative university teaching posts to better understand Wikipedia policies and guidelines ... however much his Wikipedia activity is almost exclusively to promote himself. (Which, since Courcelles just indeffed the guy, happily is no longer a worry.) Ravenswing 23:44, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Unreadable gobbledygook, and the author shamelessly using ChatGPT to respond to reasonable criticisms on the talk page is beyond the pale. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 02:40, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per all the above, not least of which is the obvious use of LLM to write the article. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:53, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete based on the use of LLM alone, which is basically just the tip of the iceberg. LilianaUwU (talk / contributions) 11:33, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. If a human wants to put together a draft that shows this is a notable topic using sources that comply with WP:MEDRS in the future, I wouldn't object. This article is so far from that, however, that deletion is the best path forward. —C.Fred (talk) 12:13, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per all the above, topic is not notable. --Jasulan.T TT me 14:19, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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! 08:27, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jeyow Evangelista[edit]

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

NN filmmaker - fails WP:FILMMAKER. UtherSRG (talk) 16:44, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Already PROD'd so not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 17:20, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Gsearch goes straight to social media sites, then nothing. The award nomination seems non-notable. Delete for lack of sourcing. Oaktree b (talk) 17:56, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no usable sources, fails NFILMMAKER by the looks of it.-KH-1 (talk) 05:57, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 08:01, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Elmira Pet Products[edit]

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

NN company. Fails WP:NORG. UtherSRG (talk) 16:40, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 17:19, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. Here's some coverage, somewhat routine. [11][12] —siroχo 17:33, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is a company/product therefore GNG/WP:NCORP criteria requires at least two deep or significant sources with each source containing "Independent Content" showing in-depth information *about the company*. "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. None of the sources meet the criteria, topic fails GNG. HighKing++ 19:24, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. Liz Read! Talk! 22:52, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ee (band)[edit]

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

NN band - fails WP:BAND. UtherSRG (talk) 16:35, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 17:17, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep‎. Liz Read! Talk! 22:53, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Echagere[edit]

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

No sources cited for this village. Was likely NN back in 2010, but would be notable now if there is indeed a population there. UtherSRG (talk) 16:34, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • comment There is a settlement at the supplied coordinates but I cannot verify that this is its name. Mangoe (talk) 01:24, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I verified using Google Earth that this is the name of the settlement at those coordinates (if you click on the little icons for stores, it'll come up with the store name and address including the town name).
    -- A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 03:15, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 17:17, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Google Earth indicates several hundred closely packed buildings. The 2011 census population was reported as 1352.[onefivenine.com/india/villages/Mandya/Mandya/Eachagere] WP:GEOLAND says "Populated, legally recognized places are typically presumed to be notable, even if their population is very low." This place is definitely populated. In the UK or North America it would be notable if it were a standalone town, even unincorporated. I am unable to determine its legal status. I looked on the websites for Karnataka state and Mandya District - neither were very helpful. I learned Karnataka has 26,000 villages. The Indian Census has a population finder page for villages and towns but I couldn't get it to work. You can download a spreadsheet of population figures; it's 333 MB. This place does not meet WP:GNG as I couldn't find reliable sources to cite other than the one link in my earlier comment above; that cite is blacklisted. If Echagere is notable, it's because of WP:GEOLAND. This is all I have time for today. --A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 04:05, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

More on that link.
Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 236#onefivenine.com - broad consensus sought
onefivenine.com and a number of similar Indian data agglomeration sites were deemed unreliable.
--A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 04:18, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep 2011 Indian census indicates the village has a primary and a middle school.[13] Google Maps shows 3 temples and 2 stores.
--A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 12:51, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note that Echagere is spelled "Eachagere" in the Indian census.Either is a transliteration from the Kannada language word, ಇಚೆಗೆರೆ. It’s clear from the census entry it’s the same village based on distances to named nearby locations. A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 18:10, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Presumed notable per WP:GEOLAND as a verified, legally recognised populated place. Rupples (talk) 06:50, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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! 05:19, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Gruen[edit]

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

Moved by sock from AFC fails WP:GNG. Theroadislong (talk) 14:25, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I just noticed that this was their 2nd AFD. It might have been eligible for CSD G4, too. Liz Read! Talk! 03:34, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP: Mike is very well known in the upper echeolon of the tech and content creator world. He is currently working with many notable individuals and has conducted notable business.
https://www.thethings.com/who-is-josh-richards-22-year-old-manager-michael-gruen/
https://www.forbes.com/sites/forbesbusinesscouncil/people/michaelgruen/?sh=32456ee572c6
https://www.forbes.com/pictures/61a658957d8a73f982166967/josh-richards-19-michael/?sh=60f579701405 Gptjoe (talk) 20:08, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 17:11, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Sources found are all typical of those above. All the Forbes links listed up there are from the Business Council, or a photo. Very much PROMO. Oaktree b (talk) 18:41, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Spam. And nothing changed since the first nomination (the result was: delete). Suitskvarts (talk) 21:59, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 22:54, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mourad Badra[edit]

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

Article about former footballer who played just 2 Ligue 2 matches in his career, and which fails WP:GNG. PROD was removed after adding a single Q&A interview from foot-national.com which contains very little independent, secondary coverage. I was only able to find one other source (a paywalled article from Paris-Normandie) that I cannot evaluate, but certainly would be insufficient SIGCOV without something else. Jogurney (talk) 16:30, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 22:54, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Catholic Bishops' Influence on Eastern European Literature[edit]

The Catholic Bishops' Influence on Eastern European Literature (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

As far as I can judge, most sources aren't about the influence bishops had. For example, this source only mentions bishops once, about a letter condemning sexual abuse, and doesn't seem to mention "literature" or "literary" at all, but is still used as a reference for their "influence on literary themes". Perhaps an article on Catholic influence on Eastern European literature can be written, but when both the title and the contents need to be checked and rewritten completely, it makes little sense to keep this article instead of just starting from scratch. Fram (talk) 16:19, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete topic is not notable. Super Ψ Dro 08:19, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete sounds like original research. Renata•3 01:45, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 2023 Utah's 2nd congressional district special election. Liz Read! Talk! 22:55, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Celeste Maloy[edit]

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

Every page cited is either a website directory, a story about the 2023 special election, or simply mentions her in passing. The closest thing to in-depth coverage is an article recapping a presentation she gave at a planning committee and two articles solely about Chris Stewart endorsing her. If she wins the election then obviously she'll be notable, but until then this page seems to fail WP:GNG and WP:1E BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 16:03, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

But I want you to know that I did consider the lack of coverage as mentioned in BottleofChoclateMilk's reasoning, however, I simply had a different opinion. I did not find them to just be "mentions in passing." I thought a few of them were quite detailed and even included quotes that directly related to the subject's position at the time. And I did remove the directory listings, which were not included to prove notability but rather to provide citations in claims made in the article. I am not trying to start a war here. But I think two people could look at the same articles and come to opposite conclusions. I think the article as it stood at the time of creation was already enough to pass the WP:GNG threshold. However, now especially, I think there has been more than enough in-depth coverage to push her over. By a long shot. Here are just some examples of recent coverage.

"Robert Gehrke: How Celeste Maloy went from long shot to a front-runner for Congress". The Salt Lake Tribune.

"Celeste Maloy registered as a Utah Republican voter three days after filing to run for Congress. Here's why it matters". The Salt Lake Tribune.

"GOP sticking with Celeste Maloy as convention winner after delegates question eligibility". www.ksl.com.

"Celeste Maloy wins Utah Republicans' nomination for special congressional election". The Salt Lake Tribune.

This will be a very major election and have huge implications for the national stage. Although personally, I find it inappropriate to speculate that the article's subject is going to win the election, a lot of media outlets certainly have been making such speculations. This is reflected in coverage. Certainly, now that she is the official nominee of her political party, that alone is enough to push her over the threshold.DrSangChi (talk) 00:09, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Per WP:1E, being involved in one event is not necessarily enough to establish notability. There seems to be absolutely no in-depth coverage of Maloy outside of this election. Being a party's nominee for Congress does not establish notability. If she wins the election then of course she will get a page, but until then you have not proven notability. The argument of "media outlets speculate she'll win" is irrelevant and and fails WP:CRYSTAL. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 01:00, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify Creator has done a good start job, but the notability is on hold until the election is over, at which point this can be evaluated against wp:npolitician. Time will tell. Lamona (talk) 04:00, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to the election that she's running in, if it exists. She is not currently notable and we cannot assume she will win the election. Being the official nominee is not enough for enduring notability. SportingFlyer T·C 09:41, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to 2023 Utah's 2nd congressional district special election. Per the article Celeste Maloy is an attorney and a land rights advocate. She is also a candidate for Congress. Congressional candidates are neither notable or not notable under WP:POLITICIAN. However, nothing is so distinct about her candidacy (especially at this point) that she herself warrants an article. The materials provided in AfD that are posted to support GNG are run of the mill coverage of a candidacy expected to arise in any election. The candidacy does not rise to the historic levels of candidates like Christine O'Donnell, Pro-Life (born Marvin Thomas Richardson), or Lar "America First" Daly. The article makes no mention of land rights advocacy so I cannot determine if Celeste Maloy would meet GNG for any activism. An attorney can qualify for a Wikipedia article. While not an official policy, I find Bearian's standards for attorneys to be a good guide to determining if enough sources can be found to meet GNG. Maloy does not meet any of these at this time so establishing GNG is unlikely.--Mpen320 (talk) 18:29, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Without assuming bad faith, I am going to leave this essay here. Wikipedia:An article about yourself isn't necessarily a good thing. Mpen320 (talk) 18:32, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
True, we shouldn't say anything without proof, though it is worth noting that the professional headshot of Maloy on her article was uploaded 11 minutes after the article was created by user "CelesteMaloy2023" and tagged as "own work." Either way, I think there's a strong case (and consensus) to redirect. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 22:12, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect, obviously without prejudice against recreation in November if she wins. People do not get Wikipedia articles just for standing as candidates in future elections — the notability bar at WP:NPOL is holding a notable political office, not just running for one, while candidates get articles only if either (a) they already had preexisting notability for other reasons that would already have earned them an article anyway, or (b) they can show credible reasons why their candidacy should be seen as a special case of significantly greater notability than everybody else's candidacies, such that even if they lose people will still be looking for information about their campaign ten years from now anyway. Neither of those things in evidence here, however — and since all candidates in all elections always get some degree of campaign coverage during the election, the existence of such coverage does not automatically translate into "campaign coverage = GNG, ergo NPOL not applicable", because if that were how it worked then every candidate in every election would always get that exemption and NPOL itself would become meaningless. So if she wins in November, then the campaign coverage will certainly become usable to help expand the article that she'll be entitled to at that time — but the existence of campaign coverage is not sufficient grounds for an article about an unelected candidate before the election is over. Bearcat (talk) 16:03, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to 2023 Utah's 2nd congressional district special election as a usual and appropriate outcome for candidates running for the US House (see WP:POLOUTCOMES. Verifiable biographical and campaign information can be summarized on the page about the special election. --Enos733 (talk) 17:42, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 22:55, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

HeavenMayFade[edit]

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

This article was speedy-deleted on 7th June by User:Justlettersandnumbers under CSD:A7 (non-notable band). It was listed at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2023 June 16 by User:Sapols. No consensus was found in the DRV, and as such it is being listed here.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. FYI: A fuller deletion rationale providing policy reasons why an article should be deleted would be more persuasive than just stating that this article had been PROD'd and de-PROD'd. Liz Read! Talk! 22:58, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

1st Special Forces Brigade (South Korea)[edit]

1st Special Forces Brigade (South Korea) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Removed Prod. Blethering Scot 15:47, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions. Blethering Scot 15:47, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Please use search term "제1공수특전여단". 1st Special Forces Brigade meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines for companies and organizations. Footwiks (talk) 16:05, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Keep, The Brigade has a lot of sources in korean related with its military achievements. The sources Jungang ilbo and Gukbangilbo(Defense times) are notable newspapers in South korea, with Gukbang Ilbo specializing in Defense technology matters. Even if the sources are not in english, it definitely fits into the category of significant coverage for said brigade, as it addresses the brigade in different news outlets. Waltzingmogumogupeach (talk) 16:58, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Keep for now, this article meets the criteria of WP:N and the sources are ok but it needs to be further expanded. If the creator of the article does not expand it for several months, then it should be merged into the Republic of Korea Army. Nguyen QuocTrung (talk) 20:56, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Keep. PROD reason was "Article does not prove notability with independent sources." Ample independent sources have now been provided. Whether the sources are in Korean or English does not matter. Buckshot06 (talk) 21:33, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 21:40, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The nominator apparently can't be bothered to provide any rationale for deletion (not even repeating the prod rationale). Brigades are clearly notable and there are enough sources to prove this one's notability in any case. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:54, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 22:59, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of top earning travel companies in the United States[edit]

List of top earning travel companies in the United States (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is simply the recreation of another source's list, including its rather bizarre set of metrics (the list would include a company that did $100 million in business, of which $15 million was in the US, but not one that did $100 billion in business, of which $14 billion was in the US.) Those strange metrics keep it from meeting WP:NOTESAL Originally created by a undisclosed paid editor, the list is based on a single, heavily-outdated source. If the Travel Weekly list was in itself notable, that would call for not a list article, but an article discussing the history and impact of their list (such as done for The Black List (survey).) Note that Travel Weekly is just a redirect to the company that publishes it, and even that page is tagged for notability issues. Nat Gertler (talk) 15:00, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete – arbitrary inclusion criteria, US-centric, depends on a single source which is not itself notable. Stifle (talk) 16:12, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete lack of multiple independent sources means this is basically plagiarism Dronebogus (talk) 00:03, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Appears to be original research/copyvio, plus probably doesn't pass WP:LISTN anyhow. Ajf773 (talk) 10:03, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I’m not sure you can copyright data. Dronebogus (talk) 23:19, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    You can in some contexts, though it's not relevant here. Stifle (talk) 09:11, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom --Devokewater 16:55, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. ✗plicit 14:37, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Physics Essays[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Though WP:NJOURNALS may apply here, Though this article passes WP:NJOURNALS, I could not find any secondary sources which contains significant coverage about this journal. Other editors have raised concerns about this article's reliability on its talk page. NJOURNAL states that "It is possible for a journal to qualify for a stand-alone article according to this standard and yet not actually be an appropriate topic for coverage in Wikipedia because of a lack of reliable, independent sources on the subject." I believe this applies here. Ca talk to me! 14:25, 26 June 2023 (UTC) Wording edited for clarity in 08:27, 2 July 2023 (UTC) [reply]

I am not arguing that Physics Essay does not meet NJOURNAL. I am arguing that it does not meet GNG. As it is stated in NJOURNAL , it does not override GNG. Your argument would be stronger by providing sources in accordance to GNG. Ca talk to me! 00:53, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have very little interest in arguing the relationship of different all-caps shortcuts on some notional org chart of Wikipedian decision-making, and in fact, I think arguments are strongest when they make sense without referring to any opaque jargon. Instead, arguments are strongest when they are rooted directly in whether material is encyclopedic. We have something to say; we can back it up with sources that are worth trusting; and the topic is naturally separate from related subjects to an extent that a stand-alone page makes good organizational sense. XOR'easter (talk) 01:43, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I believe this article's existence is a violation of Wikipedia's very wp:founding principles. Specifically, NPOV and "Wikipedia is a encyclopedia". Since there is zero significant and secondary source covering this topic, we cannot represent all significant viewpoints because there are none. This results in an uncritical article on an obviously fringe journal. Deletion is not cleanup does not apply because there is no room for improvement. Everything reliable piece of information have been said due to its lack of sources. SNG is not a arbitrary threshold; it is a test to see if an article on an subject can stand and could be improved to not violate policies. Notice how every SNG have a variation of "likely indicates that reliable and significant sourcing exists on this topic". Because of this, I believe your intrepretation of SNG is against concensus. Another issue is that this article is nothing more than a simple database listing. There is nothing more to say than this journal was listed at x and x. Wikipedia is a encylopedia, not a directory for all-things-journal. Ca talk to me! 00:05, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Empirically, my interpretation of SNG is in line with consensus, judging from the other !votes on this page and the history of deletion debates about academic journals. A directory-of-all-things-journal would include all journals, not only those that are indexed in selective indices and have quantitative information available about their influence over time. XOR'easter (talk) 17:57, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NJOURNAL is a good rule of thumb. That's why it is followed so often. However, as said above, SNGs are just a suggestion. What trumps all is existence of good coverage. Being indexed in selective indices does not automatically generate reliable coverage. Simple "quantitative information" is not enough. Following Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, data should be put in context with explanations referenced to independent sources. That is not significant coverage. This is not a novel concept; following the spirit of notability, interpretation that SNG trumps GNG is not in line with the intent behind notability as a whole. Additionally, essays should not trump established guidelines unless in rare circumstances, which I am not seeing here. Ca talk to me! 11:15, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
XOR'easter, the distinction between the general notability guideline and a subject specific notability guideline is not some minor bureaucratic distinction: it's frankly notability 101, and critical to understanding what the burden for inclusion in the encyclopedia actually is. An SNG can only provide temporary presumption of notability for intermediate periods of retention: ultimately it is still an absolute requirement that a topic be subject to significant, independent coverage in reliable sources, and eventually the advocates for retention are meant to meet that burden. The existence of an SNP covering a general type of subject does not obviate that requirement, it only militates for giving a certain amount of time to allow GNG sources to develop and/or be found. If and when a significant amount of time has passed and this is not occurring, policy is unambiguous that the article should be deleted, not kept around indefinitely just because of a "rule of thumb" presumption (which Ca is quite correct, does not trump GNG). This is a procedural, policy-oriented space: it's not really sensible to try to hand-wave away the "all-caps shortcuts" without addressing the content of the arguments raised concerning what they actually say... Those are policies and guidelines--you know community consensus?. There, not a single cap any any link.  ;) SnowRise let's rap 05:30, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Per the page you refer to as "notability 101", A topic is presumed to merit an article if [...] It meets either the general notability guideline (GNG) below, or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific notability guideline (SNG) listed in the box on the right. "Notability 101" explicitly states that a subject-specific guideline can be an alternative to the general guideline. Both are ways to judge that a topic is presumed to merit an article.
The sources already present in this article are independent and reliable. They represent the judgment of people whose job it is to evaluate journals that this journal is worth documenting. XOR'easter (talk) 18:05, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, but that's a somewhat selective quoting of the policy and just not how the policy reads as a whole. For that matter, there have been a number of community discussions reaffirming the point that SNGs do not invalidate the need for WP:SIGCOV as the ultimate test that all articles must pass at some point in order for their subject to have been established as "notable". Some of these discussions in the last couple of years lad to an extensive pruning of the SNGs (including full deprecations of existing guidelines in some cases), specifically because they were starting to give an impression of an alternate route to notability than coverage in reliable sources, which the community never intended. I don't want to quote paragraphs at you here, but the most relevant portion of WP:N to understand this distinction are WP:NRV and WP:WHYN. I'll grant you that the current lead of the policy could be drafted better to make this distinction clear, but the fact is that the distinction itself is the subject of robust community consensus on the matter, and captured elsewhere in the policy. SnowRise let's rap 23:55, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
First, WP:N is not policy. Second, I've been there for plenty of "community discussions" and recall circular debate, acrimony, and only the most narrow of "consensuses" obtained by the end. The changing of standards for porn stars and sports biographies doesn't amount to a trend; species and academic biographies have been unaffected, for example. Third, this journal does have coverage in reliable sources. If all we had to go on were the forum posts complaining about it and calling it a home for crackpots, I wouldn't have !voted to keep it. XOR'easter (talk) 14:34, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 14:15, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Julien Hasler[edit]

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

He fails GNG with a lack of significant coverage on him. The LFV source is not independent as it is the website of the Liechtenstein FA. Dougal18 (talk) 14:15, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. I had prodded the article for the same reason, and the Prod was removed with the addition of the source from the national football organisation, which isn't independent of course. Playing for the national team isn't sufficient as a claim to notability when that doesn't generate the necessary coverage in reliable independent sources, and this is one of these countries where it is easier to get into the national team than to get into a good professional team. Fram (talk) 14:49, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Europe. Shellwood (talk) 17:10, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Liechtensteiner Vaterland has a paywalled article that looks like SIGCOV here. Lie-zeit has a couple of sentences about him in a match summary here. I don't know if these are enough, but it looks somewhat close. Jogurney (talk) 12:52, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 17:22, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. GiantSnowman 19:04, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 03:53, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Defaqto[edit]

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

Vast majority of the article is unsourced, one of the editors is closely associated to Defaqto, the article is like an ad, and it has 4 orange tags. Sources also seem questionable. 🌶️Jalapeño🌶️ Don't click this link! 10:01, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This does read like a press release, sources found are mostly mentions or ratings for insurance. Nothing for GNG. Oaktree b (talk) 13:24, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previous WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:12, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 14:16, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Azzouz Kara[edit]

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

Article about former Ligue 2 footballer which comprehensively fails WP:GNG. BLPPROD was removed without making any effort to establish that WP:SPORTCRIT could be met. The best coverage available is a cup match preview in La Provence that is not close to in-depth. There is other routine coverage available, but nothing that suggests SIGCOV exists. Jogurney (talk) 14:02, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Courtship display. ✗plicit 14:20, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Courtship (animals)[edit]

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

Possibly the article fails WP:NOR and does not comply with WP:MOS or even possibly made up by the creator. Vitaium (talk) 14:00, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - random examples plucked from the articles coyly listed under "further information" at the head of the first paragraph (Mating, Mating system, Courtship display) and elsewhere. Author apparently intended to "incorporate the content from 'Dating'" [16], which they thankfully do not seem to have gotten around to. I very much doubt we need a combined duplication of Dating, Courtship, and Mating system. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 14:48, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 14:17, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Craig Kaplan[edit]

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

Obvious promotional autobiography. Probably WP:G11. User:Emlevyy is basically a copy-paste of this; they should both be deleted. RoySmith (talk) 13:28, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There's a computer science professor with the same name that should have an article based on the hits, not this fellow. Promo'ed out the wazoo and written like a bio. Non-notable. Oaktree b (talk) 13:41, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 21:43, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I didn't find sources, and so much of this BIO is un-sourced that it's obviously not based on independent information. I note, also, that the main source, Hashtag Multimedia, is his own publication so those are not independent. Yes, that interesting-sounding computer prof is what turns up with a name search. He might be worth researching for an article. Lamona (talk) 04:12, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 14:17, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wireless Internet Protocol[edit]

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

"Wireless Internet Protocol" does not appear to be a thing, at least not in any technical sense. There are multiple protocols that enable wireless access to the internet, but no single entity that can logically be called the Wireless Internet Protocol. Google searches for this term do not show any meaningful results that could be used to provide citations and verification for this article. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 13:26, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom and above. Also, the recent rewrite likely runs afoul of WP:LLM. DefaultFree (talk) 00:50, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 14:17, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Younique (disambiguation)[edit]

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

After removing unambiguous partial title matches, there is only a primary topic and one other item. There is already a hatnote at Younique, linking to the other item (Younique (album) Leschnei (talk) 13:09, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Other topic does not have a standalone article, redirecting to the band's discography. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 16:10, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 14:18, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ben Rhodes (footballer)[edit]

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

A one-sentence former athlete biography created 15 years ago, has one cite, one External link to career statistics, but lacks additional coverage (WP:SIGCOV) to establish notability. Unable to find more sources for this article. JoeNMLC (talk) 13:09, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep‎. ✗plicit 14:38, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Juan Carlos Loustau[edit]

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

Tagged for notability since 2010. Single-source BLP. Fails WP:GNG. UtherSRG (talk) 11:52, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Football, and Argentina. UtherSRG (talk) 11:52, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 21:59, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I would recommend withdrawing this nomination. A web search throws up dozens of Spanish-langauge newspaper articles about the subject – [17] and [18] alone are massive ones – and that should come as no surprise considering he refereed one of the most famous matches in World Cup history and was considered a world class referee [19]. Robby.is.on (talk) 22:39, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Per above. Article needs improvement, not deletion. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 23:03, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per sources above which show notability. GiantSnowman 19:04, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Passes WP:SIGCOV. Its been on the cat:nn for list for 13+ years and never been updated. It was sent to Afd to get a discussion going, instead of a prod. Hopefully somebody can update the article with suitable references. scope_creepTalk 08:10, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep - I think there's just enough in-depth coverage available. Most of the source mentioned above (and results in my BEFORE) are not secondary (lots of quotes from the subject), yet I think the La Voz del Interior piece is good (and indicates his stature among football referees) plus Clarín's piece on his family "dynasty" helps get where we need to be. Jogurney (talk) 15:05, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep following improvements Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 17:44, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. ✗plicit 14:39, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Li Xianzhou[edit]

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

Tagged for notability issues since 2010. Since-source biography of a NN general. Fails WP:GNG. UtherSRG (talk) 11:45, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Military, and China. UtherSRG (talk) 11:45, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – I'm seeing lots of coverage in Chinese-language sources: [20][21][22][23][24][25][26][27][28][29]. More sources are easy to find on Google Books and with a simple Google search. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 15:16, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. To Mx. Granger's sources I'd add
    • Sun Zhangyuan (孙占元); Yang Mingqing (杨明清), eds. (2004). Shandong Zhongyao Lishi Shijian vol 7: Kang Ri Zhanzheng Shiqi 山东重要历史事件. Vol. 7: 抗日战争时期. pp. 247–256. ISBN 9787209035316.
    • Yu Keli (余克礼); Zhu Xianlong (朱显龙), eds. (2001). Zhongguo Kuomintang Quanshu vol 2 中国国民党全书. Vol. 下. p. 834. ISBN 9787224055511.
    • Liu Jingquan (刘景泉), ed. (1999). Zhongguo Kang Ri Zhanzheng Da Cidian 中国抗日战争人物大词典. p. 224. ISBN 9787561811023.
all of which are cited in the subject's Baidu article, which is seven or eight scrolls long. Clearly passes GNG, although his role in World War II seems to have been much more significant than his later work, which is not currently reflected in his biography. Folly Mox (talk) 17:47, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. FYI, the Chinese Wikipedia article is much longer and may be useful to expand this one: zh:Li Xianzhou.
--A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 04:56, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Consensus is that this is neither a valid nor a helpful disambiguation page. Sandstein 08:06, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mathematics and statistics[edit]

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

[Context of this page's creation: Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 June 8 § MathematicsAndStatistics.] This is a disambiguation page that does not disambiguate anything. Neither the article Mathematics nor the article Statistics is about the topic of "Mathematics and statistics". Rather, they are respectively about mathematics and about statistics. The former does at least briefly discuss statistics, so a case could be made for redirecting there, but the more sensible answer is to delete, as this is not a plausible term for our readers to search; if anything it will just confuse people seeing it as a search suggestion. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 22:34, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 22:34, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. Duckmather (talk) 02:29, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not a proper disambiguation page; title cannot be redirected because it fails WP:XY. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 03:46, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I agree with the above. --Bduke (talk) 05:46, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not a proper disambiguation page. Athel cb (talk) 08:30, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - concur with nom and above editors.Onel5969 TT me 10:03, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete. Created prematurely. Its only links are see alsos and partial title matches which are explicitly excluded by WP:PARTIAL, so it effectively disambiguates "zero extant Wikipedia pages" per CSD G14. – Scyrme (talk) 17:41, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I created this page after a discussion on the above mentioned RfD. The issue was that the listed redirects were receiving a modest, but significant quantity of hits. With input from the other editors, I attempted to create a target that would be most useful for readers searching for the term. In its absence, searchers will be told the page does not exist and be invited to create one. I'd love a plain English explanation as to how deleting this harmless redirect will improve outcomes for readers searching for the term, or how its existence harms any other users.--agr (talk) 18:04, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @agr: Which is the redirect you are referring to in "harmless redirect"? If it is Mathematics and Statistics (uppercase S), then that is a separate discussion for RfD. If it is Mathematics and statistics (the page under discussion), then that is a disambiguation page, and not a redirect. Are you suggesting to keep the disambiguation page although it doesn't follow the disambiguation guideline? Or are you suggesting to convert the page to a redirect (similar to the uppercase one)? Jay 💬 08:43, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Jay: I’m suggesting keeping Mathematics and statistics, the article under discussion here. Sorry for my imprecise wording. It fits the broad purpose of redirects: “ …so that readers typing in a reasonably likely topic name for more than one Wikipedia topic can quickly navigate to the article they seek.” (from In a nutshell) We know readers are searching for the term. Not a lot but roughly every other day. The article as it stands is indeed harmless. No controversy, coi, pov. etc. It’s the best landing point for someone searching for the term. I don’t see how deletion or redirecting to Mathematics is a better outcome. If you go to Mathematics you’ll find a small section on Statistics with a main tag directing you to our Statistics and Probability theory articles. The present article is a lot more direct. Note that if this article stands, the two redirects at RfD become superfluous.—agr (talk) 18:52, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @agr: The nutshell you quoted is from WP:Disambiguation. A disambiguation page is not a redirect page. I'm not sure if you have followed the deletion rationale of this AfD nomination which is This is a disambiguation page that does not disambiguate anything. Jay 💬 19:10, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Jay: I apologize again. I meant to say “ It fits the broad purpose of disambiguation pages”, per the nutshell quote. The search topic is “Mathematics and statistics” which can refer to “more than one Wikipedia topic.” We know people are searching on the term. How does it harm Wikipedia to have a disambiguation page that helps them find where to go?—agr (talk) 23:52, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    This AfD is not about the usefulness of the page, but validity of a page tagged as a disambiguation, and in a form which had no entries but a lede saying X and Y has articles on X and Y. Jay 💬 08:22, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

… @Jay: Usefulness should be considered per WP:IAR, if nothing else. Do you have a better way to format this page?—agr (talk) 20:48, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

IAR has already been touched upon in the below discussions. I do not have a better way to format the page. The question would rather be should Wikipedia have such pages that are neither setindexes or disambiguations, but of the form of one liners X and Y has articles on X and Y? In any case, this is not my discussion with you, but I started by replying to your vote because your initial statement was not clear and I wanted to straighten it out, and from what I understand you incorrectly used "redirect" instead "disambiguation page". Jay 💬 04:34, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Mathematics (or Keep) - I don't see how deletion would be the best outcome here; it should be maintained as a DAB or redirect, per the linked discussion. I also agree with the linked discussion that WP:XY isn't incredibly relevant here, as statistics is discussed and linked in the lede of the mathematics article. For that reason, I favor a redirect. No opposition to maintaining as a dab page if that's the consensus outcome. Suriname0 (talk) 17:40, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:XY is relevant because there are multiple articles which are relevant. Mathematics discussing both doesn't resolve this problem because the same is true of statistics (which discusses the relationship of statistics to mathematics, particularly in the "Introduction" section) or mathematical statistics (discusses mathematical techniques used in statistics throughout).
    Maintaining the disambiguation page isn't viable because it's not actually a disambiguation page, it's just a list of related links. It does not follow the guidelines for what a disambiguation page is and does. – Scyrme (talk) 11:58, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    To be clear, I agree that there are multiple articles which are relevant. WP:XY concerns redirects that could "equally point to multiple targets". I disagree that the options here are equal: I think mathematics is the more appropriate redirect target, and I think this example doesn't suffer from the same difficulties as the redlinked examples at WP:XY. Suriname0 (talk) 16:22, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    They seem equally likely to me. I don't see a strong reason why Mathematics and statistics should redirect to Mathematics over these other articles based on the content about stats in that article. If the argument is that WP:XY is mitigated by one being a subtopic of the other, I don't agree; as noted in Statistics § Introduction, stats is not always viewed as a branch of mathematics, instead being viewed as a discipline in its own right.
    The phrase "mathematics and statistics" doesn't even necessarily refer to the intersection of the two. Many universities have a department of "mathematics and statistics", as noted in the RfD; these department titles indicate that the department is responsible for both disciplines, not that the departments deals only with the intersection. In this sense, it's clearly "X and Y". – Scyrme (talk) 23:01, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect: this really doesn't seem to me like a notable intersection. I am not a doctor of numbers or whatever, but I am pretty sure statistics is mathematics, so even if we disregard coverage of the topic, it does not seem to a priori be a logical or consistent concept. jp×g 00:57, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Redirect to where? This is a case of WP:XY.
    Statistics is not mathematics, since the latter is much broader. There are also differing views on the relationship between stats and maths. Stats is often understood as a subfield or branch of mathematics, but others view it as its own discipline. This is discussed at Statistics § Introduction. – Scyrme (talk) 12:05, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note to closer: the redirects to this page should be kept (except for Mathematics and statistics (disambiguation)) and renommed at RfD per User talk:ClydeFranklin/Archive 4#RfD close. J947 † edits 21:49, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Mathematics (or just keep per WP:IAR as helpful) - I don't agree with there being an WP:XY issue here. I think this is a very plausible search term. Often University courses are named things like "Mathematics and Statistics", and the article does discuss statistics. Depending on your interpretation/definitions, I do recognise that statistics isn't technically a subbranch of mathematics, but many do consider it to be one, and it IS discussed at Mathematics. A7V2 (talk) 23:33, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Not all plausible search queries should be redirected; in some cases, such as this one, the search engine is a better solution. The search engine brings up all the most relevant articles on the first page, including Mathematics, Statistics, and Mathematical Statistics, and does so without the need for a pseudo-disambiguation page. In-fact Mathematical Statistics and Mathematics are the first 2 results on the page after the redirect. WP:IAR applies when the function of Wikipedia is inhibited; it does not apply to this when the search engine would evidently do an adequate job here.
    Mathematics discussing both isn't sufficient to negate WP:XY, because other targets also discuss both topics with at least as much depth and equal relevance. The material about stats (which is bundled together with less relevant material about decision theory) at Mathematics is not so substantial as to make it obviously a better choice over other targets. – Scyrme (talk) 00:20, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Mathematical statistics does not discuss both topics, it is a separate topic. What other article discusses both with as much depth (or perhaps more, as your wording suggests)? Perhaps they could be added to this pseudoDAB if it is kept.... Since you keep repeating the contrary, I will repeat it again, there is no XY issue here. Your point about search results is a good one however, I wonder why you are only bringing it up now as no-one else had so far? It is the only argument I've seen that sways my opinion at all. But I think on the whole I still disagree that deletion is an improvement here. A7V2 (talk) 23:53, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    (For clarity) I think that this is a likely search term, and that someone searching it is more than likely looking for an overview article of "Mathematics and Statistics". From search results alone it will not be clear that Mathematics is such an article, so better to take them there directly. A7V2 (talk) 23:57, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The search engine didn't seem like it needed mentioning until you suggested (by bringing up WP:IAR) that the functioning of Wikipedia was somehow worsened by deletion.
    No-one disagrees that's "it IS discussed". I repeated the point because I want you to elaborate on why you think it's uniquely true of Mathematics despite what I've argued.
    Depending on what the reader wants, it could be better, worse, or the same as the other two. If they want a brief discussion about how stats intersects with different branches of mathematics, then Mathematics is better. If they want an overview of the application of mathematics to statistics then Mathematical statistics is better. If they want to understand the relationship of statistics to mathematics as a whole, then Statistics is better.
    Both other articles also include overviews. I'm not seeing what's unique about Mathematics that makes it an obviously better choice. In-fact, I could see some readers being surprised by it, especially if they're expecting adding "and statistics" to change the target (rather than effectively doing nothing). – Scyrme (talk) 02:47, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 11:43, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well this is going to mess up my AfD stats, but I'd say Keep as per the background criteria to the original redirect from MathematicsAndStatistics. The two terms crop up together so often that they've become linked like Salt and Vinegar. They are not the same thing, but they're sufficiently related that at least some readers won't know quite which they want. As a dab page it also contains more than two entries, because the "See also" section deals with the intersection of maths and statistics by pointing to Mathematical statistics, while it also includes useful links to overview pages on the histories of mathematics and of statistics. That makes the whole thing a useful navigational aid. I can't see what benefit would come from deleting it, or any policy reason why it shouldn't exist, and I can see some mild benefit to its existence. Elemimele (talk) 12:31, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The point of a disambiguation page is to list articles which do or could share an identical title. For example, there are number of films, albums, and publications which share the name "Liberty", and these are listed at Liberty (disambiguation).
In this case, they title they should share is "Mathematics and statistics", except that's not true of any of the articles listed. None of them are synonymous with "Mathematics and statistics", and none of them would be referred to by that title. The titles they have are either "Mathematics" or "Statistics"; they partial title matches which do not belong on a disambiguation page (see WP:PARTIAL). The see alsos don't count because they are only related articles that do not share share that title but which cover relevant material. Listing partial matches and similar articles is simply not what a disambiguation page is for. It's what search results are for. – Scyrme (talk) 16:31, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete One could take many pairs of words that are used together and make a page that says that Wikipedia has articles about each one. What's the point? Unless the conjunction of the two is actually treated as a conjoined whole about which there are things to say (e.g., bangers and mash), it's just a juxtaposition. Is the joining of mathematics and statistics into the same university department or degree program a phenomenon about which independent, reliable sources have written? I suppose in principle it could be an encyclopedic topic, like many oddities of academic culture, but I'm not seeing evidence that it is. XOR'easter (talk) 17:38, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Some history from Swedish academia that might interest you. But generally, I don't think anyone here is endorsing a separate article on the historical relationship of mathematics and statistics. Suriname0 (talk) 15:30, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I don't see the need for it, statistics IS mathematics. Do we need a similar page for Oranges AND Lemons? It just seems like an odd disambiguation(?) page. Oaktree b (talk) 18:01, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It isn't. It is a subset and subdiscipline of mathematics but has become it's own thing in a significant way over more than a century. JMWt (talk) 05:56, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Subset of the larger set, it's dealing with numbers and numerical data. Oaktree b (talk) 13:53, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    My relative is a professor of statistics at a prestigious university. She is not, and has never been, a mathematician. I illustrate this because you don't appear to realise quite how separate the two disciplines have become. JMWt (talk) 14:43, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - essentially the only time anyone refers to Mathematics and statistics in this way is when looking at undergraduate courses at university. I don't believe anyone is going to be searching for the term on WP - any more than they would search for Mathematics and Physics or even Mathematics and Modern Art. In this specific case, the disamb page could include everything and nothing. Everything that touches on either of mathematics and statistics - which is a lot of pages - or nothing as we don't have a page specifically talking about Mathematics-and-Statistics. At very least we should surely expect there to be at least 2 pages addressing the topic before we have a disamb page about it. We don't because it isn't a notable phrase. JMWt (talk) 06:05, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, this topic is not ambiguous. Wikipedia does not have multiple articles with the name "Mathematics and statistics". -- Tavix (talk) 18:22, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not a plausible term for our readers to search Bruxton (talk) 02:13, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as it doesn't actually disambiguate something (only has Mathematics and Statistics, basically title of the page). 2NumForIce (speak|edits) 04:02, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 14:21, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

John Leech (DJ)[edit]

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

Tagged for notability issues since 2010. Unsourced BLP but with ELs, so not CSD eligible. UtherSRG (talk) 11:42, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Radio, and United Kingdom. UtherSRG (talk) 11:42, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Delete for lack of sourcing. Gnewspapers hits on the name from the 1880's to the 1930s. This is the only ref to this person I could find [30], basically confirming he was hired for a new job. Oaktree b (talk) 14:05, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Lack of sources, promotional tone, and searches of the usual places reveal only passing mentions of him moving around between radio stations, with this Radio Today story the most significant coverage (and this article consists almost solely of quotes from the presenter and his employer). Flip Format (talk) 16:35, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 14:21, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Linda Leatherdale[edit]

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

Tagged for notability since 2010. NN businessperson. Fails WP:GNG. UtherSRG (talk) 11:40, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Businesspeople, Women, Journalism, and Canada. UtherSRG (talk) 11:40, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Delete, She still appears to pen columns on occasion for the Toronto Sun, but nothing we can use for notability. I only found 2 columns of hers since 2021. No sourcing otherwise. Oaktree b (talk) 14:06, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This apears to be an old page from the earlier days of Wikipedia that has been notability-tagged for more than a dozen years, that gives no compelling claim to notability, and which has no acceptable sources. What took so long on this one? 128.252.154.2 (talk) 20:33, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 14:22, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Roland Khoury[edit]

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

Unsourced article with notability tag since 2010. Looking for an WP:ATD. UtherSRG (talk) 11:31, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Artists, and Syria. UtherSRG (talk) 11:31, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I am not finding any sources to add to this article. I cannot verify any of the biographical information presented. The subject fails WP:NARTIST. He has not been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, or won significant critical attention, or been represented within the permanent collections of any notable galleries or museums. WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 19:31, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Delete No indication of significance. Fails WP:SIGCOV. Pretty obscure artist. Its has been on the cat:nn list for more than 10 years and never been updated. Fails WP:BIO, WP:NARTIST. scope_creepTalk 08:01, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 14:24, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Boukari Laouali[edit]

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

All references are Paid Promos of the book, subject clearly does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NBIO Megan B.... It’s all coming to me till the end of time 10:55, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect‎ to List of fire departments in United States. ✗plicit 14:41, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of Florida fire departments[edit]

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

Simply WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Location of individual fire departments and stations are not notable. Ajf773 (talk) 10:00, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • A lot of them would. I have nominated this one first as it is the least sourced. Ajf773 (talk) 20:50, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:MILL WP:NOTDIR Dronebogus (talk) 18:44, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • This article is new since the nomination. A redirect to there seems like a good alternative. Ajf773 (talk) 20:50, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    That’s probably a better idea than deleting, but why do we need to list fire departments in the first place? Dronebogus (talk) 23:20, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Mainly for navigation purposes, although cats do a better job. Ajf773 (talk) 23:54, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    But of course most people don’t know categories even exist. Dronebogus (talk) 22:47, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. ✗plicit 00:34, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sevvanthi (TV series)[edit]

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

Insufficient references, fails WP:GNG and WP:RPRGM, and WP:SIGCOV Tirishan (talk) 20:12, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:46, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:06, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ❯❯❯ Raydann(Talk) 08:33, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. – Joe (talk) 10:09, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Rae the Doe[edit]

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

Non-notable comic strip, sourcing used is all from the publisher. I can't find any mention of the comic, other than proof of publication. Not meeting GNG. Oaktree b (talk) 16:53, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

https://www.totallicensing.com/king-features-launches-first-lgbtq-focused-digital-series/
https://www.comicsbeat.com/interview-olive-brinker-on-her-webcomic-rae-the-doe-comedy-and-plushes/
https://www.goodreads.com/en/book/show/45156794
https://www.dailycartoonist.com/index.php/2020/06/07/olive-brinkers-rae-the-doe-joins-comics-kingdom/
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt9494676/
But it's a syndicated comic strip that's been running for over three years. Does that not, in itself, make it notable? Tiggum (talk) 10:17, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LFaraone 22:25, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Query: Picked up for syndication, but has it actually been published in newspapers? Clarityfiend (talk) 01:24, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:10, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ❯❯❯ Raydann(Talk) 08:32, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep published for a month so far in USA Today [36] which definitely suggests notability. First feature was May 26, 2023. We don't seem to have a guideline for syndicated comics, but as one of the largest middle-market newspapers in the US, USA Today is about as big of a boost as syndicated comics can get. This provides us with sufficient verifiability to keep a stub. —siroχo 09:07, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. In addition to USA Today, in a Comic Book Resources article, it is implied that it is in the same league as established strips: "Participating strips [in No Pants Day] included Dennis the Menace, Dick Tracy, Rhymes with Orange and Zippy. Some made a direct appeal to readers, like Rae the Doe and Arctic Circle". It also shows up (in some capacity) in the May 19, 2022, Editor & Publisher. Clarityfiend (talk) 12:30, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. agree with this per nom Pumpkinspyce (talk • contribs) 03:12, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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! 07:38, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jamal Yusupov[edit]

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

Does not pass WP:NKICK. Non-notable titles and being ranked by the promotion subject is fighting for (ONE Championship) is not sufficient to meet notability criteria. Passing mentions and event results are not sufficient to meet WP:GNG. Mostly primary sources from promotion ONE Championship, lack of independent and significant coverage. Lethweimaster (talk) 08:11, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Martial arts, Russia, and Turkey. Shellwood (talk) 11:29, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete His OneFC ranking is immaterial, the point is my search found no evidence of him ever being ranked in the world top 10 (required to meet WP:NKICK). Fight announcements, results, and promotional PR by OneFC do not constitute significant, independent coverage in multiple reliable sources so he appears to also not meet WP:GNG. Papaursa (talk) 00:04, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per nominator and Papaursa. DarkHorseMayhem (talk) 14:09, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 00:34, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Anoop Trevedi[edit]

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

Doesn't meet the notability criteria. The main sources available on the subject are social media sites. Knowledgegatherer23 (Say Hello) 08:45, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as a source was presented that confirms Sangeet Natak Akademi award. Does this make a difference in your views of what should happen with this article?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:52, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete No claim to notability. Winning the Sangeet Natak Akademi Award does not grant notability to the subject. Completely fails WP:GNG. Lethweimaster (talk) 08:24, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. ✗plicit 06:32, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Akshat Tyagi[edit]

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

Article created by a UPE/COI editor, consisting largely of WP:PRSOURCEs. I cannot find reliable, independent coverage of the subject and his company. Fancy Refrigerator (talk) 07:32, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Tagged as G5. Fancy Refrigerator (talk) 23:46, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Move to Draft‎. Bit of a mess, originator moved back to draftspace but no other votes/contributions so can close (I think). Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 15:44, 26 June 2023 (UTC) (non-admin closure) Alexandermcnabb (talk) 15:44, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Tomás Giovanetti[edit]

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

Argentinian young entrepreneur fails WP:GNG, undersourced declined submission as draft, pushed into mainspace by author. Interviews, incidental mentions, non-RS & none with a BEFORE. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 07:23, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Alexander. Please let me know how to make this right. I'm just translating an existing Wikipedia article in spanish version to it's english version: https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tomás_Giovanetti
Please, I need help to acomplish it. I have made the above request to complete the article with real in-line citations (as well as its Spanish version) but it keeps being declined. Could you tell me what I should do to be able to publish it at last? Lucasvalpreda (talk) 12:43, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, Lucas, you'd have been better leaving it in draftspace and developing it there for a start! You need reliable sources (compliant with WP:RS) that contribute to passing the test of WP:GNG, the general notability guideline. I'd read up on those two guidelines for a start - the subject of an article is suitable for a stand-alone article or list when it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. That's the issue here - right now he's not notable per WP:GNG which is why people were declining the article submission. And a search online didn't show any evidence of notability I could immediately see. In that case, the article would be deleted based on consensus from editors here. If you want to return it to draftspace, that can be done - but if so, next time I'd go through the submission route. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 12:57, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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! 07:36, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Vishnu Venu[edit]

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

The producer isn't enough for WP:FILMMAKER and doesn't meet WP:GNG Monhiroe (talk) 07:04, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, India, and Kerala. Monhiroe (talk) 07:04, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No reliable references talking about the person. I agree with the nominator that being the producer of 2 small movies does not impart any notability. Fails WP:GNG Jupitus Smart 13:04, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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! 07:35, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Acting Ka Bhoot[edit]

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

The film does not have enough significant coverage in reliable sources to pass general notability guidelines.

It also fails all the criteria according to notability guidelines for films. Whatever coverage I could find is either press-release, or user generated content. The film has been in production limbo since 2021.

This article was created by a user who was blocked for creating promotional articles/adding promotional content. High chances of this article being a result of UPE. —usernamekiran (talk) 07:03, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 07:01, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ground Air Emergency Code[edit]

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

Highly esoteric, lacking SIGCOV (which BEFORE confirms) and therefore failing WP:GNG, this is a possible redirect/merge to Distress signal but there's no evidence it warrants a standalone article. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 06:57, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 07:02, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dave Gibson (voice actor)[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG; WP:NACTOR, "significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions; or unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment." The only SIGCOV here is dedicated to Doug Mulray, not Gibson. BEFORE shows nothing beyond a number of extra/minor roles for one of at least two Dave Gibsons associated with acting/voice over work. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 06:27, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 00:35, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Al Baraka Bank Egypt[edit]

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

No indication of importance or notability, article is not written in neutral point of view. 64andtim (chat) 07:13, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This article briefly mentions the milestones that al Barak Bank Egypt has achieved throughout its time.
This is a bank that has been operating for 40 years in Egypt, it's important to list it, and its credentials on versatile page as Wikipedia. Maha G Aboud (talk) 08:34, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is a bit of coverage in these books: [38], [39], [40]. There may be more, but I gave up looking because the article is so promotional that it would need a complete rewrite anyway. Phil Bridger (talk) 09:26, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I'd like to hear from more editors about whether anything here is salvageable. Definitely a promotionally written article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:07, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

FuzzyMagma (talk) 11:08, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 05:54, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Omani Leacock[edit]

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

Unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage from third-party sources, failing WP:GNG. The one reference currently in the article was the only thing close to meeting GNG that I found. JTtheOG (talk) 05:53, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Draftify‎. Star Mississippi 02:08, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sajjad Jani[edit]

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

Not a single reference meets WP:RS. Seems like an AUTOBIO. Saqib (talk) 16:49, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Entertainment, Internet, and Pakistan. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 17:37, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I had made this draft and it was published by someone before the review. After a discussion, the history was merged and since then multiple edits were made by different people. And I too have been reworking on it after that, by adding back the information. I have added references published by news outlets of different countries e.g. DunyaNews, Teyit and AFP fact check. I am working on few other reliable sources as well, to make the article better and I would appreciate if other people here too could help or guide, in making it a better article than deleting it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DoctorOfData (talk • contribs) 11:39, June 17, 2023 (UTC)
    Sajjad is prominent artist in Pakistan and India (in Urdu/Punjabi audience). Many TV channels including Pakistan state TV channel [41] has recognized his work and for the past many months, weekend editions of newspapers publish about his programs [42] [43] [44] [45] (the pictures of artist with Urdu details are mentioned in the e-newspaper links, while for the English readers, the YouTube channel link with translation is here, showing the same pictures, as in the newspapers). HMGelani (talk) 16:10, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I am a student and made account to polish creative writing/editing, so can't scrutinize much but I had part in discussion on Wikipedia regarding this article and draft, so I am a bit familiar with this. Sajjad Jani is a popular TV/Youtube personality and the news websites like DunyaNews are also national level news outlets, that have been mentioned in references. DoctorOfData (talk) 15:39, 17 June 2023 (UTC) Striking sockpuppet, sockmaster given timeout. signed, Rosguill talk 05:33, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 05:26, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: It has multiple citations, also it need multiple reliable citations for this article. CastJared (talk) 08:26, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I know this article need some improvements. also need some good authentic references. but i will try to improve it in best possible way. Sajjad Jani is a noticeable and prominent celebrity in Pakistan. So this article deserve to be on Wikipedia with some required improvements. Jagmit Singh Brar 11:10, 21 June 2023 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jagmit Singh Brar (talk • contribs)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as two participants are blocked and the other two are relatively new editors. Hoping to get some opinions from experienced editors.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:46, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Draftify. This page is a little over a month old, and it looks like it may have contentiously been moved from draft to main namespace, back to draft, and then forcibly moved back to main namespace on some possibly misunderstood wiki-legalese grounds. The community specifically allows for incubation instead of deletion. I believe this would neither be a backdoor deletion, nor would be an inappropriate use of the draft namespace. Additionally, there are non-English sources presented in this AfD that may be difficult to evaluate, so AfC may be a better path for this potential article. —siroχo 07:03, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify Assuming this fellow was as important as claimed in this discussion, I was expecting much more content but this is a very skimpy article. It would benefit from more time in Draft space where interested editors could spend time actually building up an article that demonstrated why they thought he was significant. I don't see it right now. Liz Read! Talk! 03:37, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify per above.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 21:33, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify - not ready for article space, most of the references are from a single incident of mistaken identity which does not really support notability in my opinion. - Indefensible (talk) 01:20, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Explicitly not keep as the source analysis hasn't happened, but nor is there any indication this will be deleted even discarding the now blocked CastJared/ Star Mississippi 02:10, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Enga Veetu Meenakshi[edit]

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

Insufficient references, fails WP:GNG and WP:RPRGM, and WP:SIGCOV: Karnataka (talk) 17:01, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Actual analysis of the available sources, demonstrating either the presence or lack of significant coverage, would be helpful
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 05:35, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong Keep: It now have notable citations and cast, which are known. CastJared (talk) 08:24, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Still waiting for Rosguill's requested source analysis.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:40, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 08:33, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

PAC chart[edit]

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

Cant find any reliable references to this subject, this appears to be one researchers idea and not generally know Sargdub (talk) 06:03, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:36, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Nominator has withdrawn their nomination and even though one editor supports deletion, I think there is a stronger consensus to Keep this article. Liz Read! Talk! 05:49, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

UIC Skyspace[edit]

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

Not a notable sculpture, very few sources and references online. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Atomicdragon136 (talk • contribs) 03:56, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 June 26. —cyberbot ITalk to my owner:Online 04:19, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Visual arts, Architecture, and Illinois. Skynxnex (talk) 05:22, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the sculpture and fountain are a part of a major college campus (University of Illinois) in Chicago, and honor a developer of that campus. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:01, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - 10 minutes of looking revealed multiple independent secondary sources with in-depth coverage of the topic. Those are now in a rudimentary general references section. This artwork is part of a series, and other series members have been developed into decent little articles. Let me see what I can do to this one in an hour. -- DontCallMeLateForDinner (talk) 02:24, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I retract my nomination for deletion given the sources that were added recently. 𝕒𝕥𝕠𝕞𝕚𝕔𝕕𝕣𝕒𝕘𝕠𝕟𝟙𝟛𝟞 🗨️ 🖊️ 17:16, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The article states that UIC Skyspace is an art installation. There are not explicit guidelines for art, but compared to other artwork like Cloud Gate the sources do not demonstrate how this art is more notable than other art that rises to GNG. Multiple parts of the sourcing added are efforts to mask notability. For example, the statement Earl Neal Plaza, the site of the installation, is the site of the former Maxwell Street Market, home of the Chicago specialty, the Maxwell Street Polish. The broader development of the campus has faced criticism for continuing gentrification in the area. Contains an amount of fluff related to the unrelated creation of the Maxwell Street Polish and the broader development of UIC.--Mpen320 (talk) 04:16, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus‎. Liz Read! Talk! 07:57, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bibriti Chatterjee[edit]

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

There isn't much coverage in unbiased secondary sources. In general, TOI is unreliable when discussing films and the individuals who make them. fails WP:GNG. DreamRimmer (talk) 02:19, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:19, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:25, 19 June 2023 (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! 04:09, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. I am satisfied that this individual meets WP:NACTOR guidelines. There are two roles in wikilinked movies that indeed appear notable, and additionally, I found reviews of a non-wikilinked movie, Ebhabei Golpo Hok in the Telegraph and the Indian Express, suggesting that movie may be notable. Further queries for more movies turn up more likely hits that meet WP:ICTFSOURCES. —siroχo 06:39, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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! 05:24, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Daniil Rzhevsky[edit]

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

Likely to fail WP:MUSICBIO KH-1 (talk) 02:51, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:22, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Article created by WP:SPA, sources are all PR/promo, social media, DBs, or subject's creations. A cursory search suggests subject would not meet WP:SINGER or WP:GNG. —siroχo 08:41, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. I see a consensus here to Delete this article. Liz Read! Talk! 19:08, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Forsight Robotics[edit]

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

I have checked in detail. The coverage is based on routine events, like funding rounds, etc. Some cited sources, such as TechCrunch, are less useful for the purpose of determining notability (WP:TECHCRUNCH). Plus, COI: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/TheWikiholic. US-Verified (talk) 18:14, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Technology, and Israel. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:19, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep::This is a perfectly acceptable entry with mostly fine sourcing. Cannot see any reason to delete.--Geewhiz (talk) 18:59, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The PAID is unfortunate, especially when it involves manipulation at AfC. It could possibly have been speedied based on promo ("The company’s strategic advisory board includes surgical robotics pioneers") or moved to draft space, but since we are here it needs evaluated for notability as AfD is not cleanup. References must meet WP:ORGCRIT to show notability. While many sources on the page are churnalism or routine announcements, there is this, this, and this which meet that guideline.--CNMall41 (talk) 19:24, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Jewish Business News article has no attributed journalist which is the first red flag. But the fact that the website is ad-ridden and spammy with no information about the identities of journalist or editors should have been an even bigger red flag. The smallest smidgen of due diligence should have spotted that. The Jerusalem Post article starts with a standard company description - the same you can see in just about every other article talking about how AI is being used, etc, etc - and then relies entirely on information provided by the company President. It has zero "Independent Content" as required by WP:ORGIND, fails NCORP. Finally, the WSJ article is a regurgitated press release about raising funding. None of those reference meet NCORP criteria for establishing notability. HighKing++ 21:00, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is a company therefore NCORP criteria applies. I am unable to locate any references that meet NCORP criteria for establishing notability. HighKing++ 21:00, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, and this doesn't pass WP:NCORP Karnataka (talk) 21:39, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:16, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete Most of the "good" sources in the Wall Street Journal are about funding announcements (the first one is better, it talks about the company, second one is mostly about funding), but that's about all I find. We have about 1 1/2 good sources. Oaktree b (talk) 13:32, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There is Forbes Council article, rest I find are PR items. We're still not quite at notability, the AfC manipulation (if true), is a concern. Oaktree b (talk) 13:34, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Doesn't pass WP:NCORP, no need to say WP:ILIKEIT and WP:WAX. CastJared (talk) 08:18, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment In terms of sourcing, Israel Hayom, Calcalist Tech, Ophthalmology Times and Wall Street Journal are all acceptable and non-promotional.--Geewhiz (talk) 14:23, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The Opthamology Times article talks about an institute in Belgium and a doctor at UCLA, in the US, neither of which deals with a company in Israel. Oaktree b (talk) 18:57, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 01:09, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Examined the first 14 references. They are very poor, typical of a company using its own branding to advertise its product, a mix of press-releases, PR, funding and partner and investment news, profiles and other routine business news from a startup. Its a company so WP:NCORP applies. Its fail WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:SIRS specifically. scope_creepTalk 10:28, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I am very surprised at the suggestion that something that might have been DELREASON1/G11 could not be deleted at AFD based on, if not that, then DELREASON 4 (yes, I do tag imo CSD/RD-able pages already at AFD, thank you very much), but leaving aside the discussion of whether we should leave PROMO junk in mainspace or whether our processes should be a suicide pact when met with obvious gaming, the quality of sources available is startling. Startlingly bad, that is. Like, say for the Jewish Business News article (which is also posted at Jewish Review, the admin of which at least apparently willing to put their name on it), what is in there? Going by paragraph, company describes, company declares, mention of some other unrelated company, company explains, copy of cofounder profile from about page, copy of other cofounder profile (same place), direct quote, direct quote. That, uh, not a qualifying source. Fairly transparently so, from just the text. Wouldn't be under GNG either. Alpha3031 (t • c) 14:00, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus‎. Liz Read! Talk! 00:59, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Livermore-Pleasanton Fire Department[edit]

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

Not notable. Doesn't have in-depth secondary coverage, by notability for organizations and companies; sources are just the fire department, news reports on the lightbulb (which has its own article), and run-of-the-mill local news coverage of the fire department. Also see run-of-the-mill. Mrfoogles (talk) 17:20, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:35, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: The article on the Fire Department provides a splash page for anyone reading on the Centennial Lightbulb. I do agree that the article overall is bland...but I think we could definitely do some work on it. After all, the page for one of Pleasanton's high schools is a featured article. BLITZKRIEGCAT (talk) 03:07, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 01:07, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. ✗plicit 00:28, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Danish Ali[edit]

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

Most of the cited sources do not meet WP:RS. The rest are trivial mentions. This seems an AUTOBIO. Saqib (talk) 16:45, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:36, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 01:07, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2023_June_26&oldid=1163432938"