Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 September 4

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< September 03 September 05 >

Purge server cache

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 23:26, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Talent Bizeki[edit]

Talent Bizeki (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 subject has earned at least two caps for the Zimbabwe women's national football team. I am unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage from third-party sources, failing WP:GNG. JTtheOG (talk) 23:50, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yet again, an American decides to choose to judge us Africans by Western standards. If you want sufficient in-depth coverage from third-party sources, then come and purchase our local newspapers that are printed and sold in the streets of Zimbabwe. Not everything we do is put on the internet. Mangwanani (talk) 15:01, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yet again, a commenter decides to choose to ignore the dozens of European and North American articles I have nominated for deletion in the past few months. I understand your frustration. If I find sources for these articles, I will add them. Unfortunately, however, we cannot lower notability standards for subjects based on their nationalities. JTtheOG (talk) 16:33, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I was making my way through articles being considered for deletion. You are lucky I didn't delete this and just recreate it myself. Your comments are inflammatory and unnaceptable. This page has been moved back into drafts. I'm going to let the original editor here decide what to do with it.
If you actually cared about the topic and not your pride as a contributor, you would've asked what to do so that this underrepresented topic (as you put it) could've been properly represented on Wikipedia. If original editor wants to move piece back to the article space, you're lucky. I won't be re-publishing it, but if another editor deems it okay to stay up while these problems are fixed I'll observe that decision.
Going forward do not speak of any group of people with such contempt. Faits1789 (talk) 00:14, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 18:59, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. GiantSnowman 19:01, 5 September 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! 23:27, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lyprinol[edit]

Lyprinol (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 blanked and redirected back in 2011, but term is not mentioned at redirect target. Not sure if a stand-alone article is appropriate, or if there is content that can be merged, or if deletion is the best course of action. Another possibility is to redirect to TVNZ#Conflicts, where it is mentioned. Mdewman6 (talk) 23:34, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Is it possible to Redirect this article?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:27, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment (as nom) Can a sourced mention be added to New Zealand green-lipped mussel (whether a partial merge or not) as mentioned by Chocmilk03? It seems like yes, and I would not be opposed. It was suggested this is related to PCSO-524 in a current discussion at redirects for discussion with link to a source provided. Conceivably, the best WP:ATD here is to mention both and redirect to the mussell article, as these terms both refer to an extract from that species. Mdewman6 (talk) 01:19, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: thanks Mdewman6 for the further comment; I've updated my vote to 'delete and redirect' (from delete). The page should be deleted and replaced with a redirect to the Perna canaliculus (New Zealand green-lipped mussel) page. I've added reference to that article to the TVNZ issue and that article also covers medicinal claims to an extent.
Medicine isn't my area of expertise but I've had a look at WP:MEDRS and think there aren't really any reliable secondary sources, apart from possibly the one 2011 literature review cited (and I'm not sure if that's from a reliable journal, but it appears to make the very reasonable conclusion that there's limited evidence). I can only otherwise find primary studies, several of which are funded by Pharmalink, the company that makes Lyprinol. Cheers, Chocmilk03 (talk) 03:35, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment needs someone with a medicines research background to look at this. The attached link seems to imply that there are papers from researchers that have been published on the subject - https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3163099/ NealeWellington (talk) 10:09, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Many (all?) of the statements in the text are either not referenced or mention experiments that are animal work or individual clinical trials. None of these meet the Wikipedia reference standards described at WP:MEDRS. This is an unproven dietary supplement with a lot of hand-waving and froth, without valid confirming evidence. David notMD (talk) 14:34, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The company website http://www.lyprinol-arthritis.com/ does not list any human trials conducted/completed after ~2006. Dietary supplements are not required to be effective in order to be Wikipedia-notable, but in my opinion as an expert consultant to the dietary supplement industry (retired 2020), this article - with no valid references - should be deleted. Any mention of Lyprinol or other green-lipped mussel extract products can be covered at [[Perna canaliculus]], with a redirect for those who search Wikipedia for Lyprinol. David notMD (talk) 18:21, 11 September 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! 23:28, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Doloonjingiin Idevkhten[edit]

Doloonjingiin Idevkhten (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)

Ambassadors are not inherently notable. Could not find significant coverage to meet WP:BIO. LibStar (talk) 23:17, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations, Mongolia, and Russia. LibStar (talk) 23:17, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, No other wikis have any other citations it looks like and I can only find mentions of the diplomat on google search. Looking him up in Mongolian might be more fruitful, though I lack the knowledge to do so. ✶Mitch199811✶ 23:30, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: this is one of Mongolia's 2 most important relationships and this guy has been in office 14 years. Will dig around for something.
--A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 02:20, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Doloonjingiin Idevkhten has an entry in the Historical Dictionary of Mongolia on page 415 but I can only see the first 3 1/2 lines of his entry.[1]
Other excerpts from Google Books excerpt show that he was also once secretary-general of the Mongolian People's Revolutionary Party; there have been 2 different parties by that name in the last 25 years. (See also the Mongolian People's Party which carried that name at one point). One of those parties is big, one little, which makes a difference for our purposes.
Officially, the biographical dictionary entry buys Idevkhten notability per WP:ANYBIO criterion 3. Just the same, we have to build an article and it would be nice to have more the small samples from Google Books.
LibStar did a good job with his WP:BEFORE search. I'm turning up bits and pieces but that's only because I know a bit about Mongolia already. They're little out there in our traditional searches. I'm not sure Mongolian media gets indexed much.
--A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 02:49, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think Doloonjingiin Idevkhten hasn't been ambassador for at least 8 years. The state news agency, Montsame, has archived news articles at least back that far and I had no luck searching for him in Mongolian. (I did turn up a lot of Greta Thunberg articles for some random reason.)
--A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 03:06, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Haven't you heard the Ulaanbaatar is going underwater from sea level rise? Golly, for claiming to be such an "expert" on Mongolia, you haven't even heard of the crisis of the century, even Genghis Khan would be scared.[sarcasm] ✶Mitch199811✶ 11:33, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I’m hardly an expert - just someone who had family there. They moved away which is why I missed those sea level problems. Good thing they moved!
—A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 12:48, 5 September 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 ‎ speedied G5 by User:Girth Summit. Bearcat (talk) 16:46, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Saleem Choudhary[edit]

Saleem Choudhary (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 appear to meet WP:GNG or WP:NBIO. The Global Kashmir source is a rehash of a press release, The Kashmir Despatch is a single-line passing mention. Two sources are for groups and have minimal or no mention. The final source is an interview in a language I don't speak, but interviews are generally iffy for notability and the context isn't directly about the person, but seems to be a political piece to boast of projects from the party in power (where they are a youth group leader). Several aspects of their career are unsourced. Ravensfire (talk) 23:15, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politicians, and India. Ravensfire (talk) 23:15, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Delete Part of the Youth Wing and other jobs mentioned seem trivial, I'm not seeing notability on that alone. Typical puffy article we've seen time and again here, long way from GNG. Oaktree b (talk) 23:45, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Delete This article does not satisfy GNG. It is currently undersourced and unremarkable. Sheeredit3 (talk) 14:12, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. Liz Read! Talk! 23:45, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ousmane N'Diaye (basketball)[edit]

Ousmane N'Diaye (basketball) (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)

Reviewed during new page patrol No indication of notability under either GNG or SNG. The only references are two brief coverage of draft items. Has been tagged as such since May 2023 with no additions. North8000 (talk) 22:19, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to see if expansion of article since its nomination helps establishes notability.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:56, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep I think between ESPN [2] and Sports Illustrated, we're ok for notability. I tried looking for coverage in French. There's a journalist and a rugby player with the same name, so no luck there. Oaktree b (talk) 23:41, 4 September 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, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Novel American[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Novel American (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)

band whose only notability is based on having two former members of Paramore, and they never even released music. Should be merged with the Farro brothers articles All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 22:51, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge as suggested, no charted singles, no awards, not even any music released. Oaktree b (talk) 22:55, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Tennessee. Lightoil (talk) 08:42, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I agree with the nominator on how the band does not merit an article just because two members were in a different band previously. Due to their lack of accomplishments, there is nothing to merge, and Novel American can be (and already are) mentioned briefly at the Paramore article. Also note that the first AfD for this band in 2011, which ended as "no consensus", brought forth some reliable magazine articles that covered the formation of Novel American that year. Those only happened due to the Paramore connection, after which the band could have risen above but didn't. Therefore WP:SUSTAINED applies too. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:43, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, fails WP:NBAND. Both band members with articles already have a section on the band so I don't think a merge is necessary and there's not a clear redirect option as there's more than one band member with an article. Suonii180 (talk) 15:04, 10 September 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! 22:55, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ATM Adaptation Layer 1[edit]

ATM Adaptation Layer 1 (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. Fails WP:GNG. - UtherSRG (talk) 15:02, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Technology and Computing. UtherSRG (talk) 15:02, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or possibly redirect to ATM adaptation layer. Adaption Layer 1 is not independently notable from ATM, which is the primary topic. A case could clearly be made to spinout the adaption layer subject from that primary topic, but there is no good case for spinning out adaption layer 1 from the adaption layer topic. Everything that can reasonably said is already said on the adpation layer page, and Wikipedia should be pointing to the technical specs, not reproducing them. This is an encyclopaedia and not a technical specification document. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 15:14, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Between pointing to a tech spec and reproducing one is summarizing a tech spec using authoritative and secondary sources, which is definitely in Wikipedia's wheelhouse. --{{u|Mark viking}} {Talk} 11:35, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      The summary is in the AAL and ATM articles. The question here is what makes AAL1 independently notable such that it needs its own summary article? Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:12, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect or Draftify: Plenty of secondary sources on the topic exist ([3],[4],[5]), so I think this could be an article if someone wants to put in the effort to write it. But the article is unsourced right now and not very helpful. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 15:21, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Refs 1 and 3 are about AAL and not specifically AAL1. The second ref is specifically about AAL1 though. I am unconvinced it is enough for a spin-out article though. It is simply discussing why AAL1 was required pre VOIP. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 15:33, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep A quick WP:BEFORE style search shows authoritative sources such as the AAL specs Recommendation I.363 (03/93). B-ISDN ATM ADAPTATION LAYER (AAL) SPECIFICATION, ITU-T Recommendation I.381. ATM Adaptation Layer (AAL) performance, and the AAL 1 LFB spec ATM Adaptation Layer 1 (AAL1) Receive LFB and Functional API Implementation Agreement and secondary sources such as Adapting Voice For ATM Networks: A Comparison of AAL1 Versus AAL2 (I consider this reliable for a brief summary description of AAL 1) and section 6.3 in the book ATM NETWORKS: Concepts and Protocols, Second Edition. AAL 1 is often discussed in the context of other AAL protocols, so a merger to ATM adaptation layer may also be a reasonable approach. But with good sourcing like the above, I don't see any policy-based reason for outright deletion. --{{u|Mark viking}} {Talk} 11:31, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The specs are all WP:PRIMARY and thus not relevant for examining notability of the subject. There is no doubt that an AAL1 spec exists. The question is whether it is notable for an article. So the sources you say are secondary are (1) ATM Adaption Layer, which is about AAL, and not specifically AAL1. We have an AAL page. The other is Adapting Voice For ATM Networks: A Comparison of AAL1 Versus AAL2 which is specifically a comparison of the two adaption layers when considering voice over ATM. That might be a good secondary source for something, but it is not a good secondary source for a standalone article of AAL1. More likely it would be relevant to an article about voice over packetised networks, or, indeed, about adaption layers. That is, the AAL article. I don't see how it provides notability of an AAL1 article. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 11:44, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The spec in this case is the result of a broad consensus among many parties and is very well-vetted. For facts about the spec itself, it is as reliable as it gets. You are simply mistaken--I never claimed the ATM adaptation layer Wikipedia article as a source. Both my secondary sources have sections on AAL1, about a page in the first and section in the second. These are reliable sources of information for AAL1. There is nothing in WP policy that requires a source to be solely about a topic, only that the source covers the topic. There is plenty of verifiable information in these RS (and likely others discussing ATM) with which to cover AAL1, either as a modest standalone article or as merged content in the ATM adaptation layer article. --{{u|Mark viking}} {Talk} 09:18, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as I think notability is demonstrated though it may be difficult to find online sources. Editors in this area may want to consider merging ATM Adaptation Layer 1 and ATM Adaptation Layer 2 into ATM adaptation layer but this doesn't have to be at AfD direction, WP:NOTCLEANUP. ~Kvng (talk) 13:34, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It is not for cleanup, but Merge is a perfectly good AfD outcome. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 15:13, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah but I'd rather editors do WP:BOLD improvements to stuff they don't like instead of making WP:DELETE their first stop. ~Kvng (talk) 22:42, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:17, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Not a clear consensus here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:15, 4 September 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 Mossad#Alleged operations. Liz Read! Talk! 22:56, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of Mossad operations[edit]

List of Mossad operations (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)

Propose merging into List of Israeli assassinations. Most of the operations listed on this page are covered on the latter page, and many of the links are redirects to either the larger assassination page or to the Mossad main page. For those bullets that are intelligence operations (eg capture of Khrushchev's speech), they can be merged into the main Mossad article. Longhornsg (talk) 21:40, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support merge See no issue with that. Pranesh Ravikumar (talk) 05:12, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Of the first dozen items on the list, eight do not involve an assassination at all, and Wrath of God (including the Lillehammer Affair) is so much bigger than a simple assassination. Also, the merge target is not focused on Mossad but on Israeli state actions as a whole. I think this article desperately needs a strong intro and expansion, not deletion. Cheers, Last1in (talk) 13:44, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi @Last1in:, the merge targets are both the List of Israeli assassinations and the main Mossad article. The assassinations should go into the larger Israeli assassinations article, and the Mossad intelligence operations should go there. Longhornsg (talk) 15:15, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I expressed myself poorly. I think that a list of Mossad operations in addition to the Mossad article is a good idea, and that putting Mossad-led assassinations only in the other list is not an ideal solution. Cheers, Last1in (talk) 16:32, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into the ultrashort Mossad#History as an unjustified spinoff. The suggested ATD target is not a good idea as operations do not equal assassinations. The entire domain is a mess so this will this not nearly solve all the problems. It would, however, be a big step in the right direction. Nominator also nominated Kidon. That's another step. Plus the Mossad article, internally, is also a mess. Finally, these lists of assassinations are very confusing! These are assassinations by agents of governments. Not just any Fooyan assassinations! gidonb (talk) 20:06, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. No merge either. "List of Mossad operations" is exactly the kind of list I would expect Wikipedia to have. Srnec (talk) 00:06, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The list suggested by the nominator is too different; the merging with the history of the institution itself suggested in the comments is even less tenable. Suitskvarts (talk) 12:55, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The proposed merge target doesn't seem helpful. Not all Mossad operations are assassinations. Not all Israeli assassinations are done by Mossad. I don't see any reason to merge into the main Mossad article either, as it would likely make that article overly long. Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 21:11, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge Far more information is already at Mossad#Alleged_operations. If it gets too large, it can be split off to a separate list. Dream Focus 18:27, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:01, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Two sections in the same article plus another article. I'm ok with the other section in the same article. The entire article needs work anyway. Longhornsg and Pranesh Ravikumar, can you live with the proposal by User:Dream Focus? gidonb (talk) 05:34, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Fine by me. Longhornsg (talk) 15:34, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
gidonb, were my words confusing? Please give the closer a specific article and section to point the article, too. It's still not clear what you want. Liz Read! Talk! 02:34, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No no, nothing was confusing. As you say, just making sure that the section is also consensual. The proposed merge target is Mossad#Alleged_operations. gidonb (talk) 03:23, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, that's exactly what I was looking for. Liz Read! Talk! 21:42, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This discussion is evenly split between those editors wanting this article to remain as a standalone article and those advocating a Merge with Mossad#Alleged operations. Maybe a few more days will tilt the discussion clearly in one direction.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:13, 4 September 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. Seraphimblade Talk to me 08:43, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ukrainian nobility of Galicia[edit]

Ukrainian nobility of Galicia (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 WP:Content forking of articles Ruthenian nobility and Szlachta. The article seems to be written in a very one-sided manner, with a clear goal: most of the nobility in Galicia had Ukrainian ancestry from time immemorial, i.e. from the early Middle Ages, and despite "Polonization" they always remained Ukrainian. This statement is, of course, fundamentally false, because the history of the formation of the noble state is much more complicated, involving a large influx of nobles from Poland, the ruthenization of nobles of Polish origin, the Polonization of nobles of Ruthenian origin, the influx of people from Romania, Germany, Hungary and so on.

The article, by the way, is based largely on the writings of Ukrainian researcher Lubov Slivka, who has promoted precisely this way of seeing the issue, which has been criticized by other researchers. Polish researcher Konrad Rzemieniecki wrote in his review of her work: Summing up the book itself, one can say that the author approached the research with a preconceived thesis and selected sources under this thesis. If one were to reverse the selection of sources and rely mainly on Roman Catholic metric books, materials of only Polish social organizations and interviews only with Polish representatives of the Galician petty gentry, one could easily show that most of the petty gentry were part of the Polish nation.

The article contains sentences that are downright false: Western Ukrainian nobles enjoyed the legal rights and privileges of other nobles. They had their own court system and unlike Ukrainian peasants were not under the authority of the Polish landlords. - suggests that there was a legal separation between Polish and Ukrainian nobles, which isn't true since 1430 when Red Ruthenia was fully incorporated into the Polish Crown. The elected heads of self-governing Ukrainian noble communities were called prefects. - there was no such office in PLC as prefect. Unlike Ukrainian peasants, Ukrainian nobles worked on their own lands and were not forced to work for the Polish nobility. They enjoyed their own court system and were not under the authority of local Polish-dominated courts. - again article suggests that there was a legal separation between Polish and Ukrainian nobles, this time in Austro-Hungary, which isn't true. In contrast to the Polish nobles who had owned serfs, the Ukrainian nobles did not experience economic losses when serfdom was abolished. - the article suggests that "wealthy noble = Pole, poor noble = Ukrainian" or that only Polish nobles were so evil to own serfs; reality wasn't that simple. These are just examples.

The article generally focuses on Polish-Ukrainian relations, we will not learn much about, for example, the relationship with the Austrian government during the partition period, the relationship with Russia, the Soviet Union. The position of the descendants of this social group in modern Ukraine, etc.

Moreover, the title itself is unclear. The use of the term "Galicia" suggests the Kingdom of Galicia and Lodomeria, an Austrian administrative unit. But the article focuses on the eastern part of it. Moreover, there is no mention of nobility, but rather of petty nobility. I believe that the article in its current state and in this view does not meet the requirements, those parts that meet the requirements should be combined with Ruthenian nobility.

Of course, the subject of Ukrainian nobility or Petty gentry in Galicia itself is worth describing, but not in this form and impartially. Marcelus (talk) 21:31, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The article uses multiple sources as can be seen in the sources, it is not based on a single source. Slivka is a reliable source. She is a historian at a Ukrainian university who specializes on this topic. She has written a lot about it, thus her works are heavily used, but other works are also used, such as John-Paul Himka, the Encyclopedia of Ukraine published by University of Toronto Press [6] and several others. If you feel that other reliable sources contradict her conclusions, feel free to also include them. Feel free to include additional information about topics not covered in this article, such as the relationship with Russia, Austria, Soviet Union, etc. (it is covered briefly actually, but can certainly be expanded). In other words, improve and expand the article rather than delete an article with numerous sources.Faustian (talk) 21:45, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As for the criticism of Slivka by Konrad Rzemieniecki. He complains that her work is focused on the East Slavic/Ruthenian/Ukrainian petty gentry of the Carpathians and ignored those of Podolia, who likely were of Polish colonist origins. It's a sort of irrelevant criticism with respect to this article. The focus of Slivka's work is the East Slavic/Ukrainian petty gentry in Galicia, not the Polish one that was also present there. Each group lived in different parts of Galicia. So his criticism doesn't make much sense. The scope of her work (and of this article) isn't about all gentry in Eastern Galicia but only the Ukrainian ones specifically.Faustian (talk) 22:15, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Rzemieniecki criticizes the fact that Slivka is actually describing petty nobility in a small area, when in fact the title of the work suggests otherwise. But this is only one element of the work he criticizes in his review, not at all the most important. The most important criticism is ethnocentrism and writing the work for a predetermined purpose, that is, to show that the majority of the petty gentry in Galicia was 100% Ukrainian, and in fact always has been. The article repeats this fallacy. This makes Slivka not reliable, and the article largely a historical hoax. Marcelus (talk) 09:22, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Each group lived in different parts of Galicia. So his criticism doesn't make much sense. The scope of her work (and of this article) isn't about all gentry in Eastern Galicia but only the Ukrainian ones specifically; This is what the fallacy of the article is all about. These groups were not separate, and their identities were complex. I am able to imagine an article Petty gentry in Eastern Galicia that would describe the subject honestly. But the current take is pure WP:NATIONALISM. Marcelus (talk) 09:25, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Besides, the article is pinned to the article from Russian Wikipedia: Шляхта королевства Галиции и Лодомерии и герцогства Буковина (Nobility of the Kingdom of Galicia and Lodomeria and the Duchy of Bukovina); which is completely different topic. Marcelus (talk) 09:32, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the article. It is well-sourced with sufficiently numerous WP:RS. See WP:ATD: If editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page. It seems like Marcelus' nomination is mostly about him disagreeing with what is written in the article. If the statements in the article are wrong, then they should be corrected according to reliable sources not WP:OR. The presupposition that the mention of Galicia is about the Kingdom of Galicia and Lodomeria instead of the region of Galicia (Eastern Europe) is absurd.Cukrakalnis (talk) 12:25, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Last1in @Cukrakalnis I disagree. The main reason why I think the article should be removed is WP:Content forking, it is an artificially separated part of the article: Ruthenian nobility, Nobility and the currently non-existent Nobility in Kingdom of Galicia and Lodomeria (or another version of the name).
The second reason is WP:NATIONALISM: Ethnic group does not stem from another ethnic group. This is a fundamental problem with this article. The article now conclusively resolves the nationality of the petty gentry social group in the area. Marcelus (talk) 13:52, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm... Taking the second item first: WP:NATIONALISM is an excellent point and seems valid. That would warrant a {{POV}} banner, not deletion. WP:CFORK is harder to evaluate here. Comparing the Ruthenian nobility article to this one, I don't see this as just a CFORK. Even if we can assume that Slivka is hopelessly biased and thus an invalid source, the depth of other sources makes it difficult to substantiate that argument. I remain unconvinced. I'm not saying that you are wrong, just that you have made a far strong case for NPOV (and improvement) than for deletion. Cheers, Last1in (talk) 14:38, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The rationale for WP:CFFORK is that it is an artificial separation of part of a socially homogeneous group (petty gentry) in terms of ethnicity/nationality which is completely anachronistic for that time. We can move this article under the name Petty gentry in Eastern Galicia and work on removing the POV. But in my opinion, the article is written so badly and the POV is so extreme that working on it would mean writing from scratch anyway. Marcelus (talk) 14:56, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree that the article is a case of WP:NATIONALISM. The article is literally called Ukrainian nobility of Galicia. There could very well be an article called Polish nobility of Galicia. Choosing to write about Canadians instead of Belgians is not a case of nationalist POV, so what Marcelus is saying regarding this is questionable. Also, considering what Marcelus quoted (Ethnic group does not stem from another ethnic group), I will say that specifying this sentence is a) rather tangential to what is being written about in this article or b) even worse, a case of WP:NPOV by Marcelus wanting to prioritize the Polish origins section as truth over the Ukrainian or East Slavic origins. As of now, both are equally presented in the section Origins. Both sections are presented with attributing statements, so I would not consider it as some NPOV text that must be removed due to it contradicting Wiki policy because it does not contradict Wiki policy as all potentially biased opinions seem to be attributed. Also, addressing the roots of a specific group is not necessarily nationalism - writing that Canadians are not descended from Belgians but instead from other groups is not a case of nationalist POV, so why would pointing out the East Slavic roots of Ukrainian nobles be nationalist? What Marcelus is saying is highly questionable.
I am more ambiguous about whether this is a WP:CFORK. This article is 40 kB, while the Ruthenian nobility is <28 kB. Putting the content of this article into the Ruthenian nobility would give the latter an overly heavy focus on a very limited region in Ukraine compared to the Ruthenian nobility article's scope actually being about far more than that. Either way, this article is rather informative and I see no reason for its deletion because its topic and content are notable and should not be erased from history or Wikipedia.--Cukrakalnis (talk) 15:52, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
even worse, a case of WP:NPOV by Marcelus wanting to prioritize the Polish origins section as truth over the Ukrainian or East Slavic origins; that's an obvious misinterpretation of my words, I never advocated for such thing. On the contrary, I object to the categorical, POV views, presented in the article, that the petty gentry in Galicia was purely "biologically" Ruthenian/Ukrainian. The truth is that it was mixed, with many families coming from central Poland or other countries and regions.
As of now, both are equally presented in the section Origins; this section is an exceptional POV. It contrasts the obvious strawman of "Polish historians of the 1930s" as preachers of false theses, with the position of "modern Ukrainian historians" who easily refute their theses. The conclusion is clear: the petty nobility in Ukraine has always been fully Ruthenian/Ukrainian. I don't know how one can fail to see the fallacy in this section.
I am more ambiguous about whether this is a WP:CFORK. This article is 40 kB, while the Ruthenian nobility is <28 kB. Putting the content of this article into the Ruthenian nobility would give the latter an overly heavy focus on a very limited region in Ukraine compared to the Ruthenian nobility article's scope actually being about far more than that; please read WP:POVFORK, and as I said there is little to be salvaged here. And really it's a fork of non-existing right now Petty gentry of Eastern Galicia article or something of the sort. Marcelus (talk) 16:39, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - This is not an appropriate article for AfD per Cukrakalnis's quote of AtD as well as AfD itself: Disputes over page content are usually not dealt with by deleting the page, except in severe cases. This is not a severe case. The article needs a lot of work and probably an NPOV tag, not deletion. Cheers, Last1in (talk) 13:41, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Per my comments above.Faustian (talk) 22:54, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting this discussions so that this overly long deletion rationale can be fully considered. Of course, as with all relisting, this discussion can be closed at any time.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:08, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge to Ruthenian nobility. GScholar/Books show next to zero hits for "Ukrainian nobility of Galicia". There is some referenced content here that may be valuable to merge, but the article's title and nom's comment suggest serious POVFORK/OR issues. Also noting no interwikis, even to uk wikipedia. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:44, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The problem with that, is that this is an article about a specific and discrete group - the ethnic Ukrainian gentry of Galicia. They have their own history and circumstances different from those of other regions.Faustian (talk) 23:04, 8 September 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! 22:57, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Flame Dragon Plus: Marks of Wind[edit]

Flame Dragon Plus: Marks of Wind (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 DOS video game. Natg 19 (talk) 20:30, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment : The Chinese Version of the page seems to have some sources, but I can't possibly evaluate them. ApLundell (talk) 20:39, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep This is a retro game with all of its coverage offline in WP:OFFLINE sources, and there is no indication in their nomination that the nom checked the relevant print sources of the time for reviews. The Chinese version of the article cites 2 separate magazine reviews, which leads me to believe there may be more out there. Until the nominator demonstrates they have checked Chinese gaming magazines indepth, I don't think the article should be deleted offhand based on a cursory Google search. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 21:33, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Nothing on Newspapers.com but the company website is probably worth checking for information if it exists. Timur9008 (talk) 16:01, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. I don't have access to these sources, but I found them through the "References" section of zh:炎龍騎士團外傳 風之紋章:
    1. 超級檔案夾：炎龍騎士團外傳 風之紋章. 軟體世界 (台灣: 智冠科技). 1997年3月, 95: 48頁.
    2. 蔡易霖、蘇竑嶂. 青出於藍，更勝於藍！ 炎龍騎士團外傳～風之紋章. 新遊戲時代 (台灣: 第三波文化事業). 1998年3月, 57: 166頁.
    3. 鄭博文、曾克博. 退步？進步？ 炎龍騎士團外傳～風之紋章. 遊戲世界 (台灣: 智冠科技). 1998年3月, 165: 165頁.
    4. 蔡易霖、蘇竑嶂. 青出於藍，更勝於藍！ 炎龍騎士團外傳～風之紋章. 新遊戲時代 (台灣: 第三波文化事業). 1998年3月, 57: 164頁.
    5. 軟體世界 (台灣: 智冠科技). 1998年3月, 108.
    6. 新遊戲時代 (台灣: 第三波文化事業). 1998年4月, 58: 48頁.
    7. 遊戲世界 (台灣: 智冠科技). 1998年4月, 165: 18頁.
    From Google Translate:
    1. Super Folder: Flame Dragon Plus: Marks of Wind. Software World (Taiwan: Zhiguan Technology). March 1997, 95: 48 pages.
    2. Cai Yilin, Su Hongzhang. Green out of blue, better than blue! Flame Dragon Plus: Marks of Wind. New Game Era (Taiwan: Third Wave Cultural Enterprise). March 1998, 57: 166.
    3. Zheng Bowen, Zeng Kebo. Regression? progress? Flame Dragon Plus: Marks of Wind. Game World (Taiwan: Zhiguan Technology). March 1998, 165: 165 pages.
    4. Cai Yilin, Su Hongzhang. Green out of blue, better than blue! Flame Dragon Plus: Marks of Wind. New Game Era (Taiwan: Third Wave Cultural Enterprise). March 1998, 57: 164.
    5. Software World (Taiwan: Zhiguan Technology). March 1998, 108.
    6. The New Game Era (Taiwan: The Third Wave Cultural Enterprise). April 1998, 58: 48 pages.
    7. Game World (Taiwan: Zhiguan Technology). April 1998, 165: 18 pages.
    These are magazine articles that have reviewed the computer game. From the "Reception" section:

    電玩雜誌《CGW》中文版認為《炎龍騎士團外傳》在劇情結構、配樂品質有著不錯的表現，[3]但是在創新度與前作《炎龍騎士團2》相比無太大變化，且有遊戲存檔方面的臭蟲、程式的人工智慧不佳、操作手冊編寫有錯誤等問題，[4]整體表現僅給予五顆星中的兩顆星評價。[3] 而《新遊戲時代》雜誌則評析《炎龍騎士團外傳》有著華麗、不遜於電視遊樂器的戰鬥畫面，不過缺乏更新一步的創新內容，[2]整體表現拿下79分的評價。[5]

    From a Google Translate of the "Reception" section:

    The Chinese version of the video game magazine "CGW" believes that "The Story of the Yanlong Knights" has a good performance in the plot structure and soundtrack quality,[3] but compared with the previous work "The Yanlong Knights 2" in terms of innovation, there is not much change, and There are bugs in the game save, poor artificial intelligence in the program, and errors in the operation manual. [4] The overall performance is only rated two out of five stars. [3] The "New Game Era" magazine commented that "The Legend of the Yanlong Knights" has a gorgeous battle screen that is not inferior to a video game console, but lacks newer innovative content. [2] The overall performance scored 79 points. [5]

    There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Flame Dragon Plus: Marks of Wind (traditional Chinese: 炎龍騎士團 外傳: 風之紋章; simplified Chinese: 炎龙骑士团 外传: 风之纹章) to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

    Cunard (talk) 08:47, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. While not essential, it would help if some of these new sources were linked so editors could assess them to see if they helped establish notability of the article subject.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 21:54, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Liz: If I understand correctly, it looks like they're offline sources. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 21:58, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well, maybe some editors are familiar with these sources. Liz Read! Talk! 00:15, 5 September 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! 22:58, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Daighila[edit]

Daighila (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)

Based on a before search, not finding anything that indicates this band is notable. Fails WP:NBAND and WP:GNG. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:22, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:34, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep: [1] and [2] seem to be SIRS, but I'm not certain those push this over the boundary. CLYDE TALK TO ME/STUFF DONE 05:21, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think these are all that "significant". I didn't come up with anything better, either. I assume there's a language barrier in the way of searching but I've tried and failed to get around that. Their website and blog don't link to useful non-english coverage either. -- asilvering (talk) 20:58, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 21:42, 28 August 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! 21:47, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Very Weak Keep. WP:NBAND needs multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent of the musician or ensemble itself and WP:GNG needs significant coverage in reliable and independent sources.
I know we tend to like three sources, but that's not a rule. I think:
  1. https://www.nme.com/en_asia/news/music/malaysian-screamo-act-daighila-return-with-two-new-singles-announce-new-album-3162603; in NME and
  2. https://uniteasia.org/se-asia-rule-bands-like-daighila-2-new-tracks-now-malaysia/ in the notable publication Unite Asia
Technically passes the criteria. Weakly. It's not great. It's probably less than what I see others tending to want, but our job is to share our interpretation of the guidelines and my interpretation is that in the weakest possible sense, the criteria is met. CT55555(talk) 01:42, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I have reviewed the sources and, in my view, two sources of the quality cited by CT55555 are insufficient to confer notability. The sources fall on the edge of triviality, and the small number makes the case for notability weaker. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 02:15, 10 September 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. Claims of a lack of available source material were not refuted. Seraphimblade Talk to me 08:44, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mitchell A. Dubow[edit]

Mitchell A. Dubow (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)

Subject does not meet WP:GNG or WP:JUDGE as a former lawyer and judge of a non-statewide court. Let'srun (talk) 15:46, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Subject defended the rights of alleged communists before the House Un-American Activities Committee just as McCarthyism was emerging; his presence on Wikipedia helps researchers realize the extent of HUAC/McCarthyist efforts. I have updated the entry with further details that demonstrate so - Aboudaqn (talk) 18:36, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Aboudaqn These are all primary sources though, as far as I can tell? I'm finding a lot of glancing mentions in the Minneapolis star and tribune for him but nothing that looks like significant coverage. "Mitchell Dubow McCarthy" isn't turning up any promising secondary sources. -- asilvering (talk) 21:25, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 19:12, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I only turn up primary sources based on my WP:BEFORE, none of which seem to have significant coverage. If someone has access to local papers in Baltimore or Minnesota, there might be more coverage there. Ping me if sources are found. Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 21:31, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:10, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Added further detail that establishes Dubow as a champion of promoting civil rights against loyalty oaths and disabilities, along with legacy of contribution cited by US District Court Judge Donovan W. Frank Aboudaqn (talk) 19:38, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. Plese re-review the article given its recent expansion
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 21:35, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The added sources all appear to be routine coverage to me. The WaPo article merely lists Dubow as one of several people who opposed a specific bill in Maryland. The citations to various cases don't actually give any information about him other than "Dubow participated as a lawyer in this case." The same goes for the HUAC source, where he represented a person interviewed by the committee. (If he himself had been interviewed, it might warrant inclusion). In sum, the sources added and already existing add up to "lawyer does lawyering." There is still not enough SIGCOV here for me to say he meets GNG. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 16:26, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for lack of demonstrated notability. Source #6 (NYT) is a non-significant one-sentence mention. Source #11 is non-significant two-sentence mention. Source #13 is a non-significant one-sentence mention. Sources #1, #2, #5, #7, #8, #9, #10, and #12 are primary sources and do not contribute to notability. I was not able to access sources #3 and #4 (Washington Post), but even at the greatest depth, they combined would be one source and would not be sufficient to demonstrate notability for the article subject. All source numbers are from the references section of the current version (permalink). Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 02:26, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. Being an elected official usually establishes notability to some degree. NYC Guru (talk) 07:16, 12 September 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. As this is due to lack of participation, there is no prejudice against speedy renomination. Seraphimblade Talk to me 08:46, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

RouteNote[edit]

AfDs for this article:
RouteNote (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)

Sourcing not improved since the previous two nominations. Sources are either press releases, not significant coverage, or a bunch of quotes from the founder and hence not independent content. Consider salting so we don't end up here yet again. * Pppery * it has begun... 19:08, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: A "bunch of quotes" that a journalist felt should be reported in the coverage isn't the same as an interview. The only two sources I see in the current list of sources that might pass GNG are this from CornwallLive and to a lesser extent this from Business Cornwall. The sourcing in this version, as well as the prose, are different from the previously deleted version, which is why I declined the G4 speedy deletion proposal. ~Anachronist (talk) 19:58, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Companies, and England. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 20:05, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The existing sources fail GNG/NCORP - articles that rely entirely on interviews/quotations without the journalist providing their own opinion/analysis/fact checking/etc fails WP:ORGIND. That said, the Music Distribution Market has been covered by analyst reports and the topic company has been listed as being featured. Analyst reports meet GNG/NCORP criteria for establishing notability. Here's a report from Market Research Guru which covers the topic company in detail at section 9.14. Here's another from Adroit Market Research which includes a section in Chapter 9. HighKing++ 20:59, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Two previous AFDs closed as Delete but HighKing, who rarely advocates Keep, is doing so that is worth another week of consideration.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:12, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hi, was away so only responding now. I have not read the sections on the topic company in those reports - they are paywalled. Analyst reports can either provide short brief mentions of companies in a marketplace (which may be too short or generic for the purposes of establishing notability), or they produce a section on each company which is usually accompanied by an analysis of their offering and positioning. In both examples, a section on the company is included as you can see from the Table of Contents. There is also a report from Allied Market Research which also includes a chapter. I'm happy to stick with my !vote on the basis that the analyst reports exist and I expect them to be sufficiently independent and in-depth, purely based on my experience with analyst reports in the past. HighKing++ 11:39, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 21:34, 4 September 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 Liscannor#John P. Holland Centre. Rough consensus that the article should not exist in mainspace. (non-admin closure) Alpha3031 (t • c) 13:32, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

John P. Holland Centre[edit]

John P. Holland Centre (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)

Small/private non-notable museum. There is no indication that this museum meets WP:SIGCOV or WP:ORG. The sources we have (and, it seems, the only sources that are available at all) are blog/forum posts, the subject's own (dead?) website, perhaps(?) an undetermined/fleeting mention in a podcast and a phone-book style directory entry. A Google search, for example, returns only directory-style entries. And nothing covering the subject in any depth at all. As discussed on the article's talkpage, the only claims to notability seem to be that the person that it covers is notable. And that the road/drive on which it sits is also named for that person. Both or which fall under WP:NOTINHERITED. While the topic could, perhaps, be covered at Liscannor#Points_of_interest or John_Philip_Holland#Memorial, I personally don't support such a redirect. As either seems arbitrary. Guliolopez (talk) 18:55, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect to Liscannor#John P. Holland Centre. I'm fascinated by submarines and John Philip Holland is one of the most important historical figures. Therefore I'd love to save this article but this little museum is just not notable. We should have a redirect since people might search for this museum.
--A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 23:21, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,   ArcAngel   (talk) 21:27, 4 September 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! 23:03, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Viossa[edit]

Viossa (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 is about a conlang that does not appear to pass WP:GNG. The article's references are either primary (LCC8, Korohtella, Davi Hanu, K'Slucj) or otherwise unusable (Wiktionary is user-edited, Langstuff is a self-published blog by someone with "no formal linguistic training or education of any kind or level", HCC times is a blog post by an undergraduate, the Shane Nichols source appears to be a class paper as no article by that name has ever appeared in the journal Syntax, and Frzzl is the page creator's personal website). The only potentially usable source is from the Language Museum, but that alone isn't enough for notability and I cannot find other independent discussion. ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him)Talk to Me! 21:16, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Having written the article, I don't intent to !vote on this, but thanks for the nomination; I'm leaving a comment to just denote I'm aware of it and will watch its progression. On that note I'd like to apologise for the sourcing of it; I wasn't aware of much of the policy at the time.  Frzzl  talk; contribs  23:29, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Question, would it be possible to have this article be moved to the Draft namespace rather than deletion? AmberWing1352 (talk) 03:32, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It could be possible if enough people vote to draftify. If its deleted, the venue for that would be WP:RFU. I'll just say that I think it's unlikely a draft could be turned into an article given how scarce the sourcing is. ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him)Talk to Me! 11:27, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I meant that perhaps draftifying could give time for a secondary source to have said something, even if it’s unlikely. AmberWing1352 (talk) 00:12, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify - I really like this article. It's well-written and encyclopaedic. The problem is that I can't find any way to stretch WP:GNG's WP:SIGCOV to justify it as a mainspace article at this time. I would recommend moving to the primary editor's draftspace and watching for the conpidgen to be cited in academic papers, which I think may be likely over time. Cheers, Last1in (talk) 14:12, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify - If keeping the article is not possible, then I agree with User:Last1in that it would be best to draftify until mentioned in a secondary, academic paper. AmberWing1352 (talk) 00:16, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Refine -- I think it's somewhat hasty to jump to deletion.
Included in the article is a link to a Conlang Critic video about Viossa, which I think on its own might satisfy GNG, though I wonder what the others would think. In my opinion it's a mistake to ignore this source both as the author of the article and as a critic of it. It is a well-formatted video essay a bit over half an hour in length, by an author whose main draw is their analysis and criticism of constructed languages. The video essay features interviews (disclosure: I am interviewed in the video), but it is clearly in-depth, thoughtfully-curated, and public coverage of the topic from outside its immediate community. Perhaps some of the sources cited throughout the article could be linked to information in this video rather than to primary sources, or the others that are less usable like the Nichols paper (which, by the way, is also thoughtfully written even if it is clearly not from an academic journal called Syntax).
Other sources could be moved around, for instance, the source given for the flag need not be the source used in this article as it is also present on Vikoli.org, which has no affiliation with Frzzl, although it is a primary source relative to the topic. Nikomikodjin (talk) 21:52, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The Conlang Critic video absolutely does not satisfy WP:GNG. A YouTube video is no different than a blog or other self-published sources per WP:SPS - If Misali is a proven subject-matter expert whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications then there could feasibly be an argument that it's reliable, but a single source isn't going to be enough to satisfy WP:GNG anyway. As far as moving sources around goes, we can do that all we want and there still wouldn't be enough significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him)Talk to Me! 06:47, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I see your point! I believe it's worth investigating whether we can consider jan Misali a subject-matter expert at the very least, and I think it should be taken into consideration that Conlanging is an already somewhat obscure art form, one for which it is often difficult to find the same kind of non-SP sourcing that WP's guidelines demand. The current sourcing certainly doesn't meet that standard, especially with the understanding that self-published sources are central to the issue. However, I wonder if someone from the Conlang WikiProject would be willing to offer some other thoughts: Conlangs are a somewhat specialized domain and what qualifies for notability within that domain is possibly different from general notability—perhaps precedent exists for some reasonable exception to be applicable, even if the article doesn't pass WP:GNG.
At any rate, being a member of the community in question, it's most likely best if I let others continue. I will eagerly await the results of this discussion. Nikomikodjin (talk) 06:15, 9 September 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. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 22:51, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of films featuring the destruction of art and cultural heritage[edit]

List of films featuring the destruction of art and cultural heritage (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)

Yet another indiscriminate, unsourced list of works of fiction or fictional things that fails WP:LISTN. Deprodder cited the equivalent real-world list List of destroyed heritage, but that does not address the concerns about WP:IPC. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 21:15, 4 September 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! 23:13, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jelena Jensen[edit]

Jelena Jensen (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:ENT. references are rely on primary sources ‍~ 𝕂𝕒𝕡𝕦𝕕𝕒𝕟 ℙ𝕒ş𝕒 (inbox - contribs) 19:01, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:21, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and California. • Gene93k (talk) 20:22, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Unless she's branched out into musical theatre [7], there is no coverage, outside of the titillating coverage here [8] or [9]. Bustle is semi-reliable, but knowing what her fave lubricant is, doesn't really build GNG I'm afraid. Name drop here [10], and here [11]. Ok none are GNG, this is just a fun thing to google. Oaktree b (talk) 23:10, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, pun intended. Oaktree b (talk) 23:10, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have one interview in Vice [12]. I feel with a few other half decent sources it would be a weak keep. Oaktree b (talk) 23:16, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
AVN is still listed by sourcebot as reliable, but I was under the impression it didn't count towards notability? With the Vice and the AVN sources in the article, I'd give this a weak keep, IF AVN counts as a RS. Oaktree b (talk) 23:21, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • The main factor in AVN coverage is independence of the coverage, especially who is speaking. I see 3 citations: 1. a non-independent awards roster, also failing depth of coverage; 2. an interview, thus a primary source; 3. article about site relaunch: substantially based on what the subject says and replete with the hallmarks of a repackaged press release. All three fail the independence test. • Gene93k (talk) 01:57, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Delete for me then, based on the explanation above. Oaktree b (talk) 13:41, 5 September 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. No prejudice against speedy renomination. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 22:50, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Midaircondo[edit]

Midaircondo (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)

Page as is does not support notability, and I didn't find anything additional. Could be a matter of not having access to the right archives, so hopefully someone who does can give this a more definitive look. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 10:24, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:43, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 16:03, 28 August 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! 18:56, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep. I think WP:NBAND#C1 or WP:NBAND#C4 or both are likely met with sources we have in sv:Midaircondo and here on en. It's a bit hard to evaluate reliability of some of them as it's been 10+ years and I'm going through Google Translate, so I am not 100% sure. But, there's pretty broad coverage. Some of it is interspersed with interviews, but many of those seem to independently confirm facts without relying on the interview, and many also provide secondary analysis that doesn't come from the interviews. —siroχo 21:34, 4 September 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! 23:15, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bilgé Ögün Bassani[edit]

Bilgé Ögün Bassani (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. Fails WP:GNG. - UtherSRG (talk) 15:09, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

*Redirect to Association François-Xavier Bagnoud. Subject lacks in-depth coverage to meet the WP:NBASIC threshold. MrsSnoozyTurtle 02:01, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 16:23, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 18:55, 4 September 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! 06:30, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

RegexBuddy[edit]

AfDs for this article:
RegexBuddy (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)

Relies on only two primary sources and could not find WP:SIGCOV for the article Teancum (talk) 16:35, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already PROD'd, not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 18:54, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Software article of unclear notability, lacking independent references. Alternativeto is crowdsourced, not RS, and in any case only has a few sentences about RegexBuddy, not in-depth coverage. A search turned up no significant WP:RS coverage.Dialectric (talk) 14:33, 9 September 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 Koby Israelite. Liz Read! Talk! 23:16, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dance of the Idiots[edit]

Dance of the Idiots (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. Fails WP:NALBUM and WP:GNG. - UtherSRG (talk) 16:55, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Important reminder that, as is said at WP:ALLMUSIC, "Listings without accompanying prose do not count toward notability", and this album's AllMusic page has no prose. However, I did find a review from Modern Drummer which certainly does count toward notability. Didn't see anything else but my search wasn't very thorough so I'll leave it to others to decide. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 19:15, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 18:45, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, if it is to go then I vote to redirect to Koby Israelite rather than delete. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 13:38, 11 September 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 07:16, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thierry Devaux[edit]

Thierry Devaux (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. References are not WP:IS. Fails WP:GNG. - UtherSRG (talk) 17:00, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 18:44, 4 September 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! 01:37, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Romeo Diaz[edit]

Romeo Diaz (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. Fails WP:GNG. - UtherSRG (talk) 17:05, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. The subject passes Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Basic criteria, which says:

    People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject.

    • If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not usually sufficient to establish notability.
    Sources
    1. Yick, Wing-yan 易詠欣 (2015-06-05). "黃霑拍檔 戴樂民：菲常音樂" [James Wong Jim's collaborator Romeo Diaz: Feichang Music]. Stand News (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2020-09-19. Retrieved 2023-09-04.

      The article notes: "戴樂民，一個很地道的中文名字。但甫見其真人，他第一時間問道：「懂得說英文嗎？」最後，他還是用半鹹半淡的廣東話談了大半天。他是菲律賓樂手的後裔，叫做 Romeo Diaz，四、五十年代在香港出世。那時，他肯定沒想過，往後超過半個世紀，竟然成為了香港人，玩了一輩子音樂，從少年夾band到獲得香港電影金像獎最佳電影配樂獎項，至今他從來沒停止過五線譜的人生。Romeo 在香港土生土長，喜歡這裡的地道文化，極享受到廟街食煲仔飯、聽粵曲。"

      From Google Translate: "Tai Lok-man, a very authentic Chinese name. But as soon as he saw the real person, he immediately asked, "Do you know how to speak English?" In the end, he talked in half-baked Cantonese for most of the day. He is a descendant of a Filipino musician called Romeo Diaz, who was born in Hong Kong in the 1940s and 1950s. At that time, he certainly never imagined that more than half a century later, he would become a native of Hong Kong and have been playing music all his life. He has never stopped playing music since he was a teenager and won the Best Film Score Award at the Hong Kong Film Awards. The life of staves. Romeo was born and raised in Hong Kong. He likes the authentic culture here. He enjoys eating claypot rice and listening to Cantonese opera in Temple Street."

    2. Lee, Shun-kai 李信佳 (2016). 港式西洋風——六十年代香港樂隊潮流 [Hong Kong-style Western Style - the trend of Hong Kong bands in the 1960s] (in Chinese). Hong Kong: Zhonghua Book Company. p. 129. ISBN 978-9-888-36642-2. Retrieved 2023-09-04 – via Google Books.

      The book notes: "其後 Romeo Diaz (即戴樂民，也稱羅迪) 轉做幕後，參與過不少電影的配 樂，尤其擅長為武俠電影配樂。1988 年，他憑電影《倩女幽魂》奪得第七屆 香港電影金像獎最佳音樂獎。1991年，他和顧嘉煇合作為電影《秦俑》配樂，再次奪得金像獎最佳音樂獎。次年，和黃霑合作的《黃飛鴻》又一次成為金像獎最佳音樂獎的贏家。"

      From Google Translate: "Later Romeo Diaz (that is, Tai Lok-man, also known as Lo-dik) turned to work behind the scenes and participated in the soundtrack of many movies, especially good at scoring martial arts movies. In 1988, he won the Best Music Award at the 7th Hong Kong Film Awards for his movie "A Chinese Ghost Story". In 1991, he and Joseph Koo collaborated on the soundtrack of the film "Terracotta Warriors", and won the Best Music Award at the Academy Awards again. The following year, "Once Upon a Time" with James Wong Jim once again became the winner of the Best Music Award at the Academy Awards."

    3. Muzikland (2018). Leung, Cheuk-lun 梁卓倫 (ed.). 香港流行音樂專輯101：第一部 1971–1987 [Hong Kong Pop Music Album 101: Part 1 1971–1987] (in Chinese). Hong Kong: Zhonghua Book Company. pp. 207, 323. ISBN 978-988-8513-71-0. Retrieved 2023-09-04 – via Google Books.

      The book notes on page 207: "羅迪洋名 Romeo Diaz，是六十年代著名樂 隊 Danny Diaz & The Checkmates 三兄弟 之一，他的音樂非常洋化，這是為何《向前 行》與 Maneater 幾可亂真。他後來與黃霑在電影配樂上合作無間，也很懂中樂精華所在， 戴樂民正是他!"

      From Google Translate: "Romeo Diaz, named Romeo Diaz, is one of the three brothers of the famous band Danny Diaz & The Checkmates in the 1960s. His music is very westernised, which is why "Forward" and Maneater are almost real. He later collaborated closely with James Wong Jim on film soundtracks, and he also understands the essence of Chinese music. Tai Lok-man is exactly him!"

      The book notes on page 323: "至於編曲的羅迪，也是首次跟蔡楓華合作，他是六十年代樂隊 Danny Diaz & The Checkmates 三兄弟之一，也是 D'Topnotes 樂隊主音 Christine Samson 的丈夫 Romeo Diaz，八十年代回流香港為 「EMI」編曲，他另一中文名字是戴樂民，經常與黃霑及羅大佑合作電影配樂。"

      From Google Translate: As for the arranger Lo-dik, it is also the first time he collaborated with Ken Choi. He is one of the three brothers of the band Danny Diaz & The Checkmates in the 1960s, and the husband of Christine Samson, the lead singer of the D'Topnotes band. In the 1980s, he returned to Hong Kong to arrange music for EMI. His other Chinese name is Tai Lok-man. He often collaborates with James Wong Jim and Lo Ta-yu on film soundtracks."

    4. "香港故事-音樂‧人間" [Hong Kong Stories - Music‧World] (in Chinese). RTHK. 2015-06-06. Archived from the original on 2018-04-28. Retrieved 2023-09-04.

      The podcast description notes: "戴樂民(Romeo Diaz) 是菲律賓樂手的後裔，四、五十年代在香港出世，是道地的香港人，玩了一輩子音樂，從少年夾band到獲得香港電影金像獎最佳電影配樂獎項，至今他從來沒停止過五線譜的人生。戴樂民與黃霑合作無間，為不少著名武俠電影配樂，如《倩女幽魂》、《秦俑》、《笑傲江湖》等等，屢獲殊榮。"

      From Google Translate: "Romeo Diaz is a descendant of Filipino musicians. He was born in Hong Kong in the 1940s and 1950s. He is a native of Hong Kong and has played music all his life. So far he has never stopped his life of staves. Diaz and James Wong Jim have worked closely together and composed scores for many famous martial arts movies, such as "A Chinese Ghost Story", "The Terracotta Warriors", "Swordsman", etc., and won many awards."

    5. Ng, Chun-hung 吳俊雄 (2021). 黃霑書房：流行音樂物語 [James Wong's Study Room: The Story of Pop Music] (in Chinese). Hong Kong: Joint Publishing. pp. 306–309. ISBN 978-9-620-44696-2. Retrieved 2023-09-04 – via Google Books.

      The book covers Romy Diaz on pages 306–309. The book notes on page 307: "戴樂民多才多藝: Romy Diaz 的中文譯名，原本叫羅迪，一九八七年黃霑替他改名戴樂民，因為「他是音樂名家，叫做樂民也算適合」。以下短文，簡介戴樂民的出身和才藝。"

      From Google Translate: "Tai Lok-man is multi-talented: The Chinese translation of Romy Diaz was originally Lo-dik. In 1987, James Wong Jim changed his name to Tai Lok-man because "he is a famous musician, and he is also suitable to be called Lok-man". The following short article introduces Tai Tai Lok-man's background and talent."

      The book notes on page 308: "戴樂民是Romy Diaz 的新中文名字，黃霑改的，因為覺得他從前在EMI當音樂總監時的中文名不好。羅迪，像Rudy，多過像Romy。所以將他 Diaz 姓 氏，截取首音，譯為戴姓，再音譯Romy做樂民。他是音樂名家，叫做樂民也算 適合。認識了戴樂民不知多少年了。幾年前他從加國回港，我就找他編樂，一直 合作到今天。每次都合作得愉快之極，而且不但廣告歌合作得多，電影配樂也同 樣得心應手，幾乎可說，沒有了他我就手足無措。 據我所知，現在戴樂民在廣告行與電影音樂界，都十分搶手。看見他的才 華，大受行家讚賞，我心中高興得很。因為他實在是一流人物，半點也不放過的 Romy."

      From Google Translate: "Tai Tai Lok-man is Romy Diaz's new Chinese name. James Wong Jim changed it when he was the music director at EMI because he thought Diaz's Chinese name was not good. Roddy, more like Rudy than Romy. Therefore, he intercepted the first sound of his surname Diaz, translated it into the surname Tai, and then transliterated Romy as Lok-man. He is a famous musician, so it is not appropriate to be called Lok-dik. I don't know how many years I have known Tai Lok-man. When he returned to Hong Kong from Canada a few years ago, I asked him to make music, and we have been cooperating until today. Every time I cooperate very happily, and not only cooperate more commercial songs, but also film soundtracks are also handy. It can almost be said that I would be at a loss without him. As far as I know, Tai Lok-man is very sought-after in the advertising industry and the film and music industry. Seeing that his talent was greatly appreciated by experts, I was very happy in my heart. Because he is really a first-class character, Romy who will not let it go."

    6. Less significant coverage:
      1. Coverage about his membership in the Danny Diaz Trio:
        1. Daswani, Mansha (1997-10-31). "A blast from the past: Mansha Daswani speaks to Danny Diaz, back in Hong Kong after an absence of 20 years". South China Morning Post. p. 70. ProQuest 1801955479. Archived from the original on 2023-09-04. Retrieved 2023-09-04.

          The article notes: "Together with bands such as Sam Hui and the Lotus, and Teddy Robin and the Playboys, Diaz was a household name on the local music scene as the leader of the legendary Danny Diaz Trio, which he formed with brothers Romeo and Rudy in the 1970s. ... Romeo returned to Hong Kong and has since gained considerable success in the Canto-pop industry."

        2. McHugh, Fionnuala (2001-12-09). "The interview: In 1969 Danny Diaz and the Checkmates set off for London labelled Hong Kong's hottest - ever act. Forty days later they had split up. Diaz, however, refuses to harbour grudges and is back crooning in the hotel where the success story that never happened began, Fionnuala McHugh tunes in". Sunday Morning Post. p. 54. ProQuest 2420333705.

          The article notes: "He's one of nine children and his brothers, Romeo and Rudy, played with him in both the Checkmates and the Danny Diaz Trio."

        3. Moore, Jack (1971-07-25). "Danny Diaz: Ready to Try the Big Time". South China Morning Post. p. 13. ProQuest 1549275226.

          The article notes: "Danny Diaz, leader of what is probably the best musical group in Hongkong, is making plans to get out of town. Danny, whose group, the Danny Diaz Trio, entertains a steady and completely happy clientele nightly at the Captain's Bar of the Mandarin Hotel, plans to visit New York and Los Angeles next month. While he is there, he will try to make arrangements to move himself and his two brothers, Rudy and Romeo — who make up the other two-thirds of the trio to the United States. ... Although the youngest of the three Diaz brothers who make up the trio, Danny is unquestionably the leader, because, as one of his brothers once said "he's simply the best musician in the family." And when you come from a family like Danny's, that is really saying something. The Diaz clan is one of those Filipino families in which everybody has a good deal of talent. Danny is one of nine children, all of whom show great musical aptitude. His father is a professional musician, too."

        4. CM (1977-12-11). "More plus than minus: Caught in the act". South China Morning Post. p. 18. ProQuest 1695949694.

          The article notes: "Comedy is a very special art and its best left to comedians. Danny and the boys are wonderful musicians and they can easily streamline this act and simply let their musical ability speak for them. Romeo is superb on alto, flute and organ, Danny and Rudy sing and dance with tremendous fire and Michael Sampson on the drums (the plus) element in the group, works at his craft with almost maniacal fervour. Their repertoire is varied everything from and lively A Certain Smile which Johnny Mathis, made famous to Send in the Clowns, Steven Sondheim's big hit, to Glen Campbell's Rhinestone Cowboy. There is also plenty of calypso, a disco version of Never Can Say Goodbye and a show-stopping rendition of First Time Ever I Saw Your Face by Romeo on the alto. This was an excellent arrangement along the lines of something that Ray Coniff might have done. Romeo handles all the musical arrangements and clearly does a fine job."

        5. Powers, Ned (1974-12-05). "The Diaz Dynasty". The StarPhoenix. Archived from the original on 2023-09-04. Retrieved 2023-09-04 – via Newspapers.com.

          The article notes: "Danny, the lead guitarist and super vocalist, Rudy, bass guitarist and vocalist, and Romeo, organist, pianist, saxo- phonist and flautist, are three of the sons raised by a Filipino family, whose household head was also a professional musician, They have virtually worked all of their musical lives in Hong Kong, reaping considerable fame in Southeast Asia when they won a contemporary music contest, The Battle of the Sounds, staged by Levi's in a football stadium, with $10,000 and trips around the world for the winners. They were known as Danny Diaz and the Checkmates in their contest days, ultimately became a trio which played at the Mandarin Hotel in Hong Kong from early 1969 until April of 1973. ... A convincing piece amidst all of this is Joy, by Bach, a fine instrumental built mostly around Romeo's work on organ and flute."

        6. "Danny Diaz and the Checkmates photo caption". The Guardian Journal. 1969-01-22. Archived from the original on 2023-09-04. Retrieved 2023-09-04.

          The caption verifies that Romeo Diaz was born in 1948 or 1949. The caption notes: "Looking at home with a rickshaw at Marble Arch, London, are Danny Diaz and the Checkmates, a Hongkong pop group on a visit to this country. The group comprises three brothers, Danny Diaz (19), in the rickshaw; Romeo Diaz (20), in shafts; and Rudi Diaz (21), right; and Domingo Tantengco."

      2. Fears, David (1993). "Fong Sai-Yuk (1992). Directed by Yuen Kwai". Asian Trash Cinema. p. 16. Retrieved 2023-09-04 – via Internet Archive.

        The article notes: "to the oddly disco-tinged scoring of Romeo Diaz, one of the film's four credited composers — he has done similar honors for Just Heroes, the Chinese Ghost Story's, Bullet in the Head, and the Once Upon A Time in China series"

      3. Wong, Chi-wah 黃志華 (2016). Chu, Yiu-wai 朱耀偉 (ed.). 香港詞人系列：盧國沾 [Hong Kong Poets Series: Jimmy Lo Kwok Tsim] (in Chinese). Hong Kong: Zhonghua Book Company. p. 139. ISBN 978-988-8420-29-2. Retrieved 2023-09-04 – via Google Books.

        The book notes: "... 的《雲飛飛》，作曲的是 Romeo Diaz (曾用的中文名有「羅迪」、「戴樂民」，是地道香港人，卻也是菲律賓樂師的後代)。"

        From Google Translate: "... "Yun Fei Fei", composed by Romeo Diaz (the Chinese names he used were "Lo-dik" and "Tai Lok-man", he is a native of Hong Kong, but he is also a descendant of Filipino musicians)."

    There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Romeo Diaz, also known as Tai Lok-man (traditional Chinese: 戴樂民; simplified Chinese: 戴乐民) and Lo-dik (traditional Chinese: 羅迪; simplified Chinese: 罗迪) to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

    Cunard (talk) 11:42, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to consider the sources discovered.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 18:43, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep since he has had sufficient media coverage and has won significant awards.
Hiphopsavedmylife (talk) 08:17, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per WP:HEY the article has been significantly improved with extra material from reliable sources such as thise identified above so that WP:GNG is passed and deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 00:01, 8 September 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 International rugby league in 2022. Liz Read! Talk! 23:16, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

2022 Pacific Rugby League Tests[edit]

2022 Pacific Rugby League Tests (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)

Following comment on original discussion that all referenced content must be moved to the appropriate article, I am reopening this discussion (in AfD as advised) as that has now been done for this page. CONCERN: Information here is just a copy of International rugby league in 2017 and has no unique information. Pacific games don't need there own page per size split policy. Please also see deletion discussion for Pacific Rugby League International. Mn1548 (talk) 17:50, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 18:37, 4 September 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 moot, speedydeleted‎. (non-admin closure) Edward-Woodrow :) [talk] 18:14, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

MapChart[edit]

MapChart (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, unnotable (Wikipedia:Notability (web)), and somewhat promotional. Edward-Woodrow :) [talk] 17:41, 4 September 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. Rough consensus that the expansion is sufficient to merit a keep. (non-admin closure) Alpha3031 (t • c) 13:32, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Blair Telford[edit]

Blair Telford (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:NOLY and WP:SPORTSCRIT. There appears to be a NZ police officer of the same name which could be him, but coverage doesn't satisfy WP:SIGCOV. LibStar (talk) 05:48, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete nope, doesn't meet criteria stated above. No sources found about this athlete besides Olympics references, and the WP:SPORTSCRIT concern above, delete. Tails Wx (they/them) ⚧ 10:17, 23 August 2023 (UTC) Eh, I think the expansion and sourcing is sufficient enough for me to vote Keep. Good work, Paora! Tails Wx 17:19, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Sports, and New Zealand. NotAGenious (talk) 11:58, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, only database entries found - fails WP:SPORTSCRIT as stated above. NotAGenious (talk) 12:00, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Clearly doesn’t meet any notability criteria. Easy delete. Go4thProsper (talk) 10:57, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep following expansion. Meets WP:SIGCOV. Paora (talk) 10:56, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Given the large expansion of this article, I've reverted my closure and am relisting this discussion. I'll let another admin choose how to close this deletion discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 16:47, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Starting with the first independent source: #6, 8–14 (The Press), 7 (NewsHub): trivial mentions Red XN. The 8 pieces in Taranaki Daily News covering his police career are routine local reporting expected for every police chief. Even if they were encyclopedic SIGCOV, they would count as one source and GNG requires multiple. Further, considering the extent of coverage afforded to other NZ bobsleighers in the same news articles that mention Telford, we have solid evidence that if substantial commentary on Telford existed we would have come across it already.
JoelleJay (talk) 17:43, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Joelle, I agree that his police career does not add to notability. LibStar (talk) 02:39, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Paora's extensive expansion of this article to over 13,000 bytes of well-sourced prose demonstrates that this article passes the notability guideline for people, which states under WP:NBASIC, If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; additionally we've got plenty of decent coverage from the Taranaki Daily News, which shows a pass of WP:SPORTCRIT, which makes no disqualifications for those which cover police careers (and several of those also cover his Olympic career as well), only for databases, which does not apply here. Pinging those who !voted delete prior to the substantial expansion and uncovering of sources: @Tails Wx, Go4thProsper, and NotAGenious: BeanieFan11 (talk) 17:13, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It doesn't matter at all how much an article has been expanded if the sources it uses are trivial or routine or not IRS. Have you even read the articles from The Press on him? The most extensive coverage of him is Blair Telford, 4m clear at one stage for NPOB, appeared to slow up at the line and look over his right shoulder and South Brighton's Anthony Dorreen nipped in the left-hand side to steal the gold. Repeating a hundred such primary recaps and prosifying event stats is not an encyclopedia article.
    None of the Taranaki Daily News pieces are about his sports career. If we were to go off the secondary sourcing that actually has substance, this would be an article about the administrative changes across four years in the career of a rural police chief. Should we also have articles on Telford's predecessor Fiona Prestidge, who has received at least as much coverage[15][16] for her own career transitions? Or Telford's successors? JoelleJay (talk) 20:57, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Per WP:NBASIC, If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; i.e. the sources do not have to be SIGCOV to demonstrate notability, provided that the sources we do have are enough to write a decent-sized biography. I wasn't arguing notability based on The Press sources alone, but them combined along with all the other sources, which provide enough to paint a detailed picture of his life and fulfill the purpose of being an encyclopedia. As for None of the Taranaki Daily News pieces are about his sports career, I would disagree; the first one I clicked on, actually has 200 words on him and mentions how he has returned to the pinnacle of world sports ... Telford, appointed area commander in January 2011, is one of a handful of New Zealand police working at the Games. He was a New Zealand representative in the bobsled at the 1988 Winter Olympics which were held in Calgary – of course, the coverage covering someone doesn't have to cover a certain aspect of someone's life to count towards notability, as long as there's a topic that's reasonably encyclopedic. Additionally, you state that If we were to go off the secondary sourcing that actually has substance, this would be an article about the administrative changes across four years in the career of a rural police chief, but there is no requirement anywhere that we must only get text from sources that cover someone in-depth – that's what WP:NBASIC is for. Also, on your point Should we also have articles on Telford's predecessor Fiona Prestidge, who has received at least as much coverage for her own career transitions? Or Telford's successors? – See WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST. BeanieFan11 (talk) 21:10, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    NBASIC does not accept trivial coverage, which all of the pieces from The Press are. Do you seriously think it's encyclopedic to write an article entirely from stats and rosters?? And the TDN article you cite has one sentence describing his time as an athlete--that is trivial. And the point of mentioning other police chiefs is to highlight the utter absurdity of applying your exact standards of coverage (and ignoring of NOTNEWS) to all subjects. JoelleJay (talk) 21:45, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    We're just going to have to disagree on whether the coverage is trivial or not, and that's OK :) – but anyway, collectively we've got several hundreds of words of coverage on Telford and some sources alone have 100-200 words focusing on him (i.e. more than that "In high school, [Bill Clinton] was part of a jazz band called Three Blind Mice"), so this does still in my opinion equal a pass of NBASIC. Also And the point of mentioning other police chiefs is to highlight the utter absurdity of applying your exact standards of coverage (and ignoring of NOTNEWS) to all subjects – I'm not applying the same standards of coverage to all of them; in fact, I would probably suggest deleting some of the other police chiefs if all the notability they had was holding said position: the thing is, were they all Olympians too? BeanieFan11 (talk) 22:19, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    And yet not a single source has anything more than a couple sentences on him about his sporting career, so why would it matter whether these police chiefs were Olympians? JoelleJay (talk) 22:12, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Because the Olympics is the pinnacle of athletic competitions and thus a topic on a competitor there is reasonably encyclopedic. BeanieFan11 (talk) 22:36, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    We have two global community consensuses that merely competing in the Olympics is not presumptive of SIGCOV and is not a valid guideline-based justification for keeping an article, and this is readily evident here where all of the newspaper coverage of Telford's bobsleigh and surf life-saving combined amount to ~150 words in contemporaneous sports news reporting. Presuming notability from being an Olympian when all (allegedly) GNG-contributing content comes from routine local coverage wholly unrelated to his sports career is not appropriate and predictably leads to a wildly imbalanced biography. JoelleJay (talk) 23:05, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    You're misunderstanding my comments: I'm not saying we should ignore consensus by keeping all Olympians solely for being Olympians; I'm suggesting that we should consider SIGCOV on an Olympian SIGCOV in accordance with SPORTCRIT and that the additional coverage can be counted towards NBASIC as explicitly called out by our notability guidelines (NBASIC). And this biography looks pretty well-balanced and high-quality to me – I'd say several times as good as the average non-medaling Olympian article; I don't understand why you try so hard to get the actually decent articles with some substance deleted rather than the many low-quality stubs that can't be improved. BeanieFan11 (talk) 00:04, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (e/c) Telford was notable under old Olympic participation criteria but those got changed a while ago. He's represented New Zealand internationally in bobsledding, surf lifesaving, and he held a high rank in the Police. None of those things by themselves make him notable, but when it's all combined, notability is shown. I suggest this is a perfect case study how WP:BASIC can apply. Schwede66 22:23, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    None of those things make him notable alone or combined in the absence of non-routine non-trivial coverage... There isn't a single non-trivial source on his sports career, so the emphasis on that is not DUE in this article. JoelleJay (talk) 22:16, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I looked into Blair and it also turns out that he also played for New Plymouth Old Boys Rugby (here) and may have represented New Zealand rugby in some fashion abroad - see here and here.KatoKungLee (talk) 01:05, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Playing for some old boys team hardly adds to notability. is a 1 line mention. LibStar (talk) 00:20, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per BeanieFan. There is certainly enough non-trivial coverage to pass NBASIC. Frank Anchor 18:11, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Here is the coverage of his sports achievements:
    The Press, "The New Zealand Team" (routine announcement/roster):

    Blair Telford: Aged 22. New Plymouth. Four-man bob, crewman, two-man bob, reserve. Former leading surf life-saver.

    "" "Chch women surfers shine" (stats):

    3. Junior: B. Telford (New Plymouth Old Boys), 1

    "" "Six from Canterbury picked for surf test" (routine announcement/roster):

    B. Telford (N.P.O.B.)

    The Age, "Experience pays off for surf team" (routine event recap):

    But the close runner-up in both the sprint and flags events was World representative, Blair Telford, from New Plymouth in New Zealand. Telford, 18, had never before competed at the senior level in the flags event, but missed the Gold medal at Ocean Grove by a whisker. In the sprint, he pushed Peters closer than anybody else has for several years and led him for most of the 100 metres.

    The Press, "Surfing" (stats):

    Blair Telford (NZ)

    . "" "Taylor's Mistake takes third at surf titles" (routine event recap):

    Blair Telford, 4m clear at one stage for N.P.O.B., appeared to slow up at the line and look over his right shoulder and South Brighton's Anthony Dorreen nipped in the left-hand side to steal the gold.

    News Hub, "Beijing Winter Olympics: New Zealand at Winter Olympics 1952-2022" (list):

    Blair Telford (bobsled)

    The Press, "Nine chosen for Calgary" (routine announcement/roster):

    Blair Telford

    . "" "Sprinter in bobsled team" (list):

    a leading surf life-saver, Blair Telford

    "" "Kiwis finish training" (announcement/roster):

    ...the reserve team of Owen Pinnell and Blair Telford

    "" "Caribbean Cup to NZ pair" (event recap):

    Pinnell and crew, Blair Telford, thirty-first

    So please tell me how these ~150 words of independent coverage, almost 1/3 of which are just straight stats/rosters with the rest exclusively from primary event recaps, justify the nearly 600 words dedicated to Telford's sports career?? JoelleJay (talk) 22:54, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have never seen anywhere that states that you can only get content for articles from sources that are very in-depth on said subject; that would make NBASIC–our notability guideline for people–useless! BeanieFan11 (talk) 00:07, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      An article should not give undue weight to minor aspects of its subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject. For example, a description of isolated events, quotes, criticisms, or news reports related to one subject may be verifiable and impartial, but still disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic. This is a concern especially for recent events that may be in the news. This is policy. Namedrops and passing mentions in a series of rosters/stats/recaps, especially when they're almost all from one newspaper, emphatically do not deserve coverage in an article. JoelleJay (talk) 16:33, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      • Competing at the Olympics and other major sports events is most certainly not a "minor aspect" of Telford's life... BeanieFan11 (talk) 17:10, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
        proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject. If we don't have IRS to support the importance of this aspect relative to other aspects, it is not acceptable to emphasize it in the article. If all the sourcing says about his Olympic appearance is

        Blair Telford: Aged 22. New Plymouth. Four-man bob, crewman, two-man bob, reserve. Former leading surf life-saver.

        Blair Telford (bobsled)

        Blair Telford

        a leading surf life-saver, Blair Telford

        with all but the second from one local publication, then clearly we do not have sufficient coverage to warrant more than a brief mention in the article. JoelleJay (talk) 19:11, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
        • Then that's an editing issue and not a deletion issue. But considering the fact that we have enough to write a lot of decent content based on independent, reliable sources, then that shows that it satisfies the quote you listed. BeanieFan11 (talk) 19:26, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
          Material verifiably existing does not make it encyclopedic. The fact that no journalists have written secondary prose directly on him and his sports accomplishments is strong evidence that those aspects are not noteworthy and should not be the basis for his inclusion in Wikipedia. The coverage of his police career is further too routine to contribute to notability, since it's standard for that position to receive such local human interest/announcement coverage. Plus even if it was SIGCOV, it's all from one source. JoelleJay (talk) 01:32, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
          NBASIC exists for a reason... but we're getting nowhere here, so let's just leave it to other participants to determine whether Telford is notable. BeanieFan11 (talk) 01:36, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
          Again, NBASIC does not apply to trivial mentions. Every Olympics source above is a trivial mention. JoelleJay (talk) 02:56, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
          The fact that no journalists have written secondary prose directly on him and his sports accomplishments is strong evidence that those aspects are not noteworthy - that is one very big assumption. And it's likely a wrong assumption. Telford had his sporting peak in the late 1980s. There is exactly one New Zealand newspaper available online - The Press based in Christchurch (online up to 30 December 1989) - that covers that period. That The Press doesn't have anything extensive about him is of little surprise given that Telford was from New Plymouth; that's not even on the same island. There may very well be lengthy stuff available for him; we simply don't know about it as it's a matter of going to the relevant library and searching through microfiche records. I would be very surprised if the Taranaki Herald did not do some in-depth reporting on Telford back in 1988. Schwede66 01:47, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
          Even if Taranaki Herald did have in-depth reporting back then, it's still only one (local) source. SPORTSBASIC is also very clear that GNG be met and at least one SIGCOV source be cited in the article for any presumption of GNG to apply, with no exceptions for subjects that might have been covered by currently-inaccessible sources. This has been the norm at hundreds (thousands?) of AfDs on historical athletes in the last 1.5 years. Without such a source we shouldn't be making any presumptions about coverage existing. JoelleJay (talk) 02:55, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
          BTW the Taranaki Herald and Taranaki Daily News appear to be different papers. BeanieFan11 (talk) 02:57, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
          I agree with Schwede66's analysis. Paora (talk) 03:38, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd note that The Age article goes on to say:

  • "Telford's tenacity exemplified the enthusiasm and determination of the World team, despite their lack of experience in Australian conditions."

    Further, I'd note that the article "Kiwis finish training" says:

    "...the reserve team of Owen Pinnell and Blair Telford finished five days of official practice runs yesterday afternoon and will wait until the draw for the competition is made this morning. It is now likely that the second bobsleigh team will be allowed to compete in the actual two-day competion this week-end after providing satisfactory results in recent days."

    Moreover, the article "Caribbean Cup to NZ pair" discusses in some depth the discarded third run of Owen Pinnell in the two-man bobsled event at Calgary. It should be noted that Pinnell was the driver of the two-man bobsled in which Telford was the brakeman, so that the following excerpt also applies to Telford:

    "Pinnell was bemused, the victim of a draw which, in normal circumstances, should have been of great benefit to him. Starting last on the first day, he bore the brunt of a deteriorating track and lost at least two seconds. On Monday, he slid down the track in a time of 58.86 seconds to record the fastest time of 27 starters before the day’s competition was cancelled. Yesterday, when the competition was restarted Pinnell was again first away in the field, but ironically the ice track was slower than usual at the start and his time was almost three seconds slower, a problem the first dozen or so sledders faced before the track began to get faster. Pinnell says this is one of the oddities that sometimes happens in bobsledding, and it was most unfortunate that it had to happen in the Olympics. He says that while he is disappointed in finishing thirty-first, he is happy to have finished where he did considering the track conditions."

    Paora (talk) 10:51, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    None of those sentences are discussing Telford directly, as required by SIGCOV. JoelleJay (talk) 16:26, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    That's your opinion; I disagree. Paora (talk) 03:38, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    What do you think "directly" means? Because it certainly does not include passages where a subject isn't even mentioned. JoelleJay (talk) 17:17, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    That's your opinion; I respectfully disagree. "Telford's tenacity exemplified the enthusiasm and determination of the World team, despite their lack of experience in Australian conditions" directly mentions Telford. The passage "...the reserve team of Owen Pinnell and Blair Telford finished five days of official practice runs yesterday afternoon and will wait until the draw for the competition is made this morning. It is now likely that the second bobsleigh team will be allowed to compete in the actual two-day competion this week-end after providing satisfactory results in recent days." directly mentions Telford and explains how he got to compete in the two-man bob main event. While the passage from "Caribbean Cup to NZ pair" does not mention Telford by name, it is all about the two-man bobsled team of which Telford was half. That all seems pretty direct to me! Paora (talk) 09:28, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I have just come back into the country and noticed this deletion discussion. Schwede66 is correct in stating that there will be more extensive coverage in national newspapers from the era about Telford that will need to be researched through micro-fiche. Even in a quick Google search he is still being mentioned in the media, Newshob ZB and Stuff for example. He will easily meet significant coverage, but this will require more time than I presently have available. NealeWellington (talk) 10:02, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    That sounds like a reason to draftify, because per global consensus his level of achievement cannot be used to presume coverage exists, especially when there is no single source of SIGCOV to meet SPORTSBASIC. JoelleJay (talk) 17:19, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep Good AFD nomination, probably a weak edge case at best regarding wp:notability but the amount of work done and sources found after the AFD nomination tips me towards a pragmatic weak keep anyway. North8000 (talk) 17:38, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @North8000, which sources do you consider SIGCOV? Whether the subject is notable should be completely independent of the state of the article. JoelleJay (talk) 02:18, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @JoelleJay: After an (only) medium depth look, none. So my pragmatic opinion violates the guidelines. I'm tired of people who can't be troubled to find and put in sources and instead do procedural wp:before whining at AFD. So when there is lots of work and source-searching and article-building done on an edge case article I tend to be biased. The closer should feel free to ignore me on that basis. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 02:42, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: JoelleJay has shared this AfD at Wikipedia talk:Notability (sports) Garuda3 (talk) 19:04, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is really good expansion. And it appears that there already exists enough coverage to write a comprehensive account of the subject. --Enos733 (talk) 21:54, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Enos733 I'm curious whether it would matter to you if an expansion was done almost exclusively out of trivial/passing mentions? If an article can be constructed out of RS, does the fact that the coverage in sources consists only of the subject's name in a roster or next to a bare statistic then become irrelevant? JoelleJay (talk) 02:35, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    JoelleJay, this is your 16th reply, and you've now replied to six out of nine who !voted keep. BeanieFan11 (talk) 03:26, 12 September 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. Eddie891 Talk Work 17:43, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Inkswel[edit]

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

WP:BLP of a musician, not properly referenced as passing WP:NMUSIC. The notability claim here is that he and his work exist, with no indication of any particular distinctions such as awards or chart success, and the referencing is parked almost entirely on unreliable sources that are not support for notability -- fully half of the footnotes here are to discogs.com directory entries, and then there's promotional content self-published by himself or his own record label, blogs and Q&A interviews in which he's talking about himself in the first person -- literally the only thing here that comes close to being acceptable support for notability (Flood) is a short blurb, not substantive enough to singlehandedly carry passage of GNG all by itself if all of the other sourcing around it is junk. Nothing stated here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to have better referencing than this. Bearcat (talk) 16:29, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Australia. Bearcat (talk) 16:29, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Lacking reliable sources to meet WP:NMUSIC. I note only 1 article links to this. LibStar (talk) 23:14, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Article currently fails WP:GNG, WP:NMUSIC. Further, it would seem unable (or at least very unlikely to be able) to satisfy any relevant criteria. In fairness, I found a 2016 album review and have added it to the page, but I don't see that overcoming the clear lack of notability. Cabrils (talk) 05:43, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Couldn't find much. Fails WP:NMUSIC. TarnishedPathtalk 03:07, 6 September 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. Eddie891 Talk Work 17:44, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thusanth (actor)[edit]

Thusanth (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 or WP:NACTOR. 𝙳𝚛𝚎𝚊𝚖𝚁𝚒𝚖𝚖𝚎𝚛 𝚍𝚒𝚜𝚌𝚞𝚜𝚜 15:52, 4 September 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 Republic of Artsakh. Please do not suggest a Merge or Redirect to a non-existent article. That's impossible for a closer to do. Liz Read! Talk! 23:19, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Azat u ankakh Artsakh[edit]

Azat u ankakh Artsakh (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: no reliable sources, only a single non-neutral primary source cited after two and a half years of editing.  —Michael Z. 15:35, 4 September 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 Sirius XM Radio channels#Former channels. Liz Read! Talk! 23:20, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Universo Latino[edit]

Universo Latino (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)

Subject lacks WP:SIGCOV as a defunct satellite radio station. No opposition for a redirect to List of Sirius XM Radio channels#Former channels, where the subject is mentioned. Let'srun (talk) 15:25, 4 September 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! 23:23, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dried vine fruit[edit]

Dried vine fruit (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)

Bit of a terminological issue here, but ultimately this should be merged with Raisin. BenKuykendall (talk) 15:17, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There may well be a better way to handle the overlap between these pages but deletion is not it. On one hand you say that dried vine fruit (which includes sultanas and currants) and raisins are synonymous terms for dried grapes, on the other you say that 'some speakers exclude "sultanas" or "currants" from the category of "grape"' (did you mean Raisin?). So the proposal to merge is taking a particular point-of-view. Regardless this should probably be a talk page discussion - not a deletion discussion. SailingInABathTub ~~🛁~~ 13:25, 6 September 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 14:30, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Khais Millen[edit]

Khais Millen (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 to meet WP:GNG or WP:FILMMAKER. He has directed, produced, and written several films that do not meet notability criteria. 𝙳𝚛𝚎𝚊𝚖𝚁𝚒𝚖𝚖𝚎𝚛 𝚍𝚒𝚜𝚌𝚞𝚜𝚜 14:19, 4 September 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 14:31, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Kelmendi[edit]

Battle of Kelmendi (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 seem to meet WP:N(E) or GNG, a search on google books bring zero results for a Battle of Kelmendi article is an orphan, none of the sources mention a significant battle but clashes, engagements or skirmishes that took place between 1624 and 1638 (already mentioned on the Kelmendi and Nora of Kelmendi articles) as well as content from a legendary folktale. No historical significance & no sufficient sourcing for a standalone article. Wafflesvarog (talk) 13:33, 4 September 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 Eldon Garnet. ✗plicit 14:32, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Little Glenn[edit]

Little Glenn (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 since 2004. No indication of notability. Only sources I could find were clearly copied from Wikipedia or just confirmed the statue's existence. Even if it's notable, it can't be sourced. Edward-Woodrow :) [talk] 13:38, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Visual arts and Canada. Edward-Woodrow :) [talk] 13:38, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Only found user-generated sources and sites mirroring Wikipedia, no secondary sources available. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 14:30, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The statue has been in front of the Toronto Police Headquarters since 1988 so is a fixture of the city. Here is a photograph of the artwork to confirm it exists in a prominent location. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:33, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The notability test for public art is not passed just by using maps or photographs to verify that the statue exists — it requires reliable source coverage about the statue in media and/or books to externally validate its social, cultural, historical or political significance, but none has been shown and I'm not finding anything else that would count. (And no, this isn't an "I've never heard of it" thing, either, as I can literally walk to TPS HQ from my home and have personally walked right next to this statue many times.) By comparison, the Egerton Ryerson statue at TMU didn't have its own standalone article until protestors tied ropes around it and yanked it down, and the Alexander Wood statue at Church and Maitland was long just two paragraphs within our biography of Alexander Wood the person, and didn't have its own separate article until the controversy about the BIA disowning it. Bearcat (talk) 16:56, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - and merge content into Eldon Garnet article. The sculpture itself is non-notable per WP:GNG, however it seems the sculptor is. Netherzone (talk) 19:34, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • merge into Eldon Garnet as explained above. No notability as a standalone article. --hroest 18:21, 7 September 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 13:31, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Siri Freeh[edit]

Siri Freeh (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)

Subject does not pass WP:GNG. Is a case of WP:BLP1E as the winner of a minor beauty pageant. Let'srun (talk) 13:05, 4 September 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 13:31, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Elissa McCracken[edit]

Elissa McCracken (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)

Subject is a case of WP:BLP1E as a winner of a minor beauty pageant, and does not meet WP:GNG. Let'srun (talk) 12:55, 4 September 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 DC Comics characters: K. ✗plicit 13:32, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Knightfall (character)[edit]

Knightfall (character) (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)

Barely sourced obscure DC comics character. All plot. Fails WP:GNG, search results mainly return references to Batman: Knightfall. Kleuske (talk) 11:44, 4 September 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 12:05, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

NWL Tag Team Championship[edit]

NWL Tag Team Championship (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)

Questionable notability - the National Wrestling League itself does not have a Wikipedia name, nor do many of the wrestlers who held the titles. McPhail (talk) 10:34, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Dime-a-dozen indy. No sources demonstrating notability. Not that the current state of an article has any bearing on the notability of a subject, as articles can be poorly written, but even a cursory glance via google only turns up the promotion's own website (by definition does not demonstrate notability) and a couple of statistical websites (also no notability conveyed, and those at even questionable as reliable sources as they are user-generated content and/or self-published sources).
oknazevad (talk) 03:47, 6 September 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 12:05, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

NWL Heavyweight Championship[edit]

NWL Heavyweight Championship (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)

Questionable notability - the National Wrestling League itself does not have a Wikipedia name, nor do many of the wrestlers who held the title. McPhail (talk) 10:35, 4 September 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. CSD A7 Liz Read! Talk! 21:15, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Harsh Vashishtha[edit]

Harsh Vashishtha (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)

Autobiography moved from draft after decline, fails WP:GNG nothing to suggest they are notable, zero independent, reliable sources. Theroadislong (talk) 10:52, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Theroadislong: Did you consider WP:A7? Jay 💬 12:07, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thought it would probably just be re-created, but you can suggest it of course. Theroadislong (talk) 12:12, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have now blocked the user and would be fine with A7. but I don't perform A7 deletions myself. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 12:20, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Tagged A7. Jay 💬 12:27, 4 September 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 12:06, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

John Spence (entrepreneur)[edit]

John Spence (entrepreneur) (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:SIGCOV and WP:BIO. References are profiles, PR and interviews. scope_creepTalk 10:05, 4 September 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. Mojo Hand (talk) 23:33, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Harmon Rabb[edit]

Harmon Rabb (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 fictional character. References is WP:PRIMARY and routine annoucements. scope_creepTalk 09:03, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Subject was the lead character in a popular series that ran for ten years on major networks, and appeared in crossover episodes with other shows. Coverage in non-primary sources clearly exists. BD2412 T 13:57, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Per BD2412. 🤾‍♂️ Malo95 (talk) 17:32, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per BD2412. Character was the subject of the backdoor pilot that spawned the NCIS franchise. Most refs in the article are indeed primary, to support the description of the character's story arc, as would be expected, but numerous secondary sources considered reliable for entertainment subjects exist that establish notability, e.g. [17], [18], [19], [20], [21]. Mdewman6 (talk) 17:44, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Television. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 20:37, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect to JAG. The only non-plot summary stuff is Harmon_Rabb#Conceptual_history - there's no reception (and the sources cited by Mdewman6 above are similar). Information on casting/character creation, without any other reception, seems to belong in the article about the show, but I don't think SIGCOV/ONEEVENT are met otherwise. All we have, really, is some TV-guide level coverage about which author will play this role. That's not enough IMHO for keeping this as a stand-alone article. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:01, 8 September 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 Gorillaz. Seraphimblade Talk to me 01:02, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Murdoc Niccals[edit]

Murdoc Niccals (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. References are WP:PRIMARY and profiles and social media. No real sourcing. Fails WP:SIGCOV. scope_creepTalk 09:02, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Leaning keep. There are multiple non-primary sources in the article, and the article subject breaches an unusual situation of being a "member" of a band with real-life popularity, and being an entirely fictional construct. BD2412 T 13:59, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge all Gorillaz virtual musicians to the Gorillaz article. The conclusion of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Russel Hobbs was to merge, and the same arguments apply here. It makes no sense to have articles for the other cartoon characters if Hobbs isn't represented. We should merge this topic and also Noodle (Gorillaz), since the 2D "biography" was merged last month. Binksternet (talk) 14:47, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment There was a merge on the other character article I reviewed: Noodle but it was removed later I think, between the time I first saw and looked at it again. I don't think the references are particularly decent. A lot of them are non-rs, significant numbers are profiles but in the first block there is not really any that is specific to the character. Some of them seem to referencing the videos. The band is quite old. If there was real coverage it would be present. The article was written across the 2020 so there should be significant coverage but there is not much in the first block. Ref 3 is a review which could be good but its discussion between band members talking about forming Gorillaz. That is probably WP:PRIMARY. scope_creepTalk 15:29, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Scope creep I don't see the merge tag? Seems it was just removed by @Rich Smith Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 01:56, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I removed the merge tag as it has been there since July with no discussion even started on the talk page - RichT|C|E-Mail 02:04, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Back: Talk:Noodle_(Gorillaz)#Proposed_merge_of_Gorillaz_with_Noodle_(Gorillaz) Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:19, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I notice there is now a Merge tag back on Noodle. scope_creepTalk
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Fictional elements, Music, Comics and animation, and United Kingdom. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 20:38, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge lots of primary and non-RS sources, and an awful lot not cited, which leaves mainly stuff cobbled together from press releases. Take that out and I'm not sure there's much left beyond "Murdoc is one of the Gorillaz and he's a bit edgy". BoomboxTestarossa (talk) 00:24, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Gorillaz I could not find any reliable sources that meaningfully discuss Murdoc Niccals. All of the sources that are currently in the article are either in-universe interviews or non-independent sources. There are a few about the band itself, but that is not enough to justify an article on one of its fictional members. ―Susmuffin Talk 03:01, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per SIGCOV issues. It would be good to revisit Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Noodle (character). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 01:55, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment' @Piotrus:, @Susmuffin:, @BoomboxTestarossa:, @Rich Smith:, @Binksternet:, @BD2412: Folks, I've put a merge tag back for the Noodle article at Noodle (Gorillaz). Can you please trot across and make a comment if your interested in seeing a merge on that article. Its seems to be functionally the same as this article. Lots of primary references, press-release, PR, profiles with no real content referencing to satisfy WP:SIGCOV and WP:V. Thanks. scope_creepTalk 13:44, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm actually kinda surprised there's so little out there; mainstream sources seem to have almost immediately lost interest in the virtual band as anything other than Damon Albarn's side-thing and the reliable cult type sites have zero interest either, so there's all this complex backstory across liner notes, music videos and press releases which only a nub of the band's fans seem to care about. I'd see no problem with them all having a couple of paras on the main band page but honestly can't see the sources for individual articles right now, and unlike some crufty articles these ones have a clear redirect title. If someone writes a book on them in a few years or whatever we can always put it back. BoomboxTestarossa (talk) 14:50, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I will look at it when I have a longer break in an hour. ―Susmuffin Talk 15:15, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The Gorillaz article is already lengthy, at 144,000 bytes. It doesn't nead five articles worth of content merged into it. Seperate articles make reading easier, especially on mobile where an increasingly large number of people access Wikipedia. Garuda3 (talk) 17:47, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Length isn't a notability criteria in Afd. scope_creepTalk 18:32, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It is a criteria in deciding when to split an article, and an article being too long is a valid criteria for splitting even if the subsequent articles wouldn't meet notability requirements on their own. Garuda3 (talk) 21:11, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. See also WP:PLENTY Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:22, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Would some sort of List of Gorillaz characters page be a potential solution?
That said it's difficult to see what really needs to be said beyond a couple of sentences about the fictional members of thr band, who are at the end of the day a promotional gimmick.
Murdoc Nichols is the band's fictional whatever player. He is sinister. [A couple of citable facts about his design or whatever from secondary sources]. Swish swish bish.
Dunno, maybe I'm being a bit churlish because I like the tunes but have no interest in art school mockneys pretending they're cartoon characters, but I don't see the detailed fictional history of the band being worth THAT much space when most coverage of them only gives it passing lip service. BoomboxTestarossa (talk) 19:56, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I !voted keep in the Noodle AfD finding some scholarly sources, but a merge to a character page may work out. My comment there: There is some groundwork to build a reception section from out there. The GScholar links provide a few hits like "'The Digital Won't Let Me Go': Constructions of the Virtual and the Real in Gorillaz' 'Clint Eastwood'" published in Journal of Popular Music Studies and the book Pop Music and Easy Listening, where Johnson spends well over WP:100W (an essay, I know, but a measurement I find sufficient) discussing the "techno Orientalism" anthropomorphized by Noodle on pp 18-19. Also "Virtual pop: gender, ethnicity, and identity in virtual bands and vocaloid", apparently unpublished, but worth scholarly analysis for a PhD thesis that has been cited at least four times, where Stark dedicates the entire Chapter 5 to discussing Noodle outside of the mentions in the greater discussion. Also, GBooks gives a good hit in Chapter 9 "'Feel Good' with Gorillaz and 'Reject False Icons'" from The Oxford Handbook of Music and Virtuality where Rambarran has a 1.5-2 pg section dedicated to discussing Noodle outside the greater analysis on Noodle's part in the song.
    Now, I haven't actually revisited these articles, but I recall them covering all the band characters fairly well beyond just Noodle. Food for thought on a merged band character list. -2pou (talk) 21:25, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge: Almost all references in this article are either primary sources or interviews/articles about the band as a whole, with only trivial mentions of this character specifically. Not enough to substantiate significant coverage. FlotillaFlotsam (talk) 23:58, 12 September 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! 07:18, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Benazir Sheikh[edit]

Benazir Sheikh (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:BIO, WP:SIGCOV. scope_creepTalk 07:29, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: She was in 475 episodes of a show referenced, surely this role is enough to pass WP:NACTOR. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DiwatyPhillipines (talk • contribs) 14:57, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It is a lot certainly and likely to make her famous in her host country. I'll see if I can find more coverage. scope_creepTalk 17:15, 7 September 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! 21:16, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WDID-LD[edit]

WDID-LD (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)

Another HC2/Innovate LPTV with no significant coverage to meet the GNG. Note that the apparent short history of the station is actually a bit misleading; it was actually first granted as the digital companion channel for an analog WDID-LP… but an article we had on that was deleted at AfD in 2020 for a similar lack of notability and coverage (and all indications are the history of only carrying national services, with no local programming, has continued). (Which thus makes this the third nomination for this station, as it was part of the failed bulk nomination of many HC2/Innovate station articles earlier this year; soft deletion is completely off the table here.) WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:31, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:45, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Doesn't pass WP:GNG nor any other notability criteria. Let'srun (talk) 14:13, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Please put this article out of its misery once and for all; no change from my 2020 rationale, and I would call this deletion evasion by the article re-creator since we deleted it at WDID-LP. Nate • (chatter) 18:55, 4 September 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! 05:33, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Uday K. Mehta[edit]

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

Does not meet the notability requirement; NBIO. Furthermore, the page was created by an editor who was barred due to their involvement in editing for promotional purposes, which contradicted the conflict of interest and notability guidelines. RPSkokie (talk) 06:23, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:29, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previously deleted by WP:PROD, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 06:53, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The one RS in the article is him talking about films, rest are tangential coverage. Oaktree b (talk) 14:10, 28 August 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! 05:43, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Seems notable as producer of various notable films and the sources, that are not great, allow to verify that. I'd say Keep. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 20:30, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete after WP:BEFORE, I could not find significant coverage of the subject. Whatever coverage there is, it is about the movies or other persons. The subject received only passing mentions/coverage. Fails general notability criteria, as well as WP:PRODUCER. —usernamekiran (talk) 13:52, 10 September 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 Ages of Man. Content can be merged at editorial discretion. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 14:06, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Silver age[edit]

Silver age (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 is slightly incoherent, completely unsourced, and much of the text is a rather non-encyclopedic summary of a Greek Myth where the phrase "silver age" is used offhandedly.

I'm open if other users with more expertise feel that there is indeed enough material out there for this page to exist on it's own, but I'd like to propose deletion and/or for the article to be merged as a blurb on the Golden Age article. A MINOTAUR (talk) 14:44, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Mythology, and Greece. NotAGenious (talk) 16:13, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Convert to a dab page and delete the Greek mythological details. Clarityfiend (talk) 16:52, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or merge to Ages of Man. There already exists a page Silver age (disambiguation), so changing this here into a disambiguation page does not make sense. Removal of the Greek mythological details would be a disservice to the interested reader, as in my view these are the basis for all other uses of the metaphor. I also don't think the summary is of any instance where the term is used offhandedly, but rather this goes back to Hesiod's story and what others wrote in the same vein. Sources are sadly missing, but these are easy to find in the respective Google Books and Google Scholar searches. I am not sure how much discussion there is of the silver age beyond recounting the story as in Greek sources, providing a basis for treating this separately from the overall topic, which in my view, is the Ages of Man story. But I did find some discussion in the papers "Archaeology and Hesiod's Five Ages" and "Lucretius and Progress". I would be happy to hear from those deeper into the matter. Daranios (talk) 15:24, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Oh dear, what a mess. There is obviously an encyclopaedic topic here, but the article is equally obviously not in a satisfactory state. The article Golden Age isn't in great shape either, and I can't help but notice that the capitalization of the titles is not consistent which isn't exactly a good sign. Our best option at the moment might be to redirect (perhaps both articles) to Ages of Man and expand there with proper sources, splitting the article in the future if it gets expanded to the point where it would make sense to do so. I'm not convinced that this is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, so it might make sense to move this to something like Silver age (mythology) and moving the disambiguation page to this title. At any rate: if this is not kept as a stand-alone page, the disambiguation page should include a link to Ages of Man. I'm open to suggestions. TompaDompa (talk) 22:19, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Turns out we also have a Golden age (metaphor) article, which is likewise a mess. Looks like this area needs a major overhaul. TompaDompa (talk) 22:25, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, there is a topic worthy of encyclopedic coverage here. The Hesiodic silver age might even be notable enough for an article on its own (as there are numerous sources which discuss the five ages), but it isn't necessary to question this, as what is found in Hesiod is far from an isolated example; see, for example, Dwayne Meisner's Orphic Tradition and the Birth of Gods, p. 270, which states that Hesiod operated within a wider context of myths of the ages and reinterpreted them to fit his own objectives, pointing to [e]vidence for earlier myths of the ages [which] has been found in Persian, Hebrew, and Vedic sources. Meisner gives several examples, citing these to West's The East Face of Helicon; looking at West, he appears to devote pp. 312–9 to this topic, which includes discussion of the silver age on its own. Meisner's book is on the topic of Orphic literature, and so discusses this in the context of the three races (gold, silver, Titanic) in the Orphic Rhapsodic Theogony, recorded by the Neoplatonist Proclus; the fragment of Proclus in question is a highly significant one, and Meisner devotes a fair portion of his discussion to the silver race, pointing out another two fragments (one from Proclus, one from Plutarch) which talk about the silver race specifically, as well as quoting West's The Orphic Poems, which talks about how the role of Cronus is altered from the Hesiodic narrative (i.e. he is demoted from gold to silver). To this can be added the interpretation of the ages by Proclus (in terms of his Neoplatonic schema), the interpretations of Hesiod's five ages by modern scholars, and, in Meisner's words, the ancient authors from Plato to Juvenal [who] engaged with the Hesiodic myth of the ages, reworking the myth in their own ways that reflected their own interests, all the while making “implicit evaluations and creative interpretations” of Hesiod; Meisner points out Aratus as one significant example. I think there is definitely an article worth having here, and I think there is enough to be said about the silver age specifically to keep this separate from Ages of Man; I would be very much opposed to any suggestion that the Greek mythological details should simply be deleted. – Michael Aurel (talk) 05:58, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I've just remembered Van Noorden's 2015 study of the Hesiodic races (cited by Meisner), Playing Hesiod: The ‘Myth of the Races’ in Classical Antiquity, which would be particularly helpful for interpretations of the silver age by both ancient authors and modern scholars; Ctrl+F gives a total of 169 mentions of "silver" in the book, and there appears to be at least one discussion of 3 or 4 pages devoted to the silver race. – Michael Aurel (talk) 06:32, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on redirecting to Ages of Man?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti*Let's talk!* 00:37, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge with Ages of Man per TompaDompa. That is the primary topic of the main topic of this page, and the remainder of this page is disambiguation, which exists. In considering where the reader will find the best information, they will do so on a single page on the primary topic, rather than on a page that pulls out one of the ages from the primary topic. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:32, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. But I'm leaning towards a Merge to Ages of Man.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:45, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • I will agree with the suggested merge to Ages of Man. Both articles need improvement, and most(?) of what Michael Aurel found could be used there. It may be that we could someday either split that out or even have a WP:BCA here, even soon, so I'm not opposed to a keep, but merge is fine for the time being. AfD is not cleanup, but I'm not opposed to cleaning up when the opportunity presents itself —siroχo 06:42, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, most of the sources I gave could also be used at Ages of Man. While I do think there is enough for a separate article, most of those in favour of a merge here seem to be suggesting that it is probably the best short-term solution, and that, in future, a separate article could be created again; I wouldn't say I'm necessarily opposed to that course of action. – Michael Aurel (talk) 23:04, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting discussion. Although I was nudging towards a Merge, the comments made to that suggestion were that this was obvious the 2nd choice for editors arguing to Keep this article. I didn't appreciate the strong sentiments of those editors so I'm relisting this discussion, with the knowledge that there is also support for a Merge.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:25, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect to Ages of Man, at least an appropriate title and a suitable redirect target. There seems to be little or nothing to merge, really. It is quite possible that the scholarly sources would enable at least the parent article to be much improved with cited analysis; it might even be that there is enough scholarly analysis that we could have a separate article for each age, but that is at the moment very far from proven, so a redirect is all we need at the moment. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:20, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Liz - dumb question: when the decision is made to merge, who actually does the work? Does the closing admin do it? Does it always get done? What if it doesn’t?
    I can see that in some cases this might involve adding a sentence to the target article. In other cases, there might be a fair amount of effort required to thread content into multiple places in the target.
    —A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 16:13, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Merges rely on volunteer editors, like everything else. If the work doesn't get done in reasonable time, the matter can be revisited. Of course if all we need, as I suppose, is a redirect, there's almost nothing to do. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:32, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, we rely on other editors to handle the Merges. Often a Merge is done by an editor who participated in the AFD discussion and is familiar with the content of both articles. Originally, when I first started closing AFD discussions, I thought that the closer was responsible for doing the Merge so I left those discussions to other admins to close. I soon learned that this was not the case. I don't know for sure but I guess we have editors who focus on Merges just like we have editors who specialize in Page Moves or responding to certain article tags. But it's best when it's an editor who really knows the material well. I've seen sloppy Merges and when this happens, it's no better than just Redirecting the article to the target page. Liz Read! Talk! 21:20, 4 September 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. There is a clear consensus that this is not an appropriate topic for a standalone article. While some interest was expressed in merging, it was not clear what the appropriate target would be, or indeed if such even exists. If a consensus is reached for where material should be merged and there's still interest in doing that, let me know and I'm happy to facilitate that. Seraphimblade Talk to me 01:09, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

SALt lamp[edit]

AfDs for this article:
SALt lamp (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'm nominating this article for deletion as it doesn't appear to meet WP:GNG and possibly WP:V too. I've reviewed the references and the only reliable source that has a non-trivial mention of the product is The Enquirer Inquirer (WP:SIGCOV). There's no reliable evidence other than this eight year old article that the product even exists, as their web page no longer seems active. At the very least, this doesn't meet WP:NSUSTAINED. 99% fad-free (talk) 09:47, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge into an article or list that deals with startup companies/inventions in the Philippines or SEA. I don't doubt that this product exists, a lamp powered by a Metal-air battery is nothing new. The citation in the lede has more on the technology. Most of the initial interest seems to have come from inaccurate statements (including one by Obama) that the lamp runs on saltwater. I'm not seeing any coverage from revent times. I think per WP:NPRODUCT it should be merged into a different article. HansVonStuttgart (talk) 07:02, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. There's no new or interesting technology here. The energy is derived from corroding a piece of metal; and the promotional descriptions downplay that. Fifty years ago, newspapers ran occasional articles on how someone had invented a "lemon-powered" battery, made by inserting two electrodes of different metals into a lemon. Same idea, same deceptive description. Maproom (talk) 07:17, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Not everything Obama talks about automatically becomes notable. Actually I felt like the bad guy with my relatives and friends in Facebook when I explained to them what this "miracle" lamp is all about. After a week or so, everyone in just forgot about it. --Lenticel (talk) 12:37, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete mostly due to failing WP:NSUSTAINED and WP:SIGCOV as well as the above delete comments. I don't think this is a useful redirect term either. The article comes across trying really hard to use instances of name drops to make it seem of more lasting significance. The only two sources that caught my eye for a bit were the Inquirer source mentioned earlier, but that's an opinion piece, and Rappler.[22] The latter pretty much says this isn't anything unique. KoA (talk) 18:13, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or Merge - Coverage is from a span of about two years. That's fine for NSUSTAINED. SIGCOV and NSUSTAINED are, of course, separate requirements -- as long as we have significant coverage and sustained coverage, we have GNG. After the initial wave of coverage in 2015-16, the project continued to pop up in Buzzfeed listlcles, La Vanguardia, and Nikkei. That this shouldn't have received attention doesn't mean it didn't; I'd argue the same for most of the meme/youtuber/influencer/fictional elements articles we have. That said, I'm not opposed to mentioning it elsewhere per WP:NOPAGE if that makes sense. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 19:12, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Those three articles are all in 2017, which might just be the tail end/lagging indicator. IMHO that doesn't reach the threshold for WP:NSUSTAINED. I don't believe that this alone fails WP:GNG, but it should be taken in context with other concerns. 99% fad-free (talk) 00:16, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Coverage across three years means NSUSTAINED is unequivocally not an issue. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 00:52, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    My interpretation understanding of WP:NSUSTAINED is that encyclopaedic content should still be relevant after the event indefinitely. Either by press articles, talks at conferences, lectures, books, backyard BBQs (refer to @Lenticel's comment above, e.g. "Hey, remember that SALt lamp product from the Inquirer article?", "You mean Himalayan salt lamps?", "No..." or "Hey, remember Phenomenology of the Spirit?", "Yeah! Hegel's the bomb!"), posts in forums, etc. Not going into whether each of the articles were significant or not (that's a whole other discussion) there hasn't even been any insignificant coverage or tertiary sources for five years, let alone WP:SIGCOV. Depending on the reliability and significance of the secondary sources, these may have a longer shelf-life. e.g. A book written a hundred years ago may still count as WP:NSUSTAINED if it's in libraries, still being sold, still being read, etc. Likewise, a really popular blog article that's still being read years later might be a good secondary source if there's still a buzz around it through tertiary sources (e.g. comments on the blog article, articles about the blog, high PageRank). Unfortunately, no one is talking about or paying attention to this any longer except for us. If we are the only ones that care, it probably doesn't need to be Wikipedia. I guess my argument boils down to WP:NOTEVERYTHING. 99% fad-free (talk) 01:24, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Rhododendrites, maybe I missed something, so what sources were you basing SIGCOV off of? I mentioned Rappler above as what I thought was the most in-depth article, but that was more of a "SALt got a little attention at a conference, here's how metal-air battery lighting works in general." KoA (talk) 14:51, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I cannot vote on this AFD because of conflict-of-interest issues. However, I would like to raise some glaring issues that need to be addressed in this article, should the consensus is to have this kept.
  • Much of what is left here appeart to be PR-ish and may need to be rewritten, in case this is kept.
  • I am aware of some criticisms related to the topic itself. Putting them back in---in case they existed in previous editions but were removed---should put some balance on how the article is written. (I need to look it up again if needed, but I'm aware that there were articles that were critical of both the alleged product and the marketing behind it.)
    • I will not be surprised if those criticims, if they existed before, were removed by Mijeno---more on this later---or another user sympathetic to her, as IRL Mijeno was known to block people critical of the project, in order to keep social media accounts related to the SALt lamp free of criticism. (I was one of the persons she blocked.)
  • At this point, from what I can remember, the fifteen minutes of fame that Mijeno enjoyed on this SALt lamp project has already passed and no one cares about this anymore. So the level of importance this article has, from the standpoint of notability within the Philippines, already diminished to a low level or even non-notable.
  • I'm saving this for last. There were significant edits from an account whose only contributions were on this article. One of those edits were additional details about Aisa Mijeno. I have strong reasons to believe that this account is owned by Aisa Mijeno herself, based on the full name displayed on this (public) Pinterest account that has the same name "analoguechick" (archive.org mirror of the said Pinterest account). Had this been noticed early on, the said account should have received a warning regarding editing an article with a potential conflict of interest.

--- Tito Pao (talk) 10:31, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What about User:Saltaim? This seems fairly obvious. If there is WP:Sockpuppetry going on perhaps it should be reported to WP:Sockpuppet investigations. 99% fad-free (talk) 11:34, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure if it's related to Mijeno's account, as Mijeno's "SALt Lamp" was not marketed in the Philippines as "saltaim/salt aim" AFAIK. (It also doesn't help that there were some edits which looked like it came from Pakistan, based on the edit history messages, so that only adds to the confusion. This "analogue-chick" account was the one that I was able to track down to Mijeno's other social media account.) --- Tito Pao (talk) 13:56, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I mean "Salt" being the product and "aim" presumably being the letters standing for AIsa Mijeno. There is a possibility of User:Saltaim being a WP:Sockpuppet account for User:Analogue-chick. 99% fad-free (talk) 22:44, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Fair point, will have a look at any other suspicious accounts that edited this article and then will file a report in one go. --- Tito Pao (talk) 05:01, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The saltaim user is blocked though. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 01:57, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@User:Tyw7, there has been more vandalism after that user that has also been reverted with those accounts blocked too. That said, there has been nothing recent. If you are suggesting that a WP:SPI is a waste of resources, I take your point. 99% fad-free (talk) 23:46, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as opinion here is divided. If this article was Merged, what would the target article be?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 16:22, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to LED lighting or part of the conference where Obama mentioned it, either one seems fine. Oaktree b (talk) 19:25, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The main issue I have with merge is that it kicks the can down the road to other editors who may decide it's non-notable and delete it anyway. However, if the consensus is merge then I won't object. 99% fad-free (talk) 10:34, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
To be clear, my vote is now delete. 99% fad-free (talk) 10:35, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 04:41, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'll echo comments concerned about merges above as I review this after the second relisting. There isn't really a clear concise topic from the notability standpoint that led to my earlier delete comment (this product wasn't inherently unique), but I did not think a merge/redirect was worthwhile because there isn't a clear home for the brief attention this particular company got with their iteration of this product. Had there been a clear redirect target I would have said redirects are WP:CHEAP and just suggested that. This looks more and more like a WP:NEOLOGISM term though, so I do think we need to follow the policy and delete rather than try to retain SALt lamp in some fashion. KoA (talk) 19:44, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    At the risk of dragging this out further, I think that (if merge was the outcome) the appropriate place to do so would be List of Filipino inventions and discoveries#Modern technologies. But, I still think the editors of the page wouldn't appreciate it and delete is better. 99% fad-free (talk) 23:36, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Or even List of Filipino inventions and discoveries#In urban legends. Doesn't have to be real to be notable. 99% fad-free (talk) 01:03, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I would prefer the in urban legends section since this "tech" is already known before. I'm still on the Delete camp though. --Lenticel (talk) 00:53, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    If I may add...there are some articles that point out the same technology was also listed in online selling platforms at the same time Mijeno was claiming to have "invented" this. So it's really unlikely it will withstand scrutiny to be listed as a Filipion "invention". Tito Pao (talk) 04:20, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed, I feel like trying to find a merge/redirect target is just bending over backwards at this point with nothing really apparent for a grounded target, and no strong reason to keep either. I just go stronger into delete territory on this article as I revisit it. KoA (talk) 23:59, 11 September 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 University of Kerala. Just wanted to add that this is the typical closure for an academic department or institute. It takes exceptional notability to warrant a stand-alone article. Existence is not sufficient. Liz Read! Talk! 04:37, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Institute of Management in Kerala[edit]

Institute of Management in Kerala (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)

Has never cited any secondary sources, no evidence of notability * Pppery * it has begun... 04:05, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Management, Education, Schools, and Kerala. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 07:29, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Keep I support the retention of the article on the Institute of Management in Kerala as it is a valuable and informative article that gives an overview of the IMK, which is a department of the University of Kerala that offers various courses in management, marketing, branding, and entrepreneurship. The article is not a vanity or advertisement article, but rather a neutral and factual description of the IMK. The article cites the official website of the IMK as a primary source, which is valid and authentic. The IMK is a notable institution that has been linked with the University of Kerala since its inception in 1991. The IMK has played a significant role in the academic and administrative development of the University of Kerala and the state of Kerala. The IMK has also been involved in various research projects, consultancy services, training programs, and executive development programs for various organizations and institutions. The IMK organizes an annual management fest called Mania, which is a platform for students to showcase their skills and talents in various events and competitions. The fest also provides an opportunity for students to interact with industry experts, academicians, and alumni. The IMK has several facilities for its students and faculty, such as a library, a computer lab, a conference hall, an auditorium, a cafeteria, and a hostel. The IMK has two campuses, one at Senate House Campus, Palayam and another at Kariavattom Campus. The IMK Kariavattom Campus has recently launched a new MBA program in Shipping and Logistics, in collaboration with the Indian Maritime University (IMU). The IMK Kariavattom Campus has also conducted a national seminar on Sanskrit and Indian Knowledge Systems, in association with the Vedanta Study Centre of the University of Kerala. The IMK has received several awards and recognitions for its academic excellence and social responsibility. The IMK has also produced several notable alumni who have made significant contributions to various fields of society and industry. Therefore, I request you to keep the article on the Institute of Management in Kerala as it meets the criteria for notability and verifiability. Alfiyas (talk) 05:54, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to University of Kerala; lacks evidence to support notability independent of the parent. - Indefensible (talk) 04:11, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Keep I oppose the deletion of the article on the Institute of Management in Kerala as it is a relevant and informative article that gives an overview of the IMK, which is a department of the University of Kerala that offers various courses in management, marketing, branding, and entrepreneurship. The article is not a promotional or advertising material, but rather an objective and factual description of the IMK. The article cites the official website of the IMK as a primary source, which is reliable and authoritative. The IMK is a notable institution that has been associated with the University of Kerala since its inception in 1991. The IMK has played a vital role in the academic and administrative development of the University of Kerala and the state of Kerala. The IMK has also been involved in various research projects, consultancy services, training programs, and executive development programs for various organizations and institutions. The IMK organizes an annual management fest called Mania, which is a platform for students to showcase their skills and talents in various events and competitions. The fest also provides an opportunity for students to interact with industry experts, academicians, and alumni. The IMK has several facilities for its students and faculty, such as a library, a computer lab, a conference hall, an auditorium, a cafeteria, and a hostel. The IMK has two campuses, one at Senate House Campus, Palayam and another at Kariavattom Campus. The IMK Kariavattom Campus has recently launched a new MBA program in Shipping and Logistics, in collaboration with the Indian Maritime University (IMU). The IMK Kariavattom Campus has also conducted a national seminar on Sanskrit and Indian Knowledge Systems, in association with the Vedanta Study Centre of the University of Kerala. The IMK has received several awards and recognitions for its academic excellence and social responsibility. The IMK has also produced several notable alumni who have made significant contributions to various fields of society and industry. Therefore, I urge you to keep the article on the Institute of Management in Kerala as it meets the criteria for notability and verifiability. Alfiyas (talk) 05:46, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I oppose the deletion of the article on the Institute of Management in Kerala as it is a relevant and informative article that gives an overview of the IMK, which is a department of the University of Kerala that offers various courses in management, marketing, branding, and entrepreneurship. The article is not a promotional or advertising material, but rather an objective and factual description of the IMK. The article cites the official website of the IMK as a primary source, which is reliable and authoritative. The IMK is a notable institution that has been associated with the University of Kerala since its inception in 1991. The IMK has played a vital role in the academic and administrative development of the University of Kerala and the state of Kerala. The IMK has also been involved in various research projects, consultancy services, training programs, and executive development programs for various organizations and institutions. The IMK organizes an annual management fest called Mania, which is a platform for students to showcase their skills and talents in various events and competitions. The fest also provides an opportunity for students to interact with industry experts, academicians, and alumni. The IMK has several facilities for its students and faculty, such as a library, a computer lab, a conference hall, an auditorium, a cafeteria, and a hostel. The IMK has two campuses, one at Senate House Campus, Palayam and another at Kariavattom Campus. The IMK Kariavattom Campus has recently launched a new MBA program in Shipping and Logistics, in collaboration with the Indian Maritime University (IMU). The IMK Kariavattom Campus has also conducted a national seminar on Sanskrit and Indian Knowledge Systems, in association with the Vedanta Study Centre of the University of Kerala. The IMK has received several awards and recognitions for its academic excellence and social responsibility. The IMK has also produced several notable alumni who have made significant contributions to various fields of society and industry. Therefore, I urge you to keep the article on the Institute of Management in Kerala as it meets the criteria for notability and verifiability. Alfiyas (talk) 05:47, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I disagree with the deletion of the article on the Institute of Management in Kerala as it is a useful and informative article that gives an overview of the IMK, which is a department of the University of Kerala that offers various courses in management, marketing, branding, and entrepreneurship. The article is not a spam or hoax article, but rather an accurate and factual description of the IMK. The article cites the official website of the IMK as a primary source, which is credible and trustworthy. The IMK is a notable institution that has been affiliated with the University of Kerala since its inception in 1991. The IMK has played a key role in the academic and administrative development of the University of Kerala and the state of Kerala. The IMK has also been engaged in various research projects, consultancy services, training programs, and executive development programs for various organizations and institutions. The IMK hosts an annual management fest called Mania, which is a platform for students to showcase their skills and talents in various events and competitions. The fest also provides an opportunity for students to interact with industry experts, academicians, and alumni. The IMK has several facilities for its students and faculty, such as a library, a computer lab, a conference hall, an auditorium, a cafeteria, and a hostel. The IMK has two campuses, one at Senate House Campus, Palayam and another at Kariavattom Campus. The IMK Kariavattom Campus has recently launched a new MBA program in Shipping and Logistics, in collaboration with the Indian Maritime University (IMU). The IMK Kariavattom Campus has also conducted a national seminar on Sanskrit and Indian Knowledge Systems, in association with the Vedanta Study Centre of the University of Kerala. The IMK has received several awards and recognitions for its academic excellence and social responsibility. The IMK has also produced several notable alumni who have made significant contributions to various fields of society and industry. Therefore, I ask you to keep the article on the Institute of Management in Kerala as it meets the criteria for notability and verifiability. Alfiyas (talk) 05:48, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
[23]https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Institute_of_Management_in_Kerala [24]https://admissions.keralauniversity.ac.in/mba2023/mba_imk/[25]https://www.university.youth4work.com/imk_institute-of-management-in-kerala [26]https://www.shiksha.com/college/institute-of-management-in-kerala-university-of-kerala-thiruvananthapuram-[27]https://lawyerservices.in/Dr-KS-Chandrasekar-and-Others-Versus-The-Chancellor-University-of-Kerala-Thiruvananthapuram-and-Others-2023-03-24 Alfiyas (talk) 05:43, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
[28]https://www.imkmania.online/
[29]https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Institute_of_Management_in_Kerala
[30]https://www.collegedekho.com/colleges/imk
[31]https://admissions.keralauniversity.ac.in/mba2023/mba_imk/
[32]https://www.university.youth4work.com/imk_institute-of-management-in-kerala
[33]https://www.shiksha.com/college/institute-of-management-in-kerala-university-of-kerala-thiruvananthapuram-20273
[34]https://lawyerservices.in/Dr-KS-Chandrasekar-and-Others-Versus-The-Chancellor-University-of-Kerala-Thiruvananthapuram-and-Others-2023-03-24 Alfiyas (talk) 05:52, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not going to respond to this WP:Wall of text, other than to analyze the sources: none of them actually provide in-depth and independent coverage, which is required for an organization to have an article. * Pppery * it has begun... 01:27, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
admissions.html
[35]https://www.newindianexpress.com/cities/thiruvananthapuram/2016/jun/17/MBA-admission-last-date-is-July-15-941177.html Alfiyas (talk) 08:14, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 04:41, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

[36]https://www.newindianexpress.com/cities/thiruvananthapuram/2016/jun/17/MBA-admission-last-date-is-July-15-941177.html Alfiyas (talk) 07:57, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
[37]https://www.deccanchronicle.com/nation/in-other-news/040516/kerala-university-goes-online-for-mba-admissions.html Alfiyas (talk) 08:11, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
[38]https://www.newindianexpress.com/states/kerala/2016/jun/14/Admission-date-of-MBA-extended-939995.html
[39]https://www.keralauniversity.ac.in/pdfs/minutes/_30_10_10_20171536828202.pdf
[40]https://www.newindianexpress.com/cities/thiruvananthapuram/2016/jun/17/MBA-admission-last-date-is-July-15-941177.html
[41]https://www.deccanchronicle.com/nation/in-other-news/040516/kerala-university-goes-online-for-mba-admissions.html Alfiyas (talk) 08:26, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Doing a quick assessment of the sources provided by @Alfiyas:
Source assessment table:
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Institute_of_Management_in_Kerala Yes No This is a mirror of the Wikipedia page ✘ No
https://admissions.keralauniversity.ac.in/mba2023/mba_imk No This page is run by the university Yes No This is a login-in portal ✘ No
https://www.university.youth4work.com/imk_institute-of-management-in-kerala ? ? No Despite listing basic information about the Institute, this coverage is WP:Routine, basically a directory entry. ✘ No
https://www.shiksha.com/college/institute-of-management-in-kerala-university-of-kerala-thiruvananthapuram-20273 ? ? No Again, a routine directory entry. ✘ No
https://lawyerservices.in/Dr-KS-Chandrasekar-and-Others-Versus-The-Chancellor-University-of-Kerala-Thiruvananthapuram-and-Others-2023-03-24 Yes ? No This legal judgement does not mention the institute. I'm not sure what the proposed relevance is. ✘ No
https://www.thestatesman.com/india Yes Yes No This news article expands on the legal case above. It pertains to withdrawing the nomination of the heads of the Institute of Management and departments of Music, Sanskrit and Philosophy as Ex-Officio members of Kerala University Senate. However, further information about the institute itself is not present, and WP:NOTINHERITED. ✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.
If these are the best sources we have, the topic certainly does not meet the WP:GNG. BenKuykendall (talk) 17:32, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
[42]https://www.newindianexpress.com/cities/thiruvananthapuram/2016/jun/17/MBA-admission-last-date-is-July-15-941177.html
[43]https://www.deccanchronicle.com/nation/in-other-news/040516/kerala-university-goes-online-for-mba-admissions.html
[44]https://www.quora.com/Is-IMK-good-for-an-MBA-course
[45]https://www.indiainfo.net/place/institute-of-management-kerala-3440053
[46]https://yappe.in/kerala/thiruvananthapuram/institute-of-management-kerala/446419
[47]https://www.iaspaper.net/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/imkadmission2020.pdf Alfiyas (talk) 08:09, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
[48]https://www.newindianexpress.com/states/kerala/2016/jun/14/Admission-date-of-MBA-extended-939995.html
[49]https://www.keralauniversity.ac.in/pdfs/minutes/_30_10_10_20171536828202.pdf Alfiyas (talk) 08:23, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Alfiyas: Those sources won't do, for more or less the same reasons I outlined above. I'd suggest taking a look at the Wikipedia general notability guidelines to get a sense of the coverage needed for a Wikipedia article. Quality sources and an explanation of how they demonstrate notability will strengthen your case for the article more effectively than any number of inappropriate sources. BenKuykendall (talk) 01:46, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to University of Kerala, which could use some expansion about some individual parts of the school before spinning any out. The bar is typically high for a stand-alone article on an academic unit. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 14:49, 10 September 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! 04:04, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Suzanna Ribalko[edit]

Suzanna Ribalko (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 subject earned at least three caps for the Latvia women's national football team. I am unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage from third-party sources, failing WP:GNG. JTtheOG (talk) 04:13, 4 September 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! 04:04, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kristiāna Zacmane[edit]

Kristiāna Zacmane (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 subject has earned three caps for the Latvia women's national football team. I am unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage from third-party sources, failing WP:GNG. JTtheOG (talk) 04:11, 4 September 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 El Salvador women's international footballers. Liz Read! Talk! 04:03, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Carolina Rolín[edit]

Carolina Rolín (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)

Redirect to List of El Salvador women's international footballers. The subject has earned at least one cap for the El Salvador women's national football team. I am unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage from third-party sources, failing WP:GNG. JTtheOG (talk) 04:05, 4 September 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 El Salvador women's international footballers. Liz Read! Talk! 04:02, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yaquelín Durán[edit]

Yaquelín Durán (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)

Redirect to List of El Salvador women's international footballers. The subject has earned at least three caps for the El Salvador women's national football team. I am unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage from third-party sources, failing WP:GNG. JTtheOG (talk) 04:02, 4 September 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 Miss Vermont. Liz Read! Talk! 21:30, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ashley Wheeler[edit]

Ashley Wheeler (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 subject does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NBEAUTY. Let'srun (talk) 01:04, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Women, Beauty pageants, and Vermont. Let'srun (talk) 01:04, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: I don't know if it meets GNG, but added what I found that wasn't in the article and updated the references already there. One was entirely dead, so I replaced it; the other is subscription locked so I couldn't verify it, but I found another source with the mother's info so I added that. Also added about the award she got from the VT Sec of State and about her dress, which got coverage from UPI (United Press International), which I admittedly know nothing about as a company. Still, I can tell you that the only thing I found after the pageant and VT Enduring Democracy Award was her resume on LinkedIn.
    • Maybe Merge info into the awards section on Miss Vermont page in the "Notes" field.
    OIM20 (talk) 21:34, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Lacks in-depth coverage that is independent of the beauty pageant win. MrsSnoozyTurtle 01:25, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Merge or delete?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:37, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:11, 4 September 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! 03:02, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

MyFootpath[edit]

MyFootpath (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. Advert. fails GNG. Graywalls (talk) 02:50, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Agree that this fails GNG. I can't find enough good sources that mention this substantially.
GoldMiner24 Talk 02:57, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Referencing within and out of the article comes nowhere near to meeting NCORP — MaxnaCarta  ( 💬 • 📝 ) 05:06, 4 September 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! 02:54, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Untitled Jagged Edge Productions cinematic universe[edit]

Untitled Jagged Edge Productions cinematic universe (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)

With only one film that has been released, an article seems premature and WP:TOOSOON. Per WP:FILMSERIES, a film series should not have its own article until it encompasses at least three films. InfiniteNexus (talk) 02:45, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Draftify. My bad, I was not aware that a series had to have three films to have a page. However, the page is promising and passes GNG, so it could be very good once it's time. I think it should be returned to the draftspace so that it has time to incubate rather than get deleted. Di (they-them) (talk) 05:47, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
— Note to closing admin: Di (they-them) (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD. InfiniteNexus (talk) 05:48, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify, there are rare cases where a film series/franchise can have an article with only two films but in this case it seems best for this to be worked on in draftspace until more films come out.★Trekker (talk) 13:12, 4 September 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 Lakhisarai. Liz Read! Talk! 02:53, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Laheriasarai[edit]

Laheriasarai (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)

Laheriasarai is not a city or town. This articles don't have any real sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tera baap randi (talk • contribs) 14:09, 3 September 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! 02:12, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Another Yeti A Love Story: Life on the Streets[edit]

Another Yeti A Love Story: Life on the Streets (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)

Unclear notability. Draft declined. We now have one source from Dread Central that is RS, the rest aren't; the reviews appear from a WordPress and another site. I'm not seeing mentions in enough RS to keep the article. Oaktree b (talk) 02:33, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Refs 8 and 9 in particular are from the iffy websites. Oaktree b (talk) 02:35, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge if @Oaktree b: is okay with the sources on the prequel Yeti: A Love Storys page. The sources on the prequel's page don't look that great, imo. DareshMohan (talk) 02:37, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Those are even worse... I'd look into deletion for it, based on a quick look at what's there; I haven't done an analysis of the article at this point. Oaktree b (talk) 02:40, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Changing my vote to keep per Donaldd23. DareshMohan (talk) 03:35, 5 September 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 06:33, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Big Dean's Ocean Front Cafe[edit]

Big Dean's Ocean Front Cafe (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 and WP:ORG. Paul Vaurie (talk) 01:46, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete NCORP fail. Not Yelp. Another one of those restaurant articles. Graywalls (talk) 07:29, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete - CSD G5. Block evading sock ScienceAdvisor (talk · contribs) Graywalls (talk) 05:30, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - very likely WP:UPE spam. MER-C 16:44, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi! I'd encourage you to keep the page for Big Dean's. As a Santa Monica local of over 20 years, I can assure you this place, located at the base of the Santa Monica Pier, is a local institution, and, in my opinion, worthy of a wikipedia page. It's long been popular with the local volleyball (which has spwaned a few gold-medalists) and roller-hockey crowd, and is one of the few kid-friendly bars I know of. Like a lot of the old local spots, like Chez Jay or Patrick's Roadhouse, it's also a low-key celebrity dive. I don't go too often, but I've seen the likes of Luke Wilson and Leslie Bibb in there. For the record, I am in no way affiliated with the place, nor the author of the article, just a long-time fan. 2603:8001:6401:20A6:2879:B9C9:B322:76B7 (talk) 17:45, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - The restaurant is not notable enough for inclusion. I do not see that celebrities dive into this restaurant, and even then, Wikipedia articles are not a collection of user-generated reviews. HarukaAmaranth 春香 19:33, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Like the last guy hoping to save this place. I am going to advocate and I am sure it is just an honest mistake but, if you click the google books reference and shorten it to “Big Dean’s”, you will see about 70 books that mention this bar. It is officially the oldest continuously operating bar in the same location in Santa Monica, and Los Angeles County. It is also about the 15th oldest bar in California and the 5th oldest restaurant in Los Angeles County.
    2A01:B747:156:314:F488:E247:8659:2E1A (talk) 21:01, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    There is also a 3 1/2 page article exclusively on this bar in the Los Angeles Times from July 31 1983 that someone should take a look at.
    It’s titled “Beach: Celebrities in, rascals out at bar-restaurant” in addition to the books. 144.178.0.146 (talk) 00:38, 5 September 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 00:43, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of road vehicles by production date[edit]

List of road vehicles by production date (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 useful list as per WP:LISTN. I see no possible use for this, beyond having 250,000 entries and people arguing about introduction dates.  Mr.choppers | ✎  00:42, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You don't allow me to write vehicles in DOYs
Now you don't allow me to do it in its own topic.
What do you want from me? I created this list because of you. Glebushko0703 (talk) 01:49, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. The specific day of the month a vehicle goes into production is devoid of any real significance. Clarityfiend (talk) 04:12, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Wiki is an encyclopidia, not a top.
    It's about facts, not significance.
    If that's not significant for you, doesn't mean the same for others. "You don't get to make the decisions all by yourself" aren't those your words?
    I'm surprised I should tell it to the admin. Glebushko0703 (talk) 04:18, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I confused you with Mr.choppers, those are not your words.
    But the rest is still implies Glebushko0703 (talk) 04:27, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • You are mistaken. It is not about mere facts. It is about significance, i.e. WP:notability. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:38, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Launch date isn't much of a mere fact.
    Its like saying your birth day isn't significant. Glebushko0703 (talk) 15:22, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • My birthday isn't significant to Wikipedia, and neither is a vehicle's launch date. Clarityfiend (talk) 12:15, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Nonsense.
    I am sure some user will find this list is significant and perhaps even helpful. Glebushko0703 (talk) 07:36, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Listing every vehicle ever introduced by day of year is completely useless trivia. Glebushko0703, please read Wikipedia:Notability (especially WP:LISTN) rather than continuing to argue. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 21:18, 6 September 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! 00:17, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Craig Busch (entrepreneur)[edit]

Craig Busch (entrepreneur) (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)

Bringing this to AfD as Speedy was declined. Very little sourcing found (links are described but not linked to online sources). What I've been able to track down is this [50], minimal coverage in a local newspaper. Bringing this to AfD to discuss, most filler used in the article talks about patents and the like, which don't add to notability. Oaktree b (talk) 00:35, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - I am unimpressed with the reference list. Sources are mostly primary or trivial mentions in minor publications. The content and its referencing is not sufficiently demonstrative of notability. — MaxnaCarta  ( 💬 • 📝 ) 00:59, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Canada. Shellwood (talk) 21:32, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per MaxnaCarta. Appears to have been a paid-for article as the author's original username was the name of a marketing firm. Best, GPL93 (talk) 13:43, 7 September 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! 00:14, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

John Wu (entrepreneur)[edit]

John Wu (entrepreneur) (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 sourcing found in RS. What's used to source the article is press-releases and lists in Forbes, nothing talking about the individual at length. Oaktree b (talk) 00:25, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source 7 looks promising, but it's about another person; nothing really beyond confirmation of where this person works. Oaktree b (talk) 00:26, 4 September 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_September_4&oldid=1175064061"