Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 January 22

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< January 21 January 23 >

Purge server cache

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

The result was keep‎. (non-admin closure) asilvering (talk) 00:24, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Azadi Cinema Complex[edit]

Azadi Cinema Complex (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 movie theater. This article has existed since 2011, and nobody appears to have found sources showing its notability. My city has movie theaters too, but they are not notable. – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:32, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Iran. – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:32, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Notable film theater, from a historical and architectural point a view (and in the history of both Iranian film and Tehran society). Someone appears to have found sources showing it is notable and added them to the page today. See for yourself. Film theaters in the city where the nominator lives may not be notable but this one is. :D. So, Keep!-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 17:43, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: The quote from The Politics of Iranian Cinema is evidence of notability. I also found a mention in a Boston Globe article about a politician: "He reopened Azadi cinema, a famous theater which had been burned down by hard-liners and closed for over a decade." That quote backs up the claim that the theater is "famous", and that there's a political story that may be documented in other sources we haven't found yet. Toughpigs (talk) 18:42, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:03, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 to delete. After extended time for discussion, there is no consensus to delete (and indeed, not a single participant supporting outright deletion rather than an alternative), and a policy-compliant argument that the available sources are sufficient to support notability separate from that of the author. BD2412 T 02:55, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My Story (Minogue book)[edit]

My Story (Minogue book) (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 doesn't appear to meet WP:NBOOK or WP:GNG. It could possibly be merged/redirected to Dannii Minogue as an WP:ATD. Boleyn (talk) 17:17, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t see how citing book reviews that (in two out of three cases) report the book to be non-notable is evidence of notability. (An honest question about WP norms, not a snarky attack. If multiple RS review a book and say in effect “this is not an important book” does the fact that they covered it at all make it notable?) Llajwa (talk) 15:44, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Llajwa: The quality of the book isn't relevant to the notability; a bad book can be just as notable as a good one. If the book was a best-seller, then it's likely to be notable. Critics saying it's not important do contribute to notability. Toughpigs (talk) 16:44, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Toughpigs: Granted that a bad book can be notable, but does RS coverage which says only that the book is bad, in the absence of other evidence, establish notability? If newspapers print brief reviews of a celebrity's book saying "don't waste your time on this pointless book" - and there's no other coverage and sales are poor - would those reviews by themselves constitute notability?
It seems analogous to children of celebrities - profiles of the parent will likely mention the children by name, but that in itself does not make those children notable. Llajwa (talk) 18:20, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As I said above, two of the reviews mention that the book was a "bestselling autobiography." Toughpigs (talk) 18:24, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. There's also one from the Daily Mail that I'll add later. --Ouro (blah blah) 12:35, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment to comment. The DM piece was uninteresting, but I frankly do not have it in me at the moment to look for something else than the West Australian piece. --Ouro (blah blah) 10:42, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to review soures brought to the discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:54, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. All right, added one more short from the SMH, I guess this makes the book passable although it's scrapin' the bottm of the barrel. --Ouro (blah blah) 15:29, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. Wikipedia:Notability (books)#Criteria says:

    A book is presumed notable if it verifiably meets, through reliable sources, at least one of the following criteria:

    1. The book has been the subject of two or more non-trivial published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself. This can include published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, other books, television documentaries, bestseller lists, and reviews. This excludes media re-prints of press releases, flap copy, or other publications where the author, its publisher, agent, or other self-interested parties advertise or speak about the book.
    Sources
    1. Harris, John (2010-12-13). "Why celebrity memoirs rule publishing". The Guardian. Archived from the original on 2024-01-28. Retrieved 2024-01-28.

      The review notes: "While we're here, consider also the enticing kick-off passage of My Story, by Dannii Minogue ... This does not quite get me hooked, though I persevere. But more of that later. ... I begin with Minogue's My Story, because she is the one contemporary celeb author I have met: at a west London branch of TGI Fridays circa 1997, when we fell into a weird and bitter argument about whether Robbie Williams should be blamed for losing himself in drink and drugs after exiting Take That. I sympathised with him; she, like a true show-must-go-on veteran of an Australian institution called Young Talent Time, did not – and it all got rather heated and shouty. Which is more than can be said for My Story, in which most of her anecdotes fall flat, like the kind of pub stories that are followed by pregnant silences."

    2. "Dannii Minogue: My Story". Evening Standard. 2010-09-30. Archived from the original on 2024-01-28. Retrieved 2024-01-28.

      The review notes: "Considered a snip for an advance of just £300,000, this one proves to be a snore. Minogue thanks “book writing partner” Terry Ronald, her gay friend and music producer, which makes the passages starring him, presumably also written by him, read oddly. ... Otherwise, it’s bland and uninformative."

    3. Keenan, Amanda (2010-12-07). "Book Review: My Story - Dannii Minogue". The West Australian. Archived from the original on 2024-01-28. Retrieved 2024-01-28.

      The review notes: "That's what I'd say if she didn't come off so bloody likeable and this book wasn't so frightfully fascinating (in a fluffy, fly-on-the wall way, of course). Call me a tragic pop culture vulture but My Story is 300-odd pages of mindless celebrity deliciousness."

    4. Dugdale, John (2010-12-11). "Celebrity memoirs for Christmas - review". The Guardian. Archived from the original on 2024-01-28. Retrieved 2024-01-28.

      The review notes: "Minogue, in her co-written, predictably perky My Story (Simon & Schuster, £18.99), comically depicts virtuous puzzlement as her sole response to other celebs' misbehaviour, as when rival X Factor judge Sharon Osbourne berates her; luckily, though, she somehow remembers Osbourne's stream of insults perfectly. Image is all for Katie and Dannii, yet both books strangely have gobsmackingly dreadful photos."

    5. Hornery, Andrew (2010-09-25). "Mum-in-law's the word for Minogue". The Sydney Morning Herald. Archived from the original on 2024-01-28. Retrieved 2024-01-28.

      The article notes: "While the tome will probably never make into the annals of the great literary contributions of our time, Minogue plans to leave her mark, especially within the genteel Sydney society circles McMahon moved in. Indeed Minogue has been spruiking the book in Britain this week and paying a lot of attention to the significant portion devoted to her marriage and divorce from Julian McMahon."

    6. "On the Coffee Table". The Mercury. 2010-11-26. Archived from the original on 2024-01-28. Retrieved 2024-01-28.

      The review notes: "This book is juicy and for one main reason: It details, for the first time, Minogue"s marriage to Julian McMahon and her lack of relationship with his mother, Lady Sonia McMahon. ... A surprisingly enjoyable read. "

    7. "Dannii - tell all - shocks - Dannii Minogue". Northern Territory News. 2010-10-12. Archived from the original on 2024-01-28. Retrieved 2024-01-28.

      The review notes: "In her new autobiography My Story, Minogue incorrectly spells the name of Australia's most famous street and the place that made her sister Kylie a household name. ... Released in Australia on November 2, My Story is a candid revelation of Minogue's rise from Johnny Young Talent Time to a judge on Britain's X Factor, watched by more than 16 million people."

    8. Adams, Cameron (2010-12-09). "Dannii Happy Returns". The Daily Telegraph. Archived from the original on 2024-01-28. Retrieved 2024-01-28.

      The article notes: "In her candid autobiography My Story she reveals the drama behind announcing her pregnancy last year. ... The chapter about how Lady Sonia McMahon treated her while married to her son Julian is titled 'A Lady in name only'. ... The book also delves into Minogue watching her sister survive cancer while losing her best friend to the disease."

    9. Scicluna, Sarah-Kate (2010-11-20). Sprogis, Elvira (ed.). "On the Shelf - Books". The Newcastle Herald. Archived from the original on 2024-01-28. Retrieved 2024-01-28.

      The review notes: "From shocking Lady Sonia McMahon mother-in-law tales to a tug-at-the-heart-strings story of losing her best friend to cancer, there's more to Dannii Minogue than most people give her credit for. From this raw and deeply personal work, it's clear that she's done the hard yards. I was always a Kylie fan. I still am. But boy, am I a Dannii fan now, too."

    10. Coster, Alice; Webber, Nicola; McMahon, Kate (2010-12-22). "It's Dannii's story warts and all". Herald Sun. Archived from the original on 2024-01-28. Retrieved 2024-01-28.

      The article notes: "A beaming Dannii Minogue was ready to tell and sell her bestseller My Story yesterday. ... Minogue's autobiography has been a huge hit in Britain, where she has been praised for not glossing over difficult points in her life."

    11. McGovern, Derek; Shaw, John (2010-10-08). "Filth should cover it - Result!". Daily Mirror. Archived from the original on 2024-01-28. Retrieved 2024-01-28.

      The review notes: "I picked up My Story by Dannii Minogue yesterday and I was stunned - I didn't know she knew anything about my story. In it she charts her brave fight to emerge from sister Kylie's shadow, her rise to popularity as an X Factor judge, and her status as one of the most desirable women in pop."

    There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow My Story to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

    Cunard (talk) 11:42, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per WP:SIGCOV. Just because it's trash doesn't mean it's not notable. In fact, as noted above, ghost-written celebrity autobiographies tend to be best-sellers with lots of reviews in reliable sources. Bearian (talk) 15:15, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 02:57, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sayer Ji[edit]

Sayer Ji (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 not seeing it. This is a WP:COATRACK -- we've got the cost of a subscription to his website in the article? We've got details on his use of affiliate links?

None of the sources are about him in a significant way. We've got a lot of information coming from unreliable sources: a bio of the guy on a talent booking website, not one but two PDFs hosted on "filesusr.com" written by a political advocacy group... note that I literally can't even link these URLs in the AfD despite being an admin because they are on the global spam blacklist...

his own websites, etc. The closest thing we get to sigificant, neutral third-party coverage is this blog post (which is for some reason in the ref list twice, as #4 and also #13). This Wired article mentions him once, in a single paragraph, in the sentence: Prominent pandemic deniers include a number of keen yoga practitioners, such as alternative health proponent Sayer Ji, who runs the website greenmedinfo.com, and his wife Kelly Brogan, who describes herself as a ‘holistic psychiatrist.’ This The Hill article also mentions him once, in a list with twelve other people. That's it. Here is a single fact check page about something that was on his website. This isn't significant coverage and the guy is not notable. jp×g🗯️ 22:55, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Conspiracy theories, COVID-19, Medicine, Internet, Florida, and New Jersey. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:03, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: He has been extensively commented on by skeptic blogger David Gorski: [3] and [4], to give two examples. Those are blog entries and therefore don't count for notability (although Gorski is a subject-matter expert; he is a surgeon and frequent contributor to sciencebasedmedicine.org.) Ji was also named as one of the "disinformation dozen" responsible for most of social media's antivaccine misinformation by the Center for Countering Digital Hate: [5]. I'm reluctant to vote keep because I am unsure whether those together would count for notability. But Ji is a major player in the antivax disinformation world, and having an article (properly-sourced and in line with WP:FRINGE) on him would help fill the vacuum where such disinformation thrives. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 01:45, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The Center for Countering Digital Hate is the political advocacy group I mentioned in the nomination, with the two PDFs hosted on "filesusr.com" (I don't know what the deal is with that site, but typically, being on MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist does not say a lot of great things about a source's reliability). I don't think that this PDF rises to the level of something we should be using to source an article on a BLP; if the primary sources in the newspapers etc. were writing about the guy in any context other than briefly mentioning his name as appearing in a list, that'd be one thing, but we don't even have that, we just have a random PDF from the Internet that doesn't seem to have been reviewed or published anywhere besides some guy's website. jp×g🗯️ 04:53, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment below are significant coverage, the first only partially an interview, the latter, academic
Brumfiel, Geoff (12 May 2021). "NPR". For Some Anti-Vaccine Advocates, Misinformation Is Part Of A Business. Archived from the original on 19 May 2021. Retrieved 19 May 2021.
Jarry, Jonathan (11 July 2020). "Popular Health Guru Sayer Ji Curates the Scientific Literature with His Bachelor's Degree in Philosophy". Office for Science and Society. Archived from the original on 4 February 2021. Retrieved 19 May 2021. Djflem (talk) 15:27, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The NPR article's good but I'm still concerned that all these sources are about the WP:ONEEVENT of this group publishing the PDF about him being in a disinformation dozen. jp×g🗯️ 03:34, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You're citing ONEEVENT? Doesn't seem the two above references mention anything about a PDF being published about him, so seems hardly like an event. Djflem (talk) 12:55, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep GreenMedInfo has or had a high traffic web presence. Even if readership has declined over the years, I think the site and its creator are still notable. Being included on the "disinformation dozen" list supports this as well. People use CDNs to host content. A lot of content isn't even publicly available. Let's judge the source, not the web host.ScienceFlyer (talk) 02:39, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, maybe? I admit it's close to the notability line. There was significant buzz around him when I started the page, I'm surprised at the low amount of coverage since then. Still, I added a little extra material including elements from a nine-page section on him and Brogan in a book published this summer. Curious to see how it turns out. Robincantin (talk) 02:46, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep sources already cited plus those since HEY satisfy GNG. Djflem (talk) 09:44, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above, although personally I couldn't care less. I think the consensus has changed in that articles that shame a living person who is otherwise notable can remain. I note, for the record, that this is a change from the usual outcome during 2007-2009. Bearian (talk) 14:36, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. ✗plicit 00:28, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agustín Fiorilli[edit]

Agustín Fiorilli (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 sole source provided so far does not mention him significantly, rather in passing (as someone who was just from somewhere). The proposed garden covers all Argentine olympians. Competing and nothing more does not earn you a pass on the GNG. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 17:16, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 17:24, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:53, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:01, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mohammadhossein Khosravi[edit]

Mohammadhossein Khosravi (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 the general and biographical notability policies. - UtherSRG (talk) 20:30, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:49, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Sources provided above are exclusively passing mentions in routine transactional news and match recaps, with a couple non-secondary interviews/press conferences thrown in. Can people please stop ref-bombing with blatantly unusable things like According to the D-Sport website; 23-year-old defensive midfielder Mohammad Hossein Khosravi, former Mes Kerman and Astara Municipality, joined Fajarshahid Sepasi with a contract.? JoelleJay (talk) 01:25, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - unless good sources are documented on this discussion. Llajwa (talk) 18:35, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: BLP, Fails GNG and NBIO. Sources in article and BEFORE found nothing with WP:SIGCOV from WP:IS WP:RS addressing the subject directly and indepth. Passing mentions in mill news, listings, etc, nothing SIGCOV. BLPs require strong sourcing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TimothyBlue (talk • contribs)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 23:59, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Clinomorphism[edit]

Clinomorphism (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:BEFORE shows no evidence of significant coverage in medically-suitable reliable sources. In any case, Wikipedia is not a dictionary. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 22:22, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already PROD'd so Soft Deletion is not an option.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:37, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - this should be in Wiktionary, if it is even a term in use, which is unclear. Llajwa (talk) 18:37, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - definitely Wiktionary material. Idunnox3 (talk) 07:56, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 00:01, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Campus Market[edit]

The Campus Market (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 Campus Market is a now-defunct website of no notable significance; appearing to shut down only about a year after its founding (with its last Instagram post dated May of 2016). It is more than likely that the purpose of this article's creation was to boost credibility, giving off the impact of being "written like an advertisement". It does not appear to meet Wikipedia's notability requirement for companies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by B3v3nt33n (talk • contribs) 23:02, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:36, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non notable self promotion. Llajwa (talk) 16:35, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep‎. Consensus is that the article needs work, but this should be fixed by improvement, not deletion. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:51, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Arthur Colborne Lankester[edit]

Arthur Colborne Lankester (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)

Nothing in this article can be verified. The only source I can find in relation to the existence of this individual is this journal article and a few forum and self published articles related to this individual published after 2022 (which I assume were taken from the journal article). Sohom (talk) 16:00, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CptViraj (talk) 16:23, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Religion, Medicine, India, and England. Deltaspace42 (talk • contribs) 16:48, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Google Books tells me more about Alice Grace Fox Lankester than about her husband from the history books (ISBN 9780252098802 p. 314, UIP); and the other result is literally a professional directory (Churchill Medical Directory) that gives me this person's telephone number in 1962 (Walton-on-Thames 24862), a bunch of post-nominals, two medical medals, a hospital superintendency, and "Director H.E.H. the Nizam's Med. & Sanit. Dept.". However "nothing in this article can be verified" is simply untrue. I followed up on the source for the tuberculosis programme, for one, and there it was in the source. It's also in the Medical Directory entry as "Special Deputation for Tuberc. Inquiry, Govt. India". The CMS sources cited are not findable by me, but I did find other CMS sources at least listing this person as a missionary, verifying at least that fact in the article too. There is a handful of little sources that do join up. A detailed obituary would definitely swing it, although I've only found a 1-sentence death listing so far. Uncle G (talk) 17:46, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Uncle G I agree the "Nothing in this article can be verified." is hyperbole on my part. However, I would assume that there would be a non-zero number of sources on the "Serai System" being talked about here. I haven't been able to find any sources from that period talking about this system that this person invented/created (which makes up a large portion of the article as well as the claim to notability for this individual). Sohom (talk) 18:30, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • The Ebrahimi reference goes to some length to describe the Serai system in historical context, the role Lankaster played in developing it and disseminating it, and its origins in the locally recognizable architectures being adapted for a different use and a medical social function. There is a non-zero number of sources. Please see section 4 of the Ebrahimi article. [15]https://brill.com/view/journals/ehmh/79/1/article-p67_003.xml?language=en
      • Breamk (talk) 02:07, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        • That source is fairly persuasive. Peer-reviewed on-topic journal; in-depth discussion; credentialed historian of architecture. I only looked for sources on the person rather than on that specific work. But there's a lot on the work from that source that complements the rather more sparse sources on the life that together give us enough about life and works to make an in-depth article, which I think can get us over the bar. You can expand upon the wife from the aforementioned UIP book, by the way. A quick look for the hospital shows several mid-20th-century sources mentioning the brother Cecil Lankester in association with it. So there are two things already that the article has scope for further expansion upon. Uncle G (talk) 08:21, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 23:36, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: weak, but sources below meet GNG. (edited 20:35, 26 January 2024 (UTC), see comment below)
  • Delete: see below. 09:29, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
Source eval:
Comments Source
Meets SIGCOV 1. Ebrahimi, Sara Honarmand (2022). "Medical Missionaries and the Invention of the "Serai Hospital" in North-western British India". European Journal for the History of Medicine and Health. 79: 67–93. doi:10.1163/26667711-bja10013.
Fails WP:IS 2. ^ Jump up to:a b "Beginnings in India, by Eugene Stock (1917)". anglicanhistory.org. Retrieved 2023-12-09.
Fails WP:IS 3. ^ Jump up to:a b c Oxenham, John (1918). Vernon Harold Starr 1882-1918 and after. London: Church Missionary Society. p. Chpt 2. Retrieved 8 January 2024.
Meets SIGCOV (See below) [16] 4. ^ Jump up to:a b c Lankester, Arthur (1920). Tuberculosis in India its prevalence, causation and treatment (Accessed via googlebooks ed.). London: Butterworth and Co. p. 317. Retrieved 8 January 2024.
Fails WP:IS 5. ^ Jump up to:a b Church Missionary Society (1894). "Register of Missionaries (1804-1894)". Church Missionary Society Periodicals.
Fails WP:IS 6. ^ Lankester, Arthur Colborne (1895). "Annual Medical Mission Breakfast". British Medical Association: 77–81 – via Church Missionary Society Periodicals.
Brief mention, (better link [17]) 7. ^ "From Tomb to Hospital: Pakistan Army's Conservation of Peshawar's Heritage Monument". Pakistan Defence. 2023-05-20. Retrieved 2023-12-09.
Fails WP:IS 8. ^ Lankester, Arthur (1912). "The Needs of the N. W. Frontier". Mercy and Truth 16. 16: 297.
Fails WP:IS 9. ^ Jump up to:a b "The Annual Meeting". Preaching and Healing: The Report of the CMS Medical Mission Auxiliary for 1905-1906: 24. 1906.
Fails WP:IS 10. ^ "Keswick Convention Medical Mission Meeting". Mercy and Truth. 106: 296. 1905.
Fails SIGCOV 11. ^ "Henry Martyn-Clark 1857 - 1916". Henry Martyn-Clark 1857 - 1916. Retrieved 2023-12-09.
 // Timothy :: talk  08:24, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@TimothyBlue The 3rd source you mention is written by the subject of this article, "Arther Lankester". That (imo) should be in the "Fails WP:IS" category. Sohom (talk) 08:57, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • How did I miss that...  // Timothy :: talk  09:29, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:50, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A comment by a grandson
At the age of 82, I am Arthur Lankester's eldest surviving grandchild. I remember him well. I have a type-written copy of his autobiography. I turned that into a paper back book, a copy of which which is now held in the Church Mission Society Crowther library in Oxford.
I realise that I suffer from having a conflict of interest, as does the autobiography. However, it seems a pity if the best available source has to be largely ignored. My initial reaction on reading the article's text and the reasons for deletion was that it seemed a pity to throw away this information but that, unless the text of the article can be made more accurate, it would be best to delete the article.
I need to learn much more about the Wikipedia editing process but it appears to me that the main reasons proposed for deletion are that he was not sufficiently notable, the lack of independent sources, and that the article is an orphan.
Notability I am obviously biased here but he founded the Mission Hospital in Peshawar and was very much involved in the founding of the Osmania hospital in Hyderabad. He was awarded the Kaiser-i-Hind medal (Second class in silver) in 1908. (See the Indian Medical Gazette, August 1908 Page 317.) In his position of Director of Medical and Sanitary Services for Hyderabad, he was effectively in charge of the health services of a small country. His book "Tuberculosis in India" is still an important text and the Wikipedia Article could (if corrected provide useful background material to this subject.) (By the way, his job in Hyderabad was not a Government of India post as is stated in the article; he was recruited by the Nizam and his staff.) (See the Englishman's Overland Mail for 5 February 1920, the Times Obituary of 21 November 1963.)
Independent Sources Google provides plenty of sources about his work in Peshawar; there is even a picture of a memorial to him in the Burg Said Khan, which later became the hospital chapel. Of particular note are articles by Dr Ali Jan, a prominent local historian in Peshawar. I will produce a list. There is rather less written about his work in Hyderabad but the best article is in the Englishman's Overland Mail of 5 Feb 1920.
I do not fully understand the problem of the article being "an orphan". Once a Wikipedia page had been produced there are many web pages that could be linked to it.
I apologise for my poor understanding of how Wikipedia works and will return when I have more references. Jim462 (talk) 18:21, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Jim462 I think if you can find links/clippings/evidence to some of the articles by Dr Ali Jan and the obituary, we could put this over notability. Based on https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5183017/?page=1 the Indian Medical Gazette source counts as a mention. Searching Dr. A. C. Lankester shows us some sources, however, I'm unsure if they are related to your grandfather? For example, I found this article in the The Lancet on p191-121 is this about the subject or somebody else ? Sohom (talk) 18:45, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
https://www.google.co.in/books/edition/The_East_and_the_West/ejEMAAAAIAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=Dr.+A.+C.+Lankester&pg=PA222&printsec=frontcover is also another source I found which seems to be a mention of the subject. Sohom (talk) 08:06, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
https://www.google.co.in/books/edition/Proceedings_of_the_Church_Missionary_Soc/860_AQAAMAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=Dr.+%22A.+C.+Lankester%22&pg=PA118&printsec=frontcover is another one as well. Sohom (talk) 08:08, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, https://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctv27qzr8k provides some context about him and his work on Tuberculosis in India (I think). Sohom (talk) 08:20, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist to see if additional sources are accessible.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:36, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Draftify Hi User:Jim462, I'm writing as a history professor and I know something about the history of British India. I think your grandfather was a historically interesting, notable figure. The problem with this article is that it is essentially original research (WP:OR) combined with a single good secondary source (Ebrahimi 2022). (The Pakistan Defense article link is broken.) I suspect if you did some reading in the historical literature on medicine in British India you would find more references to him, which would support a Wikipedia page on him. Alternatively, you could write a brief paper about him for a historical journal based on your own research - he has other publications in his own lifetime besides those mentioned here - but that original research cannot be the basis for a Wikipedia page. Llajwa (talk) 18:52, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Some more IS references to him by historians, on JSTOR:
  • BRIMNES, NIELS. “Vikings against Tuberculosis: The International Tuberculosis Campaign in India, 1948-1951.” Bulletin of the History of Medicine, vol. 81, no. 2, 2007, pp. 407–30. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/44452113. Accessed 26 Jan. 2024. "The first extensive discussion of tuberculosis in India was written by Dr. Arthur Lankester in 1920, and he estimated that..."
  • [Mentioned by User:Sohom above] VENKAT, BHARAT JAYRAM. “To Cure an Earthquake.” At the Limits of Cure, Duke University Press, 2021, pp. 23–76. JSTOR, https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctv27qzr8k.5. Accessed 26 Jan. 2024. "Arthur Lankester , who appears later in this chapter, took a slightly diff er ent view, contending..."
  • Bottomore, Stephen. “Early Missionary Filming and the Emergence of the Professional Cameraman.” Beyond the Screen: Institutions, Networks, and Publics of Early Cinema, edited by Marta Braun et al., Indiana University Press, 2016, pp. 19–26. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctt1bmznbd.5. Accessed 26 Jan. 2024. "Stock noted of Cash’s film of Dr. Lankester of Peshawar that “... the sudden sight of Dr. Arthur Lankester walking down the Khyber Pass among the camels will not soon be forgotten by those who were present that night”. Eugene Stock, The History of the Church Missionary Society ... vol. 4 (London: CMS, 1916), 503."
Also see:
  • Rao, B. Eswara. “From Rajayak s(h)Ma (‘Disease of Kings’) to ‘Blackman’s Plague’: Perceptions on Prevalence and Aetiology of Tuberculosis in the Madras Presidency, 1882–1947.” The Indian economic and social history review 43, no. 4 (2006): 457–485. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/epdf/10.1177/001946460604300403. "In 1915, the Government of India circulated to all the Presidencies a compre- hensive report submitted by Arthur Lankester on the prevalence of the disease along with certain suggestions..."
  • Venkat, Bharat Jayram. “A Vital Mediation: The Sanatorium, before and after Antibiotics.” Technology and culture 60, no. 4 (2019): 979–1003. https://muse-jhu-edu.revproxy.brown.edu/article/741380. "As a result of the Lucknow resolution, an ex-medical missionary and Director of the Medical and Sanitation Department for the Nizam of Hy- derabad named Arthur Lankester traveled across Burma and India for eleven months collecting evidence concerning the prevalence of tuberculo- sis on the subcontinent. In particular, Lankester drew on the accounts of women medical missionaries and physicians, whose work in the zenanas made them among the vanguard in detecting tuberculosis among Indians. His informants assured him that there was “scarcely a zenana . . . which has not some case of tuberculosis!”20 Reinforcing the importance of missionary intervention, he noted that women confined to zenanas were usually un- able or unwilling to leave their home in order to seek medical treatment."
Llajwa (talk) 19:03, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The world expert on tubercolosis under the British Raj seems to be this UCLA historian: [[18]], who discusses Arthur Lankester in two of his publications I cited above - if you email him at the address given, he might be interested in corresponding with you. Llajwa (talk) 19:30, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I should get back yo my own work but I've been reading Venkat's prizewinning book on tuberculosis, At the Limits of Cure, which discusses Lankester's work in chapter one - it's quite fascinating. It's free on JSTOR. I hope you will make your grandfather's autobiography available online. Llajwa (talk) 19:49, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I admit I want to keep this article. Strike my delete above based on:
  • Meets SIGCOV: [19]
  • Meets SIGCOV: [20]
  • Meets SIGCOV: [21]. The article alone doesn't meet SIGCOV, but the film it mentions would meet probably meet SIGCOV so together I think this passes.
I didn't look at others because this was enough for me to think it meets WP:N. I rarely use the sources must exist claim, but in this case there probably is more out there. The above discussion I think shows persons interested in the subject and willing to discuss sources and improve the article. If we applied the standards we use for athletes and entertainers to academics this would be a speedy keep.
@Jim462:, I hope your family is happy and blessed. Greetings from Los Angeles,  // Timothy :: talk  20:35, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for this Timothy. I will continue to follow this up. I have had copies printed of his 220 page autobiography so with that I have not, until now, needed to research him on other sources. The conflict of interest rules of Wikipedia make it difficult for me to correct the page. (As just one little example, my grandparents had 4 children, not one child as stated in Wikipedia. - my father Stephen born in Hyderabad, my uncles Christopher and Arthur Hugh, and my aunt Dorothea all 3 of whom were born in Peshawar.)
Sources about his time in Hyderabad are more difficult to find than those about Peshawar. For example, when ACL left Hyderabad Mr R I R Glancy the Minister of Finance wrote on 23 March 2020 commenting that ". . . the regard of the people which was strikingly exhibited in your election to the Chair of the Hyderabad Municipality, an honour, so far as I am aware, never before awarded to a European. yours sincerely, R I R Glancy". I am sure that this is true but I am equally sure that it will never appear in Wikipedia.
It should only take me a few days to obtain external evidence to prove that ACL was a sufficiently significant figure. The simple facts that he was awarded the Kaiser J Hind Medal (silver) (for his work in Peshawar) and that he was essentially the minister of health for a small country should be enough. However, achieving a full and accurate article will be more dificult.
Regards, John Lankester Jim462 (talk) 18:27, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I personally would also support draftification/userification (to Jim462 if they are fine with it, else I'm willing to take a stab at it as well). I think I see enough sources to not support outright deletion. The current article, however, needs to be completely rewritten, based on my understanding, the subject is not that well known for his missionary pursuits, but rather for his medical pursuits with his most notable contribution being not the serai system (as the article current claims), but rather the fact that he conducted the first study on the prevalence of tuberculosis in India and was amongst the first to experiment and develop various methods of treating and preventing the spread of the disease in India. Sohom (talk) 12:53, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I have some sympathy with the implication that the Wikipedia page over-emphasises the aspect of the serai hospital. ACL's own words on this subject were a comment on the founding of his first hospital in Peshawar (the predecessor of the current Mission Hospital).
    I was taken by Yahyah Khan to one of these serais which had become vacant and could be rented at a cheap rate. It consisted of a central office room and one large and one smaller courtyard, both surrounded by rooms, connected together by a broad passage in winch was the tomb of a former Moslem Saint. There was a wide opening to a main road of the City. This seemed to me quite ideal for my immediate purpose, and I lost no time m acquiring it. It had been long used as a halting-place by the very people whom I hoped to reach, so was familiar ground to them. Dirty and untidy as were all the rooms they were soon transformed by free use of whitewash: mud floors replaced by cement, and worn woodwork repaired and painted. There was one large room which was transformed into a quite serviceable operating theatre. The smaller serai was a quadrangle surrounded by about 25 rooms; these needed only cleansing and re-flooring, without structural alteration, as it was my intention to let diem be used by whole families with their sick relatives, from which they would not wish to be separated. This was a most successful plan, though not ideal from the strictly “hospital” point of view, and I reproduced it in the new hospital, erected later on. There was a convenient covered space in one corner of the mam serai where patients could gather; and upper storey rooms for use by the resident house-surgeon. Other amenities included a square tank at one corner of the enclosure, with water laid on for washing.
    I agree that ACL's most important work was on Tuberculosis in India. However his missionary work was also important as it founded the existing Mission Hospital. Dr Ali Jan, a prominent local historian in Peshawar, has commented to me that ACL was a "legendary figure" in Peshawar. ACL also made an important contribution in Hyderabad in combating the 1919 influenza epidemic and in some of the planning for the current Osmania Hospital. Jim462 (talk) 15:31, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for your comments. I need to study Wikipedia processes in more detail, and how draftification/userification works especially in an area where one has a conflict of interests. John Lankester Jim462 (talk) 15:46, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment i’m open to correction on this, but my understanding is that you have the right to edit this article freely, according to the rules and norms of Wikipedia, like any other editor, as long as your relationship to the subject is disclosed, as it is. You are free to correct errors of fact, if you have documentation to support it, and also to remove incorrect or uncertain information which lacks adequate sourcing. Llajwa (talk) 17:35, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - many people are notable not for one thing, but for a body of work(s). Easily passes SIGCOV of people who lived pre-Internet. I would not oppose userfication. Bearian (talk) 15:11, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 00:04, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Usman Bengali[edit]

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

Historical scholarship barely documents our subject. Fails WP:N with no significant level of coverage. The article was initially deleted after an AfD request by @TrangaBellam: and the article creator was involved in WP:Canvassing which is classified as disruptive behaviour according to the Wikipedia guidelines. This article should be deleted. Jaunpurzada (talk) 20:20, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 Talk Work 21:00, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Soft deletion was used in the previous AFD so it is not an option here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:58, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:33, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom Fails WP:N.Tame Rhino (talk) 10:10, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above discussion and WP:NOTINHERITED. His alleged notability seems to rest in that he studied under other scholars and was locally famous. That's never been enough at English WP. Bearian (talk) 17:14, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 without prejudice against draftification upon request. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 02:58, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

JPods[edit]

JPods (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 product concept. No evidence of significant coverage in reliable sources. WP:PROMO/WP:COI concerns as well -- the article's creator appears to be associated with the product, and the page has been deleted twice for notability and spam reasons and then re-created by the same user. Jfire (talk) 17:34, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, Previously PROD'd article so Soft Deletion is not an option.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:04, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. No product, no implementation, no article. --Ouro (blah blah) 10:25, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Another day another person trying to reinvent the train. While there is no current implementation, it is mentioned in several news articles including the Boston Globe. The article as it stands now is bad though. I'd be willing to rewrite it if keep is agreed. Also, User:BillJamesMN should be blocked from editing because he's the founder of this and it's a clear conflict of interest. [23] [24] [25] [26] [27] [28] [29] [30] [31] [32] --StreetcarEnjoyer (talk) 03:43, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I support draftify as an ATD if you want to rewrite it! Jfire (talk) 04:28, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment. Another angle: Is the company notable for anything at all? Actually putting a product on the streets, any kind of product? If not, maybe the founder might be notable? @User:StreetcarEnjoyer: While I see the articles... okay... if there are articles for the concept that can be used, fine, otherwise it's just... well... next of kin to speculation if they haven't actually got anything to show. --Ouro (blah blah) 15:54, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to consider option of draftifying as suggested by the nominator.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:31, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Star Mississippi 02:37, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2023 Atacama Region teachers' strike[edit]

2023 Atacama Region teachers' strike (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not notable enough for its own article. Little coverage. Could well be merged into the Education in Chile article. Also this has been created by Dentren's suspected sockpuppet Guariflor. Bedivere (talk) 16:47, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Soft Keep Definitely a sub-par article, but has some sources, also if it affected many students it might be notable.
Geardona (talk to me?) 17:15, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it warrants it's own article. Perhaps create one for the Local Public Education Service and merge it. Bedivere (talk) 00:15, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Education. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:27, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Atacama Region. The sourcing is routine news coverage and does not indicate notability, but there is information relevant to the target article. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 20:11, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If this event is not notable enough for a separate article (which I haven't checked yet), then it's certainly not important enough in the history of the Atacama region to appear in that article. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:05, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draft: It has sources but NOTNEWS and LASTING are concerns. I think drafting and seeing if something LASTING appears.  // Timothy :: talk  20:27, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:04, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:26, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 00:04, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sudhir Ahuja[edit]

Sudhir Ahuja (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 qualify under WP:NACADEMIC or WP:ANYBIO or any other policies. Royal88888 (talk) 21:50, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 00:05, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pari Bishnoi[edit]

Pari Bishnoi (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)

internet personality not notable in own merit, violation of WP:NOTINHERITED, some news about deportation but nothing WP:SUSTAINED. microbiologyMarcus (petri dish·growths) 21:34, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 00:06, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Deyan Velkov[edit]

Deyan Velkov (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)

In researching this one, I've dug quite far back in Bulgarian archives. Darik News, Gong and Topsport were the best that I could find. All of those are passing mentions of Velkov and do not demonstrate WP:SPORTBASIC #5. No apparent active career and he last made a professional appearance almost 20 years ago so I see no reason to retain in draft. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 20:42, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 00:06, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of sovereign states in 221[edit]

List of sovereign states in 221 (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)

Yes, you read the title correctly. I think it's fairly obvious that this fails all notability criteria, and would be of no use as a redirect even to List of political entities in the 3rd century. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 20:36, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and Lists. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 20:36, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Might give it a pass if it had some sort of sourcing. I really don't see the need. These lists seem to be chronological by year since... I'm not sure really. The years 221 and 223 anyway, based on the box at the bottom. Oaktree b (talk) 20:40, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It's redundant as per comment above, and the article doesn't make it clear what its inclusion criteria are. E.g. it lists "Saxons" as a sovereign state. What's that supposed to mean? Was there a single sovereign ruling over all Saxon people? Cortador (talk) 21:54, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - A clear NLIST fail. No sourcing, lots of OR, significant omissions and what exactly is special about 221? How are states defined? Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 12:43, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Better to have category about the subject. Azuredivay (talk) 15:51, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. per nom --Devokewater|(tαlk) 11:39, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:LIST. This is random. Why no 311? Why not West Saxons and Northeastern Saxons? Bearian (talk) 17:21, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 00:07, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Henri Mata[edit]

Henri Mata (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)

Inactive low level Albanian footballer with no evidence of WP:GNG or WP:SPORTBASIC. I found this and this in Panorama but neither of them would be considered significant as they are mostly just long quotes from the player but with no meaningful third party content. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 20:34, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Linton, Cambridgeshire. The WordsmithTalk to me 01:28, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Linton Heights Junior School[edit]

Linton Heights Junior School (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 page in question clearly did not show any sign of notability. No notable alumni or any significant achievement as a school. Simple put that it fails WP: ORG Otuọcha (talk) 15:03, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. As said previously, the article topic is clearly referenced in numerous reliable secondary sources thus indicating a degree of notability. Additionally sources indicate the school has received "internationally recognised" awards such as the green flag award, a notable achievement that can be expanded on. Fraz900 (talk) 23:47, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I strongly object to the deletion of this article. The article is about a notable and well-established junior school in Cambridgeshire, England. The article meets the general notability guideline and the specific notability guideline for schools. The article is informative, accurate, and unbiased. The article does not violate any Wikipedia policies or guidelines, such as verifiability, neutrality, or no original research. The article is not a personal attack, a hoax, a promotion, or a copyright violation. The article is not a duplicate of another article or a fork of a larger topic.
The article provides sufficient and reliable sources to support its claims. The article cites the school’s official website, and multiple news articles from a variety of publishers.
Therefore, the article should be kept and improved, rather than deleted. Deleting the article would deprive Wikipedia of valuable content and harm its credibility as a comprehensive encyclopedia. MattA 23:43, 15 January 2024 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by MattA Official (talk • contribs)
  • Merge/redirect to Linton, Cambridgeshire. I believe it's unusual for a primary/junior school to have its own article. The sources placed in this article can be used to verify facts but do not necessarily make the school notable under the GNG or WP:NORG. The CambridgeshireLive article[33] on the surface looks as though it may contribute towards the GNG, but infact probably doesn't because in essence it is an extraction of data to compile ratings for all local schools. The Saffron Walden Reporter [34] reports an achievement of the school, but the piece hardly amounts to WP:ORGDEPTH coverage and may infact be WP:ORGTRIV (I'm not being dismissive of the children's achievement in making this assertion). None of the other sources count towards notability because they are either listings in a directory, brief mentions, database entries or not independent of the school. In summary, not seeing sufficient sourcing satisfying GNG/NORG. Rupples (talk) 01:59, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 19:39, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge/redirect to Linton, Cambridgeshire. It is indeed very unusual for junior schools to have their own article, and I can not see that one justifies it. Bduke (talk) 05:11, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
     Comment: Barely eight years the school was founded. I saw some promotional content and as such, basic schools usually don't have article or press to publish their achievements. Probably may be press release or blog post. Otuọcha (talk) 12:09, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Wasn't actually founded eight years ago, that is an error. There was a previous establishment on the site by the same name. MattA 23:07, 28 January 2024 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by MattA Official (talk • contribs)
  • Redirect to Linton, Cambridgeshire as suggested by Rupples. Almost all the citations are from primary sources. Only two (the ones from the Saffron Walden Reporter) are unequivocally reliable sources. In any case, definitely not the direct, in-depth coverage WP:NORG or the GNG are looking for. Tserton (talk) 21:49, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 02:59, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Marcello Ruta[edit]

Marcello Ruta (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 researcher. Although he is highly cited in a highly cited field, he has no remarkable achievements. His profile: [35] Broc (talk) 14:20, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Science, and Italy. Broc (talk) 14:20, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. I don't think that paleontology is such a high citation field: looking at other paleontologists, this is a solid citation record. The article is a stub, but at least not overly promotional, primary sourced, etc. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 16:38, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 19:39, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 00:06, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sheila Courage[edit]

Sheila Courage (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)

Apparently, this person is best known as the ex-spouse of someone without a Wikipedia article. WP:BEFORE shows little apart from gossip columns to do with said ex-spouse. Black Kite (talk) 19:36, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. The WordsmithTalk to me 01:18, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Beyond the Stars[edit]

Beyond the Stars (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 WP:NFILM. I searched Newspapers.com and ProQuest for reviews but other than an interview with Olivia d'Abo and a couple blurbs only found listings. While its seems it was an all-star cast, I noticed for some of them this film was before their breakthrough roles (Slater, Stone, d'Abo, Davis). S0091 (talk) 19:11, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, It does not change much about the film's notability, in my opinion but, I'm sorry, I noticed for some of them this film was before their breakthrough roles (Slater, Stone, d'Abo, Davis). is at least not accurate concerning Slater. His breakthrough was earlier, as the article about him or sources I added to the article about this film clearly state (the LAT even called him a veteran actor then....(he was 18, yes)). Best, -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 13:58, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ah yes, I see that now. S0091 (talk) 15:39, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • It looks like it had a limited theatrical release per the wording "some theaters". My thought is that this wasn't quite direct to home video or made for TV fare, but it wasn't that far off either. This would explain the lack of reviews and other attention. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 16:36, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Here's my rationale: there's just not much out there about this. It looks like this was a film that was quietly given a limited theatrical release in hopes of gaining an audience, but when that failed it was shuttled to TV where it just fell further into obscurity. I can't find any sourcing beyond a few mentions of filming, all of which look to be based on the same press release, and a few offhand mentions in articles written about the actors in regards to other projects or topics. Of the sourcing in the article, what we have is pretty light. I'm definitely of the "a review is a review regardless of length" camp, but I only really recommend using those when there's at least one meaty review to bolster them. One of the more lengthy mentions is the Italian source, which I will note was self-published. I don't see where the author is particularly seen as a RS themselves so I have to consider this a SPS that is unusable as far as notability goes. Other than that we have very brief listings in Videohound, Leonard Maltin's 2013 Movie Guide, and The Sci-Fi Movie Guide. These sources are frequently challenged in AfDs and I seem to remember a general agreement that Videohound is unusable for notability purposes since it does actually go out of its way to include every film possible. Maltin is somewhat usable as it is a bit more exclusive, but it still gets flack when it comes up. The Sci-Fi book is a bit more specific, but the listing is so short and feels like more of a database listing than a review. None of these are really great or strong sources. Other than that, the other sources are basically just mentions of filming or database listings that say that the film exists without giving any sort of discussion. This just doesn't pass NFILM based on the available sourcing and I can't find any evidence that there ever was more substantial coverage. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 16:49, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Just added an assessment in FIlmDienst. Not sure you'll find it meaty enough, but still. The German WP mentions, among other things, 5+2 pages about the film in a biography of Stone. I couldn't check that claim, though. I for one, don't think they are needed as, all in all, I found this can really be considered OK. Yours. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 17:57, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    +1. Added French meat for you@ReaderofthePack: It does in my view seal the deal, but see for yourself. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 18:07, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I also found this which has a bit background and the cinematographer's perspective but it also states is was never released in theaters. ?? S0091 (talk) 19:17, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: I think Leonard Maltin's guide, plus the German and French reviews put it over the top. Clearly an unsuccessful, obscure film, but with a cast like this, surely notable enough to warrant a page. Toughpigs (talk) 18:50, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Maltin's guide is a listing and the German source is a a brief synopsis, not a critical review. I can't independently assess the French review but based on the quotes provided it does appear to be a review. The cast in and of itself matters not unless WP:NFIC is proven but that does not seem to be the case. S0091 (talk) 19:56, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think Leonard Maltin's Guide counts, as NFILM pretty explicitly states that To presume notability, reliable sources should have significant coverage. Examples of coverage insufficient to fully establish notability include newspaper listings of screening times and venues, "capsule reviews", plot summaries without critical commentary, or listings in comprehensive film guides such as Leonard Maltin's Movie Guide, Time Out Film Guide, or the Internet Movie Database (though I have no strong opinion on the other sources). VickKiang (talk) 01:37, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep there is enough coverage present to pass WP:GNG DonaldD23 talk to me 02:15, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, per good sourcing with famous cast members. Davidgoodheart (talk) 04:00, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, this article does have sufficient coverage to be kept.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.6.11.113 (talk • contribs)
  • Keep - Per WP:HEY and with thanks to Mushy Yank and others for adding sources. There has been a lack of sourcing discussion on this AfD, and a few reviews at the time of release do not show notability, although, per WP:SUSTAINED, they might if they happen over a long period. However, sources added to the page include the Sci Fi movie guide and other books, that collate this and do demonstrate sustained interest. I think the three books added to support the text "Beyond the Stars was noted for its ”interesting cast’." themselves probably meet the criteria for GNG (significant mentions in independent reliable secondary sources, although with Readerofthepack's caution noted too). On a more personal note, I actually watched this movie years ago. On the other hand, I had all but forgotten its eminently forgettable script. But a movie doesn't have to be good to be notable. As has now been added to this page, this one is notable for being a bad movie with good actors. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:41, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 00:10, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

FLY91[edit]

FLY91 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
AfDs for this article:
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Here we are again. Last AfD resulted in DRAFTIFY as an WP:ATD. Moved from draft space by only keep vote from last AfD. References added (other than Twitter) are announcements around it leasing aircraft on its way to launch. Still WP:TOOSOON and the churnalism doesn't add up to significant coverage. CNMall41 (talk) 18:58, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The airline already has it's first plane VT-NUT running test proving flights in India. I do not think it is too soon or worthy of deletion. Aircraft was delivered 2 days ago and is leased from Mumbai based VMAN leasing.
Article definitely needs to be updated with the latest info. The first aircraft is an ex-TruJet ATR 72-600. Mkkm2112 (talk) 16:24, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Its first plane* (sorry - autocorrect) Mkkm2112 (talk) 16:25, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Based on the previous draftify, and the fact creator just attempted to draftify again after this discussion began, I think that would be the opposite of what needs to happen. I would actually recommend SALTing. --CNMall41 (talk) 18:21, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. (non-admin closure) asilvering (talk) 00:41, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dea Liane[edit]

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

A bit of a COATRACK, with lots of information about the film she starred in, but no evidence of Dea Liane being "critically acclaimed" for her role. The director certainly gets praised but Liane is only mentioned as one of the cast (albeit a leading member of the cast). A Google search reveals very little, suggesting Liane is only at the start of her film career. Fails WP:GNG Sionk (talk) 18:51, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 00:09, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Deming[edit]

Mark Deming (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)

Music critic/local musician with single minor acting credit; no significant, in depth coverage from secondary sources as an actor, music critic, or musician; fails WP:GNG. Rift (talk) 04:02, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

are you out there to just save a couple bits? his allmusic reviews are quoted/re-quoted regularly. 96.42.182.14 (talk) 05:36, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For fans of indy, rock, alt, etc. he is a notable reviewer and critic. Joelrashflint (talk) 05:25, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Bands and musicians, Journalism, and Michigan.
    WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:27, 8 January 2024 (UTC)    [reply]
  • The Susan Stark profile (multiple pages) appears to be SIGCOV. No? Cbl62 (talk) 11:15, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Possibly. It's definitely a "local boy makes good" piece which, per WP:GNG, creates the assumption but not a guarantee of notability. Given that it's a minor acting credit (he was billed 36th), and there being a lack of secondary sources about any other aspect of his career, I'd say it's thin. Rift (talk) 04:40, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 05:45, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 18:47, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 00:09, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Khadisha Debesette[edit]

Khadisha Debesette (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)

Poorly sourced footballer BLP. The closest to WP:SIGCOV that I found was this match report, which provides a few sentences of coverage on the subject after scoring a hat-trick, as well as these short pieces, which acknowledge the subject winning minor college awards at the NCAA Division II level. Otherwise it's all passing mentions, whether from her international (2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2018, 2019), college (2015, 2016, 2017), or club (2023) careers. JTtheOG (talk) 18:41, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Owen× ☎ 01:30, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin Juergensen[edit]

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

A lot of WP:ORIGINAL done here. None of the sources are WP:RELIABLE. TLA (talk) 03:11, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm Kevin Juergensen, and I've now been contacted by people who want me to pay them money to keep this wikipedia page going, which means it is some sort of scam. Everything on this page is accurate, and many things without sources as per Wikipedia Guidelines are NOT listed on it for that reason. I did not create this page, nor did I pay someone to create this page. I have some prominence in the field of scuba diving and life support, and as such someone created this page ages ago. I would offer to improve the page, but that seems narcissistic, which means maybe you guys will just delete it, which seems odd for a repository of human knowledge. If AfD becomes weaponized, then it seems to me that Wikipedia will shrink significantly as who has the energy to fight that? I'm not going to pay the scammer to try and keep this page going, and I've reported this to the Wikipedia folks via the method they describe in the AfD scam page. Anyway, thank you for listening. 204.197.153.14 (talk) 18:17, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: The page has been around since 2011. If the person wasn't notable, they could simply have removed the page right from the start. Why nominate this page for deletion now? Looking at the comment, someone emailed him asking for money in return for keeping the page. This makes me wonder if some editors would randomly nominate a page for deletion, hoping to scam the person on the page. Iamsuperingbo (talk) 14:10, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
FYI, we'll edit your article for free. Just ask for help. Oaktree b (talk) 20:31, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 17:42, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: Lack of much of any sourcing in RS. This isn't a RS [39] and it's about all I find for this person. Oaktree b (talk) 20:32, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, so the guy masquerading as a "Senior Wikipedia Administrator" by the name of "Brendan Conway" has been sending me e-mails 1-2 times a day asking me to send him $1499 (interesting figure) to "keep your Wikipedia page". You folks ought to recognize an organized scam when you see one. Now, this page is "relisted" and the very same guy just sent me another e-mail saying "I'd like to tell you that your page has been relisted for deletion for the second time." Oh wow. What a shocker. Either it's a bot that is watching this page, or it is actually someone who is nominating it for a AfD. In any event, I'm afraid Wikipedia is going to lose all relevance once these types of people realize the scam they can run. I love Wikipedia, but this kind of stuff is bound to ruin it. 204.197.153.14 (talk) 03:53, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    We're well aware of the scam, and I can promise you my relist was simply the seven day ticker rather than any collaboration with the scammer. You can either contact paid-en-wpwikipedia.org as directed or ignore the emails. The community, not a scammer, will decide whether your article meets the requirements for an article. Star Mississippi 13:55, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Yeah, the scammer is just some opportunist who likely keeps tabs on AfDs for people and organizations. That an article has been around for some time is not a valid reason for keeping. At the end of the day, the sourcing needed to pass WP:GNG just isn't there. Best, GPL93 (talk) 15:11, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 00:08, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2030 European Women's Handball Championship[edit]

2030 European Women's Handball 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)

Delete per WP:TOOSOON. Event is 6 years away. Grahaml35 (talk) 16:19, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 00:08, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2032 European Women's Handball Championship[edit]

2032 European Women's Handball 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)

Delete per WP:TOOSOON. Event is 8 years away. Grahaml35 (talk) 16:18, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 00:08, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2032 European Men's Handball Championship[edit]

2032 European Men's Handball 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)

Way WP:TOOSOON. Event is 8 years away Grahaml35 (talk) 16:14, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 00:07, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2030 European Men's Handball Championship[edit]

2030 European Men's Handball 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)

Way WP:TOOSOON. Event is still 6 years away. Dratify can also be applicable. Grahaml35 (talk) 16:13, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Owen× ☎ 01:45, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Remote (company)[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Remote (company) (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 was previously deleted by discussion, but seems like there's enough changes that it can't be G4'd. However, it doesn't seem like there is a significant change in the topic's notability. I will tag all of the previous discussion's participants below. UtherSRG (talk) 15:44, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

TheBritinator (talk) 16:16, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Same usual mix of funding and valuation annoucements typical of a startup. Fails WP:SIRS, WP:CORPDEPTH. Its not changed much from the previous version as far I can see. More of the same thing has been added if anything. We can go through the first two blocks of references in detail if necessary, but to summarise, Ref 1, 6, 7,8,9,10, 11 are trivial funding annoucements. Ref 2 is non-rs. Ref 3,5 are PR, Ref 4, 9, 12 is valuation. The rest are PR. They all fails WP:SIRS in one way or another. scope_creepTalk 17:17, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Subject fails NCORP and GNG. All the cites are embarrassing churnalism. I cannot understand why this company sent an employee to attempt this task on Wikipedia after a former admin could not manage it. Chris Troutman (talk) 16:53, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep (with thanks to UtherSRG for the ping, above). Just as in the 1st AFD, I think the Techcrunch source is a good one, and there were and therefore still are enough others that are reliable (independent) and meaningful enough to be OK, though I haven't re-looked in the current excessive list of references to locate them. I also think that we as a community have our "need to stop spam" filters set so high we do a crappy job covering companies, rejecting articles where similarly notable sports figures, TV shows, etc. sail through unchallenged. All this leads me to Keep. And yet: this is so clearly written with a PR perspective, so focused on unencyclopedic funding details (and yet over-referenced) that I don't see how we're going to get a reasonable article to arise from this and who will maintain it. And so while I wrote "Clear keep" on the 1st AFD, I'm now watered down to a "Weak keep" only. Martinp (talk) 17:43, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The guidelines for notable sports figures, TV shows, etc, are not the same as the standards set for companies which uses GNG/WP:NCORP. The TechCrunch articles all fail WP:ORGIND as they rely entirely on information provided by the company and/or execs. HighKing++ 21:09, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Our standards describe our practice, and I agree with you they seem to have developed to be different for companies than in other areas. So many people, like you, claim an article in a mainstream specialized publication about a company that is a secondary source primarily based on information by the company and its employees as primary sources, is insufficiently independent. Yet a profile of a notable figure that would be equally based on an interview with the figure, and information provided by that figure's collaborators, would likely be deemed sufficiently independent because of the editorial effort put in by the author -- an effort likely very similar to that of the author of the article about a company. I believe this is an inconsistency. The biases underpinning it are indicated by the pejorative language that tends to come up in discussions, e.g. "churnalism", "regurgitate", "PR crap", "marketing spam" (I'm not casting aspersions at anyone specifically here, just what the tone of these discussions ends up being in general). I speak up about when I feel strongly we're getting it wrong in a specific case, but I'm not going to argue this one, where it does seem we ultimately have very little to go on about this company than it own marketing collateral and funding information Martinp (talk) 23:41, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just so that we're clear, yes, that is correct. Our guidelines have particular criteria for establishing the notability of a company and if it is an "article in in a mainstream specialized publication about a company that is a secondary source primarily based on information by the company and its employees as primary sources, is insufficiently independent.". That's the mechanism by which we ensure that companies are truly notable and not just good at marketing. If they're notable, somebody, somewhere, will take the time to write something in-depth and original about them. HighKing++ 21:54, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Hi everyone! I'm not sure how best to reply to all the comments but I really want to say thank you to everyone for the feedback and for spending the time and energy to look through the article and its sources. I got really great help from the Article Wizard, the other available resources on Wiki, and referred to the Wiki pages and sources of Deel (company) and Gusto (company) as guides on how best to cite and write this article as neutrally as possible. If there's anything else I could edit to help make a stronger case to keep the article, please let me know. Ad Astra Per Asperaaa (talk) 18:01, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ad Astra Per Asperaaa, the best thing you can do is point us to independent, reliable sources. Read WP:SIRS first, it will help you understand what would be most helpful. — Jacona (talk) 19:05, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would highly implore you to point to reliable secondary sources that prove the notability of the subject. It would be a shame for the article so fail, but it will do if it must. TheBritinator (talk) 00:11, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks to you and @Jacona for the advice! I'm grateful. When I was writing this, I referred to that page, to Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources, and some other pages too. Given it's my first time writing a Wiki article, I've also been referring to Deel (company) and Gusto (company) as guides, since they're in similar industries.

What I noticed was that there are parallels in the news articles and sources cited, where quite a number of the sources report on valuations and fundraising for these two companies, since that's the main issue of this article from the feedback so far. I also notice that both those pages have press releases and their respective company websites as sources.

I'll keep looking and adding more notable and legit sources because I think that's crucial to this whole process, especially given my position. Given my inexperience, and genuinely so, I would appreciate it if there's anyone that can help me understand how this article can be on equal standing with Deel (company) and Gusto (company). Ad Astra Per Asperaaa (talk) 09:30, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete None of the sources meet GNG/WP:NCORP criteria for establishing notability. They all rely on announcements or other regurgitated company information, fails WP:ORGIND. HighKing++ 21:10, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I may be the odd man out here, but based on multiple coverage in well known publications such as Techcrunch, VentureBeat, Business Insider, Reuters, etc they meet WP:NCORP. Although some of the articles sound like announcements, they go in detail about the company's services and operations. Royal88888 (talk) 22:19, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK, "coverage in well known publications" is not one of the criteria for establishing notability. Nonetheless, you say they meet NCORP. Please point to any specific paragraph in any of those sources (or any other sources you can find) which you believe contains in-depth Independent Content. Note "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. HighKing++ 21:51, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The company name makes searching for significant coverage challenging. Of the presented sources, I don't see one of them which directly details anything about the business. Just fund-raising and principals. It's clear there's some capital behind the project, but the corporation hasn't garnered any descriptive press about itself, even in routine business news. I don't see any basis for a keep outcome here. There's no claim of notability whatsoever. BusterD (talk) 15:04, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. Star Mississippi 02:38, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Paracelsus-Bad (Berlin U-Bahn)[edit]

Paracelsus-Bad (Berlin U-Bahn) (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 be sufficient sources to show why this u-bahn station meets the notability criteria for inclusion. I've looked at the page on dewiki but I'm not seeing any extra sources we can consider here JMWt (talk) 15:07, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and Germany. JMWt (talk) 15:07, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Station on a major network in a major city, all of whose stations have articles. Not sure why this particular station has been singled out for deletion. There are likely to be plenty of sources available. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:15, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Happy to consider any sources you can offer here. There is no "singling out" any more than there is in starting an AfD discussion on any other page. JMWt (talk) 15:39, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, yes there is, considering all the other stations on the network have articles as well. Why have you chosen this one to nominate for deletion? -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:07, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    See the nomination. JMWt (talk) 16:22, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The nomination statement does not answer Necrothesp's question. Why have you chosen to nominate this station and not any others? When an article is part of a tightly-defined set (almost all articles about rapid transit stations are) then it rarely makes sense to consider the article in isolation to others in the set. Thryduulf (talk) 16:33, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not a relevant question to ask a nom and I'm under no obligation to answer it. Rapid transport system stations do not have implied notability on en.wiki, as shown by various AfD discussions where similar station pages in other countries have been deleted. If you have sources that show this station is notable, please supply them. JMWt (talk) 17:41, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It is a relevant question and it has nothing to do with implied notability. Furthermore, if you don't want to answer a question (for any reason) say you do not want to answer it rather than pointing to a comment that doesn't answer it with a comment implying that it does. Thryduulf (talk) 18:44, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Of course it's a relevant question. It's an attempt to understand why this single station on an extensive system has been nominated and no other. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:21, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or merge. There is definitely no reason to remove the verifiable information about this station from the encyclopaedia completely. Yes, it could do with more sources, but it's inconceivable to me that they don't exist even if they aren't cited yet. Has the nominator looked anywhere other than the German Wikipedia article? Obviously the most prominent results on Google in English are going to be those useful for those travelling to/from the station, because that's what most people are searching for, but take the time to exclude them and look for histories, etc in German. Thryduulf (talk) 15:25, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sources to consider: Berliner Morgenpost, in German, paywalled [40] and [41]. Die Dorfzeitung:[42]. T-online [43] Berliner Kurier[44]. Rupples (talk) 01:18, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose deletion. Not all the stations on the U8 (Berlin U-Bahn) line have separate articles. Those associated with S-Bahn or main rail lines feature within a combined rail station article. (Some of them seem rather lost within the longer article.) It makes sense to keep the station set for the line intact and have at least a redirect somewhere. All the U8 stations might be better presented in a "List of U8 stations" article, but that would need a separate discussion. Rupples (talk) 07:36, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Per Rupple's sources. I also agree with Necro and Thryduulf it makes no sense to delete one and only one article in a tight set, and the nom refuses to provide any explanation why even when asked. Jumpytoo Talk 04:03, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Withdrawn‎. ~ GB fan 15:18, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of automobiles known for negative reception[edit]

List of automobiles known for negative reception (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 a major point-of-view fork. People can have a negative opinion about every car in existence in one way or another and this article have no chance to be rewritten in an encyclopedic manner. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 14:35, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I will try to address two main reasons why this article has been kept.
  • List of films considered the worst, so this article should also be kept – No, this is not true. Another similar article being kept does not mean that this article should be kept. Unlike List of films considered the worst, this article does not definitively define notability or criteria for inclusion. For example, should the Cybertruck controversial and potential safety hazard make it suitable for inclusion here? Or if there are only precisely three reliable sources criticizing an old car model, should it be removed from this page? Yes or no, because of why? I do understand that this criteria for inclusion might allow a bit fuzziness here, but in this case I feel that it is too subjective and prone to editor's bias, which leads to...
  • List is sourced to respectable news and broadcasting media – this is very fuzzy and prone to editors' bias. For example, the VinFast VF 8. If Vietnamese news sources praise the car for being ABC and XYZ, while Western sources all criticize the car in all other respect, should it stay or be removed from the article? Again, if people from the Anglosphere universally criticize the car while people from other parts of the world praise the car, either the omission or the addition of the entry would imply geographical bias. I don't want to say that we should encourage false balance here (especially because I'm biased about the VF 8 myself because of my nationality), but IMO this is something that we have to consider especially for Chinese and Russian cars listed.
And here are some more potential issues about the article, some can be fixed, some are inherent, sorted from most urgent:
  • Article is cited to a lot of blogs and websites that are not authoritative and representative of the automobile world. This means that their criticisms cannot be taken as a reliable review of automobile experts' consensus.
  • Excessive amount of quotations, no summary of the criticisms. This is a potential copyright violation issue.
  • List's title imply that all cars that have at least some form of negative reception should be included in this list.
– CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 15:02, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't want to turn this to a derisive debate. On a wider note, if this article is kept for the third time, then I strongly recommend establishing a consistent criteria for articles within Category:Lists of worsts to avoid further debates about these kind of articles. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 15:06, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. The WordsmithTalk to me 00:53, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Randy Powell (author)[edit]

Randy Powell (author) (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 couldn't find sources to prove WP:AUTHOR or WP:GNG. No good WP:ATD. This has been in CAT:NN for 14 years; hopefully we can now resolve it. Boleyn (talk) 13:54, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep while there are no sources on the author, several of his books might be notable. There are a bunch of reviews on Publisher's Weekly and Kirkus Reviews. One of them, The Whistling Toilets, won a prize from the American Library Association. As it's written, the page does not show the notability of the author, but it can be expanded to include information on his books. --Broc (talk) 14:08, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors and Washington. Deltaspace42 (talk • contribs) 14:09, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep : Winning the Library Association prize denotes notability. Oaktree b (talk) 15:55, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete He did not win "the Library Association prize", one book's recording was named to its "Selected Audiobooks for Young Adults", which appears to have 30 titles per year and is not enough for WP:NAUTHOR. There needs to be significant coverage or sources on the individual for an article. Reywas92Talk 19:50, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete have amended my !vote above, after the prior comment explained the nomination. I don't really see much coverage for this person. Oaktree b (talk) 20:37, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I’ve been trying to figure out why exactly I got a notice for this AFD, and it turns out I created the article, which makes sense - except I have no idea what I was thinking when I put this out there (probably read something by the author while still in collage). Changing times and standards I guess. At any rate, if ya’ll wanna delete it go ahead. 2600:1011:B13D:12B7:DC8:577A:7FF5:4615 (talk) 04:45, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:06, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ronan Flood[edit]

Ronan Flood (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 couldn't find sources to show he meets WP:BIO or WP:GNG. Possible WP:ATD is merge/redirect or redirect to Pádraig Harrington#Personal life as he has a one-sentence mention in that article, but I think a merge would give overdue prominence in Harrington's article. Boleyn (talk) 13:47, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:11, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Graham Sandercock[edit]

Graham Sandercock (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)

Opening AfD as it was already previously PRODded. Subject does not fulfill notability requirements, neither per WP:NAUTHOR, WP:POLITICIAN or WP:SINGER. Broc (talk) 13:39, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:13, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

White market[edit]

White market (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)

Searching indicates that this isn't a term. Searching gets mountains of false hits, and even searching in GScholar most hits are either completely spurious or are for the book White Market Drugs, which is about drug industry abuses, not economics. One reference from the Von Mises Institute isn't enough. Also, the article, when stripped of its explanation of other "off-white" markets, it's just a definition. Mangoe (talk) 12:50, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - The term in this case, is mentioned as "babies in the white market" in the article's only reference source "Stork Markets: An Analysis of Baby-selling, The journal of libertarian studies". — Maile (talk) 13:54, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: WP:NOTDICT. --Broc (talk) 14:13, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for reasons others have given. Llajwa (talk) 16:44, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. (non-admin closure) NotAGenious (talk) 14:05, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Camping and Caravanning Club[edit]

Camping and Caravanning Club (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)

None of the four sources pass: two are from the subject's own website, one doesn't mention the subject, and one mentions it in passing. Fails WP:GNG. UtherSRG (talk) 12:50, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Entertainment, Organizations, Travel and tourism, and United Kingdom. UtherSRG (talk) 12:50, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. An extremely large and significant organisation in the UK. Plenty of sources available. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:26, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi there, I have some edits to make to this page to improve the quality and tighten up the references. Can I make these? I really don't want the page to be deleted. Thank you. Adrobson (talk) 09:06, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Indeed you can. Please do. Particularly, please add information from WP:SIRS sources to demonstrate the topic's notability. - UtherSRG (talk) 12:30, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That is.. please do not add unsourced informaiton. Please add references to assertions already in the article. Please add new information only with references to support those assertions. - UtherSRG (talk) 12:52, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Wait... your username used to be "The Camping and Caravanning Club"? No, you should very much not be editing this article. you should make edit requests on the talk page with {{edit COI}} as you most certainly have an conflict of interest. - UtherSRG (talk) 18:23, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Agreed with @Necrothesp. This is a large and historic organisation in the UK. References in the article may be poor but AfD is not cleanup. A quick google on The Guardian alone ([45]) indicates a plethora of references. ResonantDistortion 17:25, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep notable organisation with significant coverage GoldenBootWizard276 (talk) 17:33, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Corruption in Azerbaijan as a viable ATD Star Mississippi 02:39, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Financial Monitoring Service (Azerbaijan)[edit]

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

This is an Azerbaijani state initiative from 2009 to make the government appear less corrupt. There are no independent reliable sources in the article. Thenightaway (talk) 18:52, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 20:56, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Would like to see at least two more editors' comments.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TLA (talk) 11:58, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lean towards keep, but only if purely Azerbaijan-language sources are allowed, because that's all that's out there. The BBC's Azerbaijan chapter only ever mentions them in articles written in Azerbaijani, a couple times a year:[46]. Official media and a site called 'Concrete'[konkret.az] tend to just release or repeat official statements. Wizmut (talk) 01:34, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't matter what language sources are in. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:55, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Fails GNG and NORG. All sources fails WP:IS. BEFORE found nothing that meets WP:SIGCOV from WP:IS. Azerbaijan government sources are not independent reliable sources for the subject. No objection to a consensus redirect to Corruption in Azerbaijan.  // Timothy :: talk  05:21, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 12:46, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Most of the article looks like a copy and paste, possibly a translation off the official website. LibStar (talk) 23:47, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 between keeping the article and merging it into Theosophy. After sources were presented and it was demonstrated that secondary coverage exists, editors appear to be split between keeping (and possibly renaming) and merging, both of which have some plausible backing in policies and guidelines. Further discussion on a merger can be handled in a standard merge proposal, while further discussion on a move can be handled in a standard requested move discussion. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 01:43, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Theosophy in Scandinavia[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Theosophy in Scandinavia (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)

Overly promotional with only primary sources. No independent reliable secondary sources cover this topic. Psychologist Guy (talk) 12:14, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NotAGenious (talk) 15:18, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Move and rename (and keep, I suppose). Having thought about this, I think both the article and the sources show there's enough content for separate articles, and I don't see how the article on theosophy in general would benefit from a long section on Denmark, specifically. But while there's an a good list of sources for theosophy which does take place in Scandinavia, they tend to focus on the individual countries. Very little here is actually on theosophy in Scandinavia – rather, we have sources on the individual subsets of Scandinavia. This means that we could build in article based on them, properly covering the topic – but why, if that's not how our sources treat it? I think it makes more sense to have articles on theosophy in Sweden, theosophy in Denmark and so on, based on how the sources I've located deal with the subject. So since this mainly deals with Denmark, I suggest we let it focus on that part and move it to Theosophy in Denmark instead. /Julle (talk) 18:17, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 12:46, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge per Uffda608 too.
SpacedFarmer (talk) 16:00, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move and rename (in keeping with the above case presented by Julle). Nathantx (talk) 02:23, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Haze'evot. Content may be merged at editorial discretion. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 03:03, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yifat Balassiano[edit]

Yifat Balassiano (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 standalone band member. Refs are passing mentions, 404's and social media. Fails WP:SIGCOV. scope_creepTalk 07:24, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree about the non-notability claim. Balassiano is the lead singer and songwriter of the most popular female rock group in Israel today. Furthermore, she has recently launched her solo career with a debut solo album to her name. --Omer Toledano (talk) 08:43, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Omert33:She has launched a solo career. Were you paid to create the article per chance? scope_creepTalk 09:20, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Scope creep: Pertaining your question, no I did not get paid. I've simply been following her career and see her as a person of interest. Why all this aggressive scrutiny? --Omer Toledano (talk) 13:07, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Lets examine the references as they stand:
  • Ref 1 [47] 404. Non-rs
  • Ref 2 [48] Details The Wolves. An analaysis of one of there songs. It is a passing mention.
  • Ref 3 [49] "The Wolves are the girl gang we all want". Is is another passing mention in the context of the band.
  • Ref 4 [50] This is an event listing. It is non-RS.
  • Ref 5 [51] Another 404
  • Ref 6 Facebook link. Non-RS

That is the first two ref blocks. The other ref block is more of the same. These are not real sources, a mix of 404, social media links and passing mentions for a WP:BLP. Fails WP:SIGCOV. scope_creepTalk 09:20, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge into Haze'evot. Yawn! There is a heated notability discussion above, by references instead of sources, and this discussion is entirely beside the point because the article should be merged regardless of notability. Yifat Balassiano is a CURRENT member of Haze'vot. This band is undisputedly notable and has a too short article. Balassiano also did some solo recordings and obviously was born, went to school, and the like. All that, minus every track of her solo albums, can be included in Haze'evot without creating a situation of WP:UNDUE and without creating the need to rehash the entire Haze'evot history once again. Did I just say once again? Make that TWICE again because exactly the same problems at the article of yet another band member, Talia Ishai. Merge them all. Both are totally unjustified WP:SPINOFFs, creating a user experience from hell, where the user needs to chase after bits and pieces of information, while stuff is unnecessarily repeated. This is not respectful. As if our users can't hold onto information or be exposed to more information at once. gidonb (talk) 18:44, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Having a solo album doesn't constitute notability in this instance, particularly since the coverage proves the album has not been successful, and that is further reinforced by the complete lack of social media interest. There is nothing there. 69 subscribers on youtube. Nothing. This is the editor who moved the article from Afc without review. scope_creepTalk 09:15, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Added references to album review. --Omer Toledano (talk) 04:21, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 15:25, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment The supposed album review is to a niche radio site that is not WP:RS nor independent. It is PR. This is a WP:BLP. Where is the WP:THREE sources that prove the person is notable per established best practice per consensus. Not passing mentions or event listings or interviews. scope_creepTalk 09:01, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

* keep--היידן (talk) 16:19, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Editor is a WP:SPA scope_creepTalk 14:00, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 12:45, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment So far no evidence has presented that this person is notable. scope_creepTalk 14:00, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: I don't see notability for this person. Making an album these days is as simple as uploading songs to the streaming platform of your choice, not really implying notability. Ok if it gets redirected to the band. Oaktree b (talk) 15:59, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Further to my conclusions in this debate, I have nominated Talia Ishai for merger into Haze'evot. Anyone who found interest in this discussion may find interest in that other discussion as well. gidonb (talk) 01:21, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No indication of notability. Jacona (talk) 00:59, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. How about redirecting as an ATD and compromise. This is what we did with Talia Ishai. Any objections to the same solution? gidonb (talk) 01:36, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Owen× ☎ 01:39, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kim Myung-jin[edit]

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

No indication of notability outside of team setting toobigtokale (talk) 11:24, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • No, it is not, because nominators are obliged to both explain why they believe the notability is lacking, state which guidelines the subject fail, and preferably show that they have done a WP:BEFORE, in order to be taken seriously. Geschichte (talk) 13:05, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I did a quick search when I first nominated but it was too quick; this athlete has some mild coverage (quoted in a few newspapers with a short blurb about who he is, can't find full articles just about him). On a side note, please watch the tone. Some of your responses have read a little condescending to me. toobigtokale (talk) 14:26, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Subject is not notable separately from the team. A redirect to the team article may, or may not, be useful. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 16:51, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 15:25, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. No GNG coverage has been found so far, so the subject does not meet NSPORT.
JoelleJay (talk) 22:48, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 12:45, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • COMMENT: 2008 World Wheelchair Curling Championship links to (brief, minimally documented) articles on every contender from every country. It does not, seemingly, link to pages for the individual national teams. Is the proposal to delete every one of these articles? The others are very similar to this one in notability. Llajwa (talk) 16:55, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    We'd have to investigate each athlete by searching for news coverage; information on the article alone is not sufficient.
    For this article (Kim Myung-jin), here are the Korean sources I can find with non-trivial coverage: [52][53]
    That's it. He could have possibly been covered on TV, but this is all I can find in written form with a reasonable amount of effort. toobigtokale (talk) 19:48, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:33, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cardo Siddik[edit]

Cardo Siddik (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 footballer, never played for first team at Crystal Palace, or as a senior international. I have previously moved back to draft space, but this should go through a proper deletion discussion. Spike 'em (talk) 12:44, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Player would not pass the previous NFOOTY and rest of coverage is pretty routine contract announcements / minor match coverage. Spike 'em (talk) 12:48, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Consensus is against retention, and there's a good case made for why merger won't solve the issues raised here. FUrther, there isn't a clear consensus on a target even if merger were an option. No objection to a redirect being created as a matter of editorial discretion. Star Mississippi 02:41, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Israeli humanitarian aid to Gaza[edit]

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

This article is in breach of WP:NPOV and is perhaps one of the most extreme examples of WP:BIAS I've encountered in over 15 years of editing (including editing in areas related to The Troubles in Northern Ireland!) It attempts to paint one side in the conflict as donors of humanitarian aid, and the recipients as probable terrorists and criminals. No attempt at WP:BALANCE has been made.

Examples:

  • Mention of 1,400 Israelis massacred; absolutely no mention of the 29,000 (at time of writing) Palestinian civilians massacred.
  • Uncritical presentation of statistics. Since the start of the war "9066 trucks of supplies entered Gaza" sounds impressive. But it's only 85 trucks a day, for an area with a population of >590,000. One truck per 6,900 people!
  • No mention of who was actually supplying the aid, the implication it's Israel. It isn't, in the vast majority of cases, it's aid organisations.
  • Absolutely no mention of the fact that much of Gaza, including hospitals and clinics, has been left without fuel, food and water, all widely covered in Western media.
  • The article starts in 2005, but does not mention the blockade of Gaza, the prohibition on importing goods such as shampoo, paper, chocolate, etc, that was ongoing until at least 2010.

In short, the article is incredibly one-sided and beyond saving in it's current form. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 12:40, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This article touches on an extremely important topic that has not yet been presented in the English Wikipedia. I don't see how the arguments they put forward for deletion are relevant. Yes, the article is in its infancy and materials are missing here. The right way to solve this is as always in Wikipedia - to expand the article, bring additional positions and opinions, and promote the article as a community.
Regarding the claims by Bastun:
  1. The 1400 dead were mentioned in a certain context and not in the context of the statistics on the war.
  2. The entry of the trucks began long after the start of the war, therefore your statistics are incorrect. In addition - these days Israel is helping a nation that is currently holding 133 hostages. There are Israelis who claim that 85 trucks a day without receiving compensation is a violation of the Israeli hostages.
  3. Bastun right, it's worth adding
  4. I'm not sure how relevant this is to this particular article.
  5. I can add, I don't see this as a figure that affects the desire to delete the article.
Eladkarmel (talk) 13:27, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment to closing admin that Eladkarmel is the page creator. Jebiguess (talk) 23:15, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The page creator is certainly allowed to have and express an opinion in AFDs. It's even encouraged to leave them notices about AfDs so these opinions are built into practice and policy! gidonb (talk) 18:34, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My bad, I was thinking of something else. Jebiguess (talk) 22:44, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Agreed. A pretty disreputable combo of POV and proseline. Resolving the glaring imbalance issues here would undoubtedly require more effort than was put into the slapdash medley of one-sided content that currently exists. As Bastun also notes, most of the stuff headed into Gaza either from Israel or elsewhere is not "Israeli", so not even the title works. Humanitarian aid in Gaza could certainly be a viable topic, but this is not that; this appears to be some sort of attempt to gloss Israel as a benevolent provider of aid (ironically at a time when it is anything but, and is in fact a prevaricator of aid). A time-wasting POV creation to which WP:TNT and a stern trouting very much applies. Iskandar323 (talk) 13:41, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. A mishmash of sourcing attempting to gloss over the war and make it seem like Israel's role in the war is solely as a benevolent provider of aid to Palestinians instead of an active combatant that has directly and indirectly killed 29,000 people. Israel-Palestine topics are contentious, but this is a perfect example of a biased interpretation of random facts in the name of Israeli propaganda. Jebiguess (talk) 23:14, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:AGF, refrain from claiming that actions here are "in the name of Israeli propaganda", Arbcom's I-P measures apply here. JM (talk) 00:13, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Likewise, I have no objection to this option. Just the article on the Gaza Strip is in my eyes the best option. I would prefer a merger into International aid to Palestinians over a keep or a delete. gidonb (talk) 13:24, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • strong delete. Specifically opposed to merging into another article for the following reasons:
  1. Assisting in transferring donations is not aid, after all, Israel controls the banking system.
  2. Donations from international organizations is not aid from Israel.
  3. The 'transfer' (as described in the lead) of products, admission of patients into hospitals, and employing people is not aid. The notion that 'transfer' of products is aid is particularly glaring, as Israel requires that it clear all imports. For much of the period discussed here, no imports were allowed through Rafah crossing, the only crossing not entirely controlled by Israel.
  4. The metrics reported here are not given context. During much of the period discussed in this article, exports and imports were severely restricted. As noted by other editors, the effort required to fix this far outweighs the information added here. "daily influx of 4,000 tons of gravel, 3,000 tons of cement, and 400 tons of steel bars" is mentioned, but how much was needed to facilitate reconstruction in accordance with the plan (I believe during this period the import of construction material was far below what had been planned)? And anyway, this is about how much Gaza *received*, not about how much was given by Israel. "Approximately 92% of medical aid requests by Gazan civilians from Israel were granted" checking the report this is actually just for the month of December (incorrectly sourced) and out of a total of around 1000 applications, no context is given on the criteria or why there aren't more applications despite the obvious need.
  5. A lot of the statements are very vague, for example "Gas for domestic use was supplied according to Palestinian demand" and "Shipments of food and supplies from Israel to Gaza were carried out six days a week during that time period"
  6. Obviously, permitting imports is not aid, but this article suggests that it is (at the very least a breach of SYNTH).
  7. UNDUE weight on actions of palestinian individuals and groups, for example: "However, Western intelligence revealed that Hamas diverted funds for their own use, despite the intended purpose of aiding Gazan civilians". This could be informative but no details or contextualization is given.
  8. The discussion on the current war is mostly UNDUE and glaringly a breach of NPOV and BIAS, with no attempt at BALANCE. The points above also apply to this section (eg aid from other organizations is not aid from Israel).
Overall, a very low quality article requiring much more work to fix or merge than is worth given the quantity of valuable information. I agree an explanation of Israeli aid to Gaza could be relevant if not already somewhere on wikipedia, but more likely as a subsection in another article, and it should be presented in a contextualized and informative way rather than as a SYNTHed collection of snippets from the internet. DMH43 (talk) 17:44, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete The article does not mention that Israel has been imposing a blockade of the Gaza Strip for a long time. And assisting and allowing in transferring a small selected portion of the total international donations is not Israeli aid to Gaza. Israel bars most of the international humanitarian aid to Gaza, e.g. Israel regularly bars Iranian humanitarian aid for Gaza.Crampcomes (talk) 11:38, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Eladkarmel. JM (talk) 00:08, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless can be entirely rewritten, wholly biased. Alextejthompson (Ping me or leave a message on my talk page) 18:39, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Complex/Rational 14:43, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of pubs in Norwich[edit]

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

Simply a personal/random list or directory of mostly non-notable pubs. The inclusion criteria is not given and is not obvious. Fails WP:NOTDIRECTORY and attracts clutter (people may add their own favourite pub, or start their own local directory). Mostly unsourced. Wikipedia is not a directory of non-notable local businesses. Notable pubs, such as Fat Cat, Norwich and Adam and Eve, Norwich, will have their own articles and may be included on List of pubs in the United Kingdom. SilkTork (talk) 12:23, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. The WordsmithTalk to me 23:52, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

IDEA1[edit]

IDEA1 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A simulator written by researchers for researchers, with little to no interest to the general public. The original paper received only few citations. Non-notable. Broc (talk) 11:54, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 11:34, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

LDC Watch[edit]

LDC Watch (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 evidence of notability could be found in online sources. The article only contains primary sources. Broc (talk) 11:28, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 The Great Pottery Throw Down. (non-admin closure) NotAGenious (talk) 14:01, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Great Pottery Throw Down (series 5)[edit]

The Great Pottery Throw Down (series 5) (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)

Contested draftification. No indication this particular season was notable, and no clear sourcing found. Star Mississippi 03:13, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:34, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 08:45, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep or as WP:ATD, Merge with main article The Great Pottery Throw Down. Here are some reviews of the fifth season: [54] [55] [56]. Deleting the content would result in a loss of valuable material for the main page, which would have no information related to season 5. --Broc (talk) 11:03, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge a properly sourced summary into the main The Great Pottery Throw Down, season does not have WP:SIGCOV from WP:IS WP:RS addressing the subject directly and indepth.  // Timothy :: talk  17:41, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 11:19, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lee Su-hwan (footballer)[edit]

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

Can't find much significant coverage. I can find two news articles about him in minor newspapers in Korean [57] and [58], but that's it. He seems to have only played in a handful of games. toobigtokale (talk) 07:34, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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


The result was no consensus. After extended time for discussion, there is a clear absence of consensus for deletion, and participation leaning closer to consensus that the subject's coverage within her narrow but important field are sufficient to keep. BD2412 T 01:21, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sandra Claxton[edit]

Sandra Claxton (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 researcher under basic criteria for notability. A search turned up no significant coverage other than the Sydney Morning Herald article. Notability guideline for academics does not apply because she was not a professor at an academic institution. voorts (talk/contributions) 19:17, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Science, and Australia. voorts (talk/contributions) 19:17, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Diserak (talk) 19:29, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep meets WP:NACADEMIC#1b: Criterion 1 can also be satisfied if the person has pioneered or developed a significant new concept, technique or idea, made a significant discovery or solved a major problem in their academic discipline. As her article notes, she identified over 70 new tardigrade species and made notable contributions to the taxonomy of the genus Minibiotus. Sydney Morning Herald article is certainly an example of significant coverage, meeting WP:SIGCOV as well. Diserak (talk) 19:36, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You've omitted the next sentence of NACADEMIC: In this case it is necessary to explicitly demonstrate, by a substantial number of references to academic publications of researchers other than the person in question, that this contribution is indeed widely considered to be significant and is widely attributed to the person in question. Citation to one SMH article is not a substantial number of references to academic publications of researcher other than the person in question.
    Additionally, although the SMH article meets SIGCOV, NBASIC requires SIGCOV in multiple independent sources. As I noted, I could not find anything other than the SMH article.
    I would recommend providing three sources that you believe establish notability. voorts (talk/contributions) 20:11, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:THREE is an essay as is not vetted by the community, so let's keep the discussion policy compliant. I'm expecting such citations due to nature of her research. Someone here would come up with such coverage if they have access to paywalled journals. I'm not a subscriber of research journals. Just created it based on the news coverage. Diserak (talk) 23:36, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It's only an essay and there must be sources are not good arguments. I cited THREE because it is a short-hand way of asking you to meet your burden of verifying the claim that the article subject meets NACADEMIC. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:56, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Is the 2013 review referred to [59] ? Because that only has 21 citations on Google Scholar, which doesn't seem a lot to me. -Kj cheetham (talk) 18:43, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • P.S. Don't need to be a professor for WP:NPROF to apply, given academics may also work outside academia and their primary job does not need to be academic if they are known for their academic achievements. -Kj cheetham (talk) 18:45, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Thank you. I missed that part of NPROF. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:50, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually, her name isn't in the authors list of that paper. Does anyone have a reference for the actual review? -Kj cheetham (talk) 18:52, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:Prof not yet passed. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:20, 19 January 2024 (UTC).[reply]
  • Weak delete I don't see how WP:NPROF is met, and whilst the Sydney Morning Herald article is good, need multiple such sources to meet WP:GNG. -Kj cheetham (talk) 10:40, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seraphimblade Talk to me 06:00, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • weak keep, I appreciate I'm going out on a limb here, but my feeling is that by NPROF people are notable if their work is seen as significant by their peers, and in their area of research; Claxton's problem is that she worked in a small and specialised area, where high citation counts are unlikely - not that she was non-notable in that particular area. An alternative justification is that one really good newspaper article isn't quite enough (we'd like two) and her research isn't maybe quite enough, but two not-quite-enoughs add up to a pass. One day, people interested in tardigrades will be grateful to us for keeping thsi information. Elemimele (talk) 13:13, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I appreciate your position and going out on a limb for this; I'm keenly aware of the issues Wikipedia has had with covering women in science. The issue here is that NPROF requires more than one RS stating that a person's contributions are significant in a field. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:29, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep one really really strong article will go a long way. We've got that in our article. While the GNG asks for multiple, we've got non-independent sources and I'd claim this is a good case for IAR. Hobit (talk) 06:04, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 God's Learning Channel. ✗plicit 11:22, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

KPTB-DT[edit]

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

Not notable on its own; merge into God's Learning Channel. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 05:59, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Christianity, and Texas. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 05:59, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per my comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/KRPV-DT. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 06:22, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with God's Learning Channel: Even as far back as 2011, the individual notability of this station was questioned enough that a previous article was deleted via PROD. A new article was created in 2016, but notability standards have only tightened since even then — and if it couldn't survive in 2011, there's even less reason to have a separate article now. (Because the recreation amounts to a de facto contesting, I procedural declined a PROD that came right before this AfD.) WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:57, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 God's Learning Channel. ✗plicit 11:22, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

KMLM-DT[edit]

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

Not notable on its own; merge into God's Learning Channel. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 05:58, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Paine, Judy (October 29, 1988). "New station on air". The Odessa American. Odessa, Texas. p. 17A. Retrieved January 22, 2024 – via Newspapers.com.
  • Merge with God's Learning Channel: this is another remnant of the circa-2005 "notability standards" where we, at times, seemed to give any broadcast station at least a stub, even full-time relays of other services. Even before 2021 we were theoretically discouraging those, but the standards were still loose enough for a PROD to be declined in 2011. (I had to procedural contest a second PROD attempt that was made right before this AfD because of the 2011 one.) I don't think the limited pre-GLC history of this station would weigh down that article much. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:42, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. No valid rationale for deletion resulting in WP:SNOW. (non-admin closure) gidonb (talk) 14:56, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Express trains in India[edit]

Express trains in India (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 deletion should be done as we can see same content is copied in Rail Transport in India article and I guess Express trains in India should Have info about Passenger Train, Mail, Suvidha Express, Jan Sadharan Express, Yuva Express and AC Express merged and written rather than the content available as of now, Bhagwan22 (talk) 05:53, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is already a merge proposal started at Talk:Express_trains_in_India#Merge_proposal by you. There is no need of this AfD discussion. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 05:56, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural keep as no valid deletion rationale provided. ~ A412 talk! 12:00, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep India is a serious train country. We wouldn’t delete the TGV article or the High Speed rail in China article so why delete this? -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 18:38, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
all listen then agree to merge all the articles mentioned into this article with valid reason provided here Talk:Express_trains_in_India#Merge_proposal Bhagwan22 (talk) 09:54, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per Eraserhead1. ~~ αvírαm|(tαlk) 13:51, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 11:32, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dobrolet (cargo airline)[edit]

Dobrolet (cargo airline) (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 couldn't find sources to show it is notable or a good WP:ATD. This has been in CAT:NN for 14 years; hopefully we can now resolve it. Boleyn (talk) 05:52, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. BD2412 T 01:16, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rossy Aguirre[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Rossy Aguirre (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)

Last AfD was no consensus due to limited participation - as this has been in CAT:NN for 14 years, I really hope we can now get it resolved. She exists and has a career, but I couldn't establish that she is notable. Boleyn (talk) 05:38, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 06:22, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 06:22, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 06:23, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 06:23, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 06:23, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please. That was less than 2 months ago and sources were presented....Of course, she's still notable. And of course coverage still indicates notability. Keep then, keep now. I will add the sources If that's all it takes.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank)
    • Where an AfD is closed as 'no consensus due to lack of participation', by convention an immediate renomination is allowable. This is covered in Wikipedia:Deletion_process#No_quorum, namely closing as "no consensus" with "no prejudice against speedy renomination" (NPASR). Daniel (talk) 19:16, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Daniel: I am not sure why you would direct me there and make this comment in reply to my !vote but thank you all the same. I never doubted this was allowed. I only pinged you out of courtesy as I did ping everyone who had contributed to the last Afd, not to alert you of some violation of any rule. I just find this 2nd Afd very ...unnecessary. I have added the sources. See for yourself. Best, -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 22:34, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You wrote "Please. That was less than 2 months ago" regarding the last AfD. I am simply pointing out that the time since the last AfD is irrelevant here, given it was closed as no consensus due to limited participation. Daniel (talk) 01:26, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah, right, fair, yes that made sense, apologies.i should not have mentioned the time span. It was more to suggest the tags would eventually be removed and that to allow contributors more time to do so would have maybe been a good idea. But you are right, let me clarify: whether yesterday or in 2 years from now, I think this new Afd is unnecessary. Sources presented should have be taken into account. Maybe, now that tags are removed and sources (+ other sources) have been added, this time will be the last, though. Thanks again@Daniel and sorry about this, I am sort of ranting. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 08:47, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • notifications to participants in 1st Afd: @Daniel, Liz, MisterWizzy, and Rublamb:.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 15:14, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Sources exist to expand this article. Because we consider the article's potential and not just its current state, guidelines are to keep. Wikipedia is a process and there is no time limit on when an article is improved. Rublamb (talk) 15:58, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per added sources. Toughpigs (talk) 04:25, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 11:36, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen Bartolin Jr.[edit]

Stephen Bartolin Jr. (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 Joeykai (talk) 05:37, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 11:37, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

NicheStack TCP/IPv4[edit]

NicheStack TCP/IPv4 (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 my area of expertise, but I couldn't establish that it meets WP:N, or see a good WP:ATD. This has been in CAT:NN for 14 years; hopefully we can now resolve it. Boleyn (talk) 05:33, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 11:38, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bandula Jayasinghe[edit]

Bandula Jayasinghe (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 am afraid, this biography does not meet both WP:NBASIC and WP:SONGWRITER criteria. Existing references at best is WP:PASSING. I will add a full source assessment table. Chanaka L (talk) 05:22, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I Uploaded New References to the article, Most of his references are offline and I found some Newspaper articles related to him. InfoSeeker.sl (talk) 20:43, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I added the second assessment table. I am afraid, the issue of WP:SIGCOV persists. I did a Google search before the nomination, and it did not yield any worthwhile results, So I am not surprised you are finding it difficult to come up with SIGCOV sources. Chanaka L (talk) 04:01, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I Found Some Newspaper Articles Related to him but those articles couldn't find on the internet. Most of them are Old Newspaper articles and that time few Sri Lankan newspapers published articles on the internet, is there any way to Upload those articles to Wikipedia? InfoSeeker.sl (talk) 08:53, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You can use them as citations if they are WP:RELIABLE SOURCES. Chanaka L (talk) 09:21, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank You... InfoSeeker.sl (talk) 11:10, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, How do you personally come to hold the copyrights of photographs of the subject? The award ceremony and especially the 1964 Malwana Waluawa photo? Are you in any way connected to the subject? Chanaka L (talk) 09:24, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, I participated in that event last year, and I was curious about his works, especially the song 'Issara Bandi Pema,' which is my favorite. So, I tried to Google him, and I didn't see any Wikipedia page about him. During that event, I obtained a photo from the award ceremony, and I'm trying to create some articles on Wikipedia. I chose him as the subject for my first article. Last month, I went to the Department of National Archives to find old newspaper articles about him and some other old artists in Sri Lanka. During that time, I met a man who knows about the music industry and Jayasinghe very well. He provided me with information about Jayasinghe's personal life and assisted me in finding the old articles. I discovered four articles about Jayasinghe. Additionally, the Malwana Walawwa photo is a damaged photograph that is 60 years old, and I restored it. InfoSeeker.sl (talk) 11:08, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Most of his details were obtained from the Sri Lankan Lyrics Association Artist Book and through YouTube InfoSeeker.sl (talk) 11:15, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Source assessment table: prepared by User:Chanakal
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
https://archives1.dailynews.lk/2020/08/12/tc/225503/lyrics-move Yes Yes No WP:PASSING ✘ No
https://songhub.lk/artist/bandula-jayasinghe Yes No No Just a song collection ✘ No
https://www.lankadeepa.lk/latest_news/%E0%B6%89%E0%B7%83%E0%B7%8A%E0%B7%83%E0%B6%BB-%E0%B6%B6%E0%B7%90%E0%B6%B3%E0%B7%92-%E0%B6%B4%E0%B7%99%E0%B6%B8-%E0%B7%84%E0%B7%92%E0%B6%AD%E0%B7%8A%E0%B7%80%E0%B6%BD-%E0%B7%83%E0%B7%94%E0%B7%80%E0%B6%B3%E0%B6%BA%E0%B7%92/1-481693 Yes ~ WP:INTERVIEW No WP:PASSING ✘ No
https://archives.dailynews.lk/2012/04/16/fea01.asp Yes Yes No article is not about the artist ✘ No
https://island.lk/the-bandaranaikes-and-the-bevens-of-horagolla/ Yes Yes No article is not about the artist ✘ No
https://www.sinhalasongbook.com/?lyrics=bandula-jayasinghe Yes No No no content, a cords db ✘ No
https://gossiplankaralla.com/%E0%B7%80%E0%B7%92%E0%B7%81%E0%B7%8A%E0%B7%80%E0%B7%8F%E0%B6%B7%E0%B7%92%E0%B6%B1%E0%B6%B1%E0%B7%8A%E0%B6%AF%E0%B6%B1-%E0%B6%9A%E0%B6%BD%E0%B7%8F-%E0%B7%83%E0%B6%B8%E0%B7%8A%E0%B6%B8%E0%B7%8F%E0%B6%B1/ Yes No a gossip site No a photo stream of a provincial award ceremony ✘ 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}}.
23 January
Source assessment table: prepared by User:Chanakal
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
https://archives.sarasaviya.lk/2012/03/29/_art.asp?fn=sa12032919&pn=18 Yes Yes No The source lists some of the songs the subject composed, it is a notice of a concert, but I am afraid it is not WP:SIGCOV. ✘ No
https://www.worldgenweb.org/lkawgw/gen1001.html No No a genealogical site, WP:UGC ✘ No
https://mirrorarts.lk/news/7359-2023-12-01-09-50-44 No unknown editorial process No WP:PASSING ✘ No
https://divaina.lk/%E0%B6%9C%E0%B7%9A%E0%B6%BA-%E0%B6%B4%E0%B6%AF-%E0%B6%BB%E0%B6%A0%E0%B6%B1%E0%B7%8F-%E0%B7%83%E0%B6%82%E0%B6%9C%E0%B6%B8%E0%B6%BA%E0%B7%9A-%E0%B6%B8%E0%B7%94%E0%B6%BD%E0%B7%8A%E0%B6%B4%E0%B7%92/ Yes Yes No WP:PASSING ✘ No
https://mawbima.lk/2024/01/01/%E0%B6%9C%E0%B7%9A%E0%B6%BA-%E0%B6%B4%E0%B6%AF-%E0%B6%BB%E0%B6%A0%E0%B6%B1%E0%B7%8F-%E0%B7%83%E0%B6%82%E0%B6%9C%E0%B6%B8%E0%B6%BA%E0%B7%9A-%E0%B6%B8%E0%B7%94%E0%B6%BD%E0%B7%8A%E0%B6%B4%E0%B7%94/ Yes Yes No covers the same news above, WP:PASSING ✘ No
https://archives1.dailynews.lk/2020/08/12/tc/225503/lyrics-move Yes Yes No WP:PASSING ✘ No
https://www.sarasaviya.lk/films-local/2023/11/30/26087/%E0%B6%86%E0%B6%AF%E0%B6%BB%E0%B6%BA%E0%B6%A7-%E0%B6%9A%E0%B7%85-%E0%B6%B1%E0%B7%9C%E0%B7%84%E0%B7%90%E0%B6%9A%E0%B7%92-%E0%B6%AF%E0%B7%99%E0%B6%BA%E0%B6%9A%E0%B7%8A-%E0%B6%B1%E0%B7%9C%E0%B6%B8%E0%B7%90%E0%B6%AD Yes Yes No WP:PASSING ✘ 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}}.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 God's Learning Channel. (non-admin closure) NotAGenious (talk) 06:06, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

KRPV-DT[edit]

KRPV-DT (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 not notable on its own; merge into God's Learning Channel. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 05:24, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support merge Especially given that this is the only article related to the network that has a single secondary source. I only made it since somehow there was no article even covering it at the time. The material in here would be immensely useful for improving God's Learning Channel, which also frankly needs additional historical info if there was significant coverage in the Midland and Odessa papers once they moved their headquarters down to Odessa. You probably could have tagged this as a merge instead of an AfD. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 06:16, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with God's Learning Channel: It certainly would appear that, for all intents and purposes, the history of KRPV is the history of God's Learning Channel, give-or-take some cable-only years before 1986. I've wondered at times whether we've needed articles on most of its transmitters — I don't think there's much separate programming on any of them — but never got around to doing anything about it. (For what it's worth, the lack of an article before 2020 was because a previous article on the station was deleted via PROD in 2011.) WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:32, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It turns out I already have a number of clippings from the Odessa American on them. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 06:37, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 11:39, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Consulate General of Indonesia, Vancouver[edit]

Consulate General of Indonesia, Vancouver (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 entirely on primary sources, and article is mainly a list of consuls. Fails WP:ORG. LibStar (talk) 05:19, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for lack of reliable sources Jothefiredragon (talk) 08:16, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No sources to indicate notability at present, and it seems unlikely that it is notable. Nick-D (talk) 10:18, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not enough notability for standalone article. ✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 16:53, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 11:40, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

KDVD-LD[edit]

KDVD-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)

Subject does not meet the WP:GNG due to a lack of WP:SIGCOV. Let'srun (talk) 04:54, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Arizona. Let'srun (talk) 04:54, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Yeah, probably the right call now. While older than many non-notable diginet coatracks, it did not come on air until December 2000 and was not originally broadcasting to the Phoenix area. If it did, it probably broadcast Hispanic Television Network (HTVN), as that's who owned it, or possibly the English-language American Independent Network. Newspaper from Globe is not available. I figure I'll put this likely fact here, too; it's not named for a disc format. The station took its present call sign shortly after one of the brothers that owned it, David Primm, died in 2021. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 06:20, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Another remnant of the looser "notability standards" we had c. 2009. There's not much else that can be done when an all-national-programming station doesn't get, or at least has easily-accessible, significant coverage. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 07:01, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:sigcov Jothefiredragon (talk) 08:22, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. (non-admin closure) asilvering (talk) 08:55, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Coulomb Affair[edit]

Coulomb Affair (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)

Per lack of reliable independent sources and non-notability. No reliable sources have been put on the article in over a decade. The German Wiki article also has no references so wouldn't be of help. The links in the "External links" section are all unreliable. Even the Theosophy Wiki which is unreliable cannot provide a single independent source [60], so you know this topic has not been covered outside of the field of Theosophy. There is no academic coverage or reception of this topic from historians. The only reliable source I have found is from J. Barton Scott but one source is not enough to have an article. Psychologist Guy (talk) 12:42, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 15:02, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: multiple sources listed in 'Literature' and 'External links' by different authors and publishers, both contemporary (19th century) and much later (20th century). Chiswick Chap (talk) 22:45, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment None of those sources are reliable unfortunately, they are all written by Theosophists or link to the main Theosophy website as does theosociety.org. http://www.blavatskyarchives.com/ fails WP:RS. We can't cite biased sources written by fringe advocates WP:Fringe. Are there any neutral academics or scholars that have discussed this topic in detail? I am not seeing any mainstream academic coverage. One of the books cited in the "literature" section is "Hartmann, Franz: Wahrheit und Dichtung, Die Theosophische Gesellschaft und der Wunderschrank von Adyar. o.O. 1906", no page numbers are given. Looks like WP:OR to me, but Franz Hartmann was a Theosophist. We wouldn't cite this source. It look's to me like someone has just dumped those sources to pad out the article. Psychologist Guy (talk) 22:55, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This was a notable event in the history of Theosophy, and it has been studied by historians. It is covered on pages 87–95 of Campbell's Ancient Wisdom Revived [61], which summarizes the importance thusly:
In order to comprehend the larger significance of the Coulomb affair and the report of the S.P.R.-the reasons the controversy drew so much attention in both India and Europe-it is necessary to examine the symbolic position of Theosophy in Asia and in the West... The year of the Coulomb affair was the year in which the forces of change and those for perpetuation of the colonial situation struggled with the symbolic issue of the Ilbert Bill, a measure to give Indians greater power over their own affairs. The issue inflamed passions on both sides and was associated with deep Anglo-Indian hostility against the natives and those Europeans who sympathized with them. The Coulomb affair reflected as well the antagonism between Theosophists and Christian missionaries. Theosophical support of Hindu religions was counterproductive to the Christians efforts to evangelize. Madame Coulomb found a receptive publisher when she offered her letters to a missionary college journal.
A second source from a historian of religion which covers the topic in detail is Scott, J. Barton. "Miracle Publics: Theosophy, Christianity, and the Coulomb Affair". History of Religions. 49 (2): 172–196. doi:10.1086/649525. ISSN 0018-2710. Here is the summary of this paper, from its introduction:
With an eye to recent scholarship that theorizes the contemporary relations of religion, publicity, and secularity, this essay returns to an earlier moment in the unfolding of global modernity: the colonial and occult late nineteenth century. It analyzes documents from the Coulomb Affair of 1884-85 in order to ask how various participants in that scandal conceived of the public sphere and its purchase upon the truthful, the divine, and the real--a complex of concerns distilled by the Theosophical slogan, "There is no religion higher than truth." In particular, I ask how Theosophists and Christian missionaries negotiated the ethic of openness so characteristic of the affair and, arguably, of modern publics more broadly.
These sources demonstrate significant coverage in reliable, independent sources. Jfire (talk) 00:02, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete there isn't enough secondary material to make an article about this. Maybe someone could throw a line in the Theosophy article, but that's about all the notability I can find. Big Money Threepwood (talk) 00:24, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The sources presented by Jfire are convincing. Plus, the German page has 2 footnotes with what seems to be reliable refs. Plus, a really quick look at the GB results show that this is an important event in the history of Theosophy and beyond, and that it was discussed in numerous reliable sources, more or less extensively.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 22:26, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: to assess the sources provided
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 17:06, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 04:45, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep It is indeed frustratingly difficult to find coverage that is not authored by the Theosophists themselves, because boy did they ever sweep the field on this one in the following century. However, I think the two sources presented above should be sufficient for minimal requirements. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 13:08, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. (non-admin closure) NotAGenious (talk) 06:05, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Devachan[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Devachan (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 Theosophy article with no reliable sources. No independent references exist outside of Theosophy books or websites. H.P. Blavatsky and Leadbeater are not WP:RS but these are the only sources cited. No historians have covered this topic. I believe the article is not notable and should be deleted. Psychologist Guy (talk) 13:27, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Development is conceived in Theosophy as continuing after death, in two out-of-incarnation states called kama-loka and devachan. After death the individual puts off his physical body and lives in his astral body until the force has become exhausted which has been generated by the emotions of the just-completed life. His movement from the physical plane is a movement into the plane of kama-loka, or plane of desire... When the emotions of the immediately past life have been dissipated, a second death occurs and the astral body falls away. The individual finds himself in his mental body and in the lower mental world. This realm is called the Devachanic state, and corresponds to the idea of heaven. Devachan is "paradise," a place of bliss and supreme felicity, and "logic tells us that no sorrow or even a shade of pain can be experienced therein." In devachan the upper triad functions solely as a mind "clothed in a very ethereal vesture which it will shake off when the time comes to return to earth."
It is discussed in more depth in Chajes, Julie (2019-01-02). Recycled Lives: A History of Reincarnation in Blavatsky's Theosophy. Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-090914-7. and the fifth chapter of Harlass, Ulrich (2021-07-19). Die orientalische Wende der Theosophischen Gesellschaft: Eine Untersuchung der theosophischen Lehrentwicklungen in der Zeit zwischen den Hauptwerken Alfred Percy Sinnetts (in German). Walter de Gruyter GmbH & Co KG. ISBN 978-3-11-069883-1. I don't speak German, but here's an excerpt from an English-language review of the latter book:
Similarly, Harlass discusses devachan as a concept developed in conversation with Spiritualist debates. It was positioned along with kama loka (often kama loca in Sinnett) as two distinct places. While davachan was conceived as the place where one waits for one’s next incarnation, kama loka was identified as the place where various “entities” reside that are not subject to reincarnation. These entities were understood to be those present at séances. Direct communication with the dead was explicitly rejected. Again, Harlass succeeds in describing the debate over devachan as embedded in contemporary discussions that were primarily concerned with perceived discrepancies in the Theosophical doctrine of reincarnation. Devachan was then positioned against these critics as an allegedly “Oriental” concept, particularly the position of Kingsford and Maitland. The “Oriental” here depicts a discursive strategy by which Sinnett, Blavatsky, and also Row and Malavankar claim exclusivity, as Harlass asserts.
These sources show that this concept has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable sources and hence meets WP:GNG and is eligible for a standalone article. That aside, I think the topic is perhaps better covered in a more general article covering Theosophist beliefs about the afterlife and reincarnation. But the editorial decision of how to best cover a notable topic can be discussed in a venue other than AfD. Jfire (talk) 03:23, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • As demonstrated above, an easy Keep; Goggle otherwise would have pointed me to the hair salon. Sparafucil (talk) 23:11, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 17:07, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 04:44, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 11:42, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher Caldwell (government official)[edit]

Christopher Caldwell (government official) (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 not seeing the sort of independent coverage required to meet WP:NPEOPLE, nor does this person's jobs meet WP:ANYBIO or WP:NPOL.

Of the third party sources used in the article:

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Star Mississippi 02:24, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

José Lavat[edit]

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

He has had some success, but I couldn't establish that this voice actor passes WP:ENT or WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 20:08, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Mexico. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 20:28, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Because of the independent coverage in reliable sources about him, in La Tercera, El Universal and in a lot of Spanish-language newspapers in various countries at the time of his death. He's also actor. Has given his name to the Lavat Awards (for voice actors), which contributes to his notability.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 21:15, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Fails GNG and NBIO. Sources in the article and found in BEFORE are OBITs/memorials, database listings/name mentions, nothing that meet WP:IS WP:RS with WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth. Nothing above is actuall a source about the subject.  // Timothy :: talk  03:42, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 20:10, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Wikipedia:Obituaries as sources. (aka WP:OBIT) states: "Obituaries published by high-quality reliable sources are often treated as valuable sources for articles on deceased individuals, since they provide a broad overview of the subject's life." Not to mention the fact that when so many obituaries are published in the media it certainly indicates something about notability. And most of them are (obviously) addressing the (deceased) subject directly (and in depth).-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 10:04, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Clarification. Nothing above is actuall a source about the subject. I am sorry but I am directing other users to the article itself, that I have improved a bit, and where I added sources (including some from the newspapers I only mentioned here by name; and please note that there a lot of them, and that I didn't add them all. The Mubi page is ...about him (and only here to show he is also an actor). And the source about the Lavat Awards states, as whoever who opens the link can verify, in Spanish (roughly/penultimate paragraph): "The Lavat Awards are the most important Awards for voice actors/dubbing in Latin America. They were created in 2019 in honour of José Lavat, one of the most prominent figures in this field in Latin America". I have, I'm afraid, no further comment.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 18:54, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 03:58, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Kenya women's international footballers. ✗plicit 03:39, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nelly Sawe[edit]

Nelly Sawe (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 Kenya women's international footballers as I am unable to find enough coverage of the subject to meet WP:GNG. All that came up in my searches were passing mentions (2019, 2020, 2021, 2022, etc.) JTtheOG (talk) 03:13, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Complex/Rational 03:33, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Millicent Hikuam[edit]

Millicent Hikuam (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)

Poorly sourced footballer BLP. I am unable to find enough coverage of the subject to meet WP:GNG. All that came up in my searches were passing mentions (2013, 2016, 2018, 2019, 2021, 2022, 2023, etc.) JTtheOG (talk) 03:06, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 11:38, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wally Hunter[edit]

Wally Hunter (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)

Regardless, WP:TNT. Currently, the only refs are WP:SELFPUB. Online, I can only find profiles, press releases, and mentions in sources. TLA (talk) 02:40, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Television, Finance, and Canada. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:35, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Nothing stated in the article is "inherently" notable enough to exempt the subject from having to pass WP:GNG on his sourceability, but the sourcing present here isn't getting him over GNG at all. I also strongly suspect conflict of interest, as the article has been extensively edited by somebody with the username "Ahunter12388", and even the creator "Mike123321123" has a username that's using similar numbers despite the "Mike" part not being technically connectable to anything. Bearcat (talk) 16:22, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Trying to figure out whay it has been nominated for deletion? I also got a note form someone asking for $2000 to fix it which appears to be a fraud Huntwall (talk) 04:42, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 02:48, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - This reads like a publicity hand-out, with the lead paragraph a huge glut of a background resume. Tells us what his positions were, what boards he's sat on, but not much on actual achievements. The recent achievements section is more of the same. Education section is just more of his resume. — Maile (talk) 03:28, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and look through the rest of Mike123321123's extremely sus contribs. jp×g🗯️ 05:18, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. If folks wish to continue the TP discussion, or the proposed merger, that can happen editorially. A fourth relist shows no indication it will be fruitful Star Mississippi 02:24, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lo Presti 'ndrina[edit]

Lo Presti 'ndrina (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 Lo Presti 'ndrina does not exist, violates Wikipedia:No original research. The so-called Lo Presti 'ndrina only seems to exist on Wikipedia. I checked on Google, and apart from Wikipedia and offshoots, there is nothing. If anything, the Lo Presti's are a 'ndrina or clan, but even for that there is hardly any evidence, unless I missed something. No Lo Presti 'ndrina is mentioned in the book Fratelli die Sangue, for instance. The more I check the sources of this article, the more it becomes clear that there is a lot of inacurate selective quoting to prove that something like the Lo Presti crime family exist. For more detail, please check the talk page for a previous (and ongoing) discussion.--DonCalo (talk) 20:57, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What there is is a 'Ndrangheta boss Rocco Lo Presti, who had connections with several powerful 'ndrine (Mazzaferro, Ursino) but had no 'ndrina on his own. No Lo Presti 'ndrina exist, and certainly not now that he is dead. His business is taken over by his nephews from the Ursino 'ndrina. If you want to write something on the infiltration of the 'Ndrangheta in Bardonecchia or Val Susa you could create an article on 'Ndrangheta infiltration in Bardonecchia for instance and/or start a relevant section in the article on Rocco Lo Presti.--DonCalo (talk) 21:34, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:29, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 21:52, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: As above.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seraphimblade Talk to me 01:50, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge selectively into 'Ndrangheta: the information seems verifiable, but not notable enough for a standalone article. Owen× ☎ 22:47, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Aliw Broadcasting Corporation#Radio. Viable ATD with no indication further input is forthcoming Star Mississippi 02:22, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

DYAW[edit]

DYAW (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 significant coverage in RS. Could be redirected to Aliw Broadcasting Corporation. MarioGom (talk) 20:05, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio and Philippines. MarioGom (talk) 20:05, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: All the sources in the article are reliable. The first source states that the station is licensed. The second source talks about the station. The rest of the sources talk about the station's programming. That said, the article is good enough to pass WP:GNG. ASTIG😎🙃 09:24, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    A mere primary record like the initial sources can be reliable, but it is not a secondary source and it does not provide significant coverage. Which source provides significant coverage about DYAW? MarioGom (talk) 23:03, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The second source is indeed a secondary source. And so are the last two. Those 3 therefore provide WP:SIGCOV to the subject. I have explained more than enough. And I won't respond to this post again. ASTIG😎🙃 09:57, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Source 2 is exactly the opposite of significant coverage, it is a passing mention in routine coverage. The source just states [...] Aliw Media Group chairman, and Dr. Nicomedes Abia [...] of Lamrag Radio Network jointly sign an agreement for the launch and inaugural of radio 89.9 DYAW, provincial station of Karambola and radio station DWIZ in Tacloban City. That does not addresses the topic directly and in detail (WP:SIGCOV). MarioGom (talk) 12:47, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Aliw Broadcasting Corporation#Radio per nom, due to failure of WP:SIGCOV. I've reviewed all four of the references in the current version of the article: #1 is a government database chart listing, #2 is precisely as described by MarioGom above, #3 is a dead link but the title of the citation implies it's an obituary about a late broadcaster, and not directly about the station itself, and #4 is a passing mention. Left guide (talk) 10:45, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Meets WP:GNG per Astig's argument. Sources mentioned are reliable enough and secondary, with the ones mentioned by Astig in-depth IMV. SBKSPP (talk) 23:58, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Would you be able to point to an independent, secondary, realiable source with significant coverage? MarioGom (talk) 10:01, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Source 2 is an independent, secondary, realiable source that has WP:SIGCOV since it's about the station. So are sources 3 and 4 since it's about the station's programming. SBKSPP (talk) 03:12, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Aliw Broadcasting Corporation#Radio: Fails GNG and NORG/CORP. Found nothing that meets WP:IS WP:RS with WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth. Agree with above, the refs are not SIGCOV.  // Timothy :: talk  13:48, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Keep Meets WP:GNG to me Jothefiredragon (talk) 08:18, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, arguments divided between Keep and Redirect.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:03, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Per above. Additional analysis of source material available on this subject would be very helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seraphimblade Talk to me 01:34, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 01:42, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lost Gravity[edit]

Lost Gravity (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)

Seems to fail WP:GNG and WP:NMUSIC. Couldn't really find reliable sources, including on Newspapers.com and British Newspaper Archives. Based on the page creator's username, and the fact that the article was created the same year the band started, this seems like a case of a COI/PR-written article of a non-notable group. - Whisperjanes (talk) 01:00, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 01:19, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fermax[edit]

Fermax (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 references, written like an ad, nothing I could find online aside from Fermax's product profiles and other non-WP:SIGCOV. TLA (talk) 02:43, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 00:54, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

seems fine Jimrobbo2 (talk) 14:19, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Blatant advertisement which cites no sources. - MrOllie (talk) 14:45, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 01:19, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Puri Oil (Mills)[edit]

Puri Oil (Mills) (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)

Sources are press releases, based on press releases, or defunct. Somewhat advertorial as well. TLA (talk) 02:33, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 00:53, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete looks like WP:Promotion Jothefiredragon (talk) 08:19, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: PROMO with fancy buzzwords inserted (SME! The mustard specialist!), with little to no coverage outside of funding announcements. Oaktree b (talk) 16:14, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 01:18, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

New Technology Management[edit]

New Technology Management (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)

Sources include a press release, and WP:SELFPUB content. TLA (talk) 02:31, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 00:53, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. An excerpt: "The company has a team of experienced professionals who are experts in a wide range of IT disciplines. NTMI is committed to providing its clients with the highest quality of service and delivering innovative solutions that meet their business needs." Wow, you don't say. This really doesn't look great. I couldn't find any reffies. jp×g🗯️ 21:12, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Dennis Specialist Vehicles#1977–2000. Viable ATD, but no consensus to merge info Star Mississippi 02:21, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dennis R series[edit]

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

Lacks general coverage with independent sources to be considered a topic for an article. WP:GNG NHPluto (talk) 21:01, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Complex/Rational 00:46, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Network Automation, Inc. v. Advanced Systems Concepts, Inc.. Star Mississippi 02:21, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Advanced Systems Concepts, Inc.[edit]

Advanced Systems Concepts, Inc. (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)

Clearly WP:PROMO. Notability is questionable as the sources are press releases / announcements / WP:ROUTINE. Couldn't find anything online, so I doubt this meets WP:GNG. Regardless, WP:TNT. TLA (talk) 01:50, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 00:45, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Network_Automation,_Inc._v._Advanced_Systems_Concepts,_Inc. IgelRM (talk) 17:15, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect Per above. Looks like a good idea for time being. Article can be restored at any time, when new sources are found. Pavlor (talk) 06:06, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 01:39, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tim Besse[edit]

Tim Besse (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:BIO1E -- person is notable for only this one event, no significant coverage aside from this HalJor (talk) 01:29, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 00:43, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: vaguely bibliographical, reads like a Linkedin career summary. Nothing found for this individual, could be redirected to the Glassdoor article I suppose. Oaktree b (talk) 16:16, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 01:18, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kisna Diamond Jewellery[edit]

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

All I'm seeing are press releases and trade pubs that don't meet WP:GNG. TLA (talk) 01:20, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment: – this was previously speedy deleted for blatant advertising. TLA (talk) 01:21, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 00:43, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: They opened a store in Rajput and the like, are about all I find for the company. Sourcing used now in the article is trade magazines/websites, not an acceptable source. Oaktree b (talk) 16:18, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is a company therefore GNG/WP:NCORP requires at least two deep or significant sources with each source containing "Independent Content" showing in-depth information *on the company*. "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. I'm unable to identify any references that meet the criteria for establishing notability. HighKing++ 21:11, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails WP:NCORP Devokewater|(tαlk) 11:50, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 01:17, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Steven Denning[edit]

Steven Denning (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:PROMO and no proper WP:SIGCOV. TLA (talk) 01:01, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 00:41, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Agree this is likely Promo created. Article creator BeekeeperRed is a sock of TardyMarmot. Several of TardyMarmot;s articles are tagged for "This article may have been created or edited in return for undisclosed payments". — Maile (talk) 02:59, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Sourcing I find is press releases and non-RS. What's used now in the article is of a similar quality. Oaktree b (talk) 16:19, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 01:17, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cornelyn[edit]

Cornelyn (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)

Cornelyn is an house built around 1860 (albeit with some very modern holiday lets) sitting in its own grounds. It is neither a village nor a hamlet. The house itself is recorded by Coflein but is not a listed building. It appears to have zero notability and fails WP:GNG  Velella  Velella Talk   00:39, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions.  Velella  Velella Talk   00:39, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Unlike in the case of Castellior, I find no indication that this location has any archeological significance. It's possible the Massey family, who I assume built the estate, is notable (see e.g. [63], [64]), but I don't see enough sources to indicate that the estate or manor is independently notable. Jfire (talk) 02:58, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, it's definitely Cornelyn Manor, not an "area". I found the Massey sisters, too. And some advertising blurb about management training courses in the 1980s. But there's really scant information about this place or the Masseys (Edith, Gwenddolen, or William) beyond that they were born, lived here, and died. Uncle G (talk) 08:28, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 11:36, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Femmes fantastiques[edit]

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

Doesn't appear to meet WP:NBOOK or WP:GNG. Has been in CAT:NN for 14 years; hopefully we can now resolve it. Boleyn (talk) 17:53, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have found a source about it [65], however I agree it is very unclear if it meets notability. Perhaps its best merge the article to the author's article. Homerethegreat (talk) 15:17, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment found no reviews in English, French or German. --Ouro (blah blah) 15:28, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Οἶδα (talk) 19:40, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previous WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:23, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. I also found no reviews. The source found by Homerethegreat is the publisher's site, so not independent. The author does not have an article, so merge and/or redirect is not viable. Jfire (talk) 02:48, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 01:16, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Konstantinos Konstantinou (footballer, born 2005)[edit]

Konstantinos Konstantinou (footballer, born 2005) (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 appears to fail Wikipedia's notability guidelines, specifically WP:NBIO and WP:SPORTSPERSON; subject does not appear to be the subject of any significant coverage in reliable references. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 18:49, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:18, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 01:15, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dimitrianos Juliou[edit]

Dimitrianos Juliou (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 appears to fail Wikipedia's notability guidelines, specifically WP:NBIO and WP:SPORTSPERSON; subject does not appear to be the subject of any significant coverage in reliable references. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 18:50, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Delete or draftify?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:18, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: BLP, Fails GNG and NBIO. Sources in article are database records and BEFORE found nothing with WP:SIGCOV from WP:IS WP:RS addressing the subject directly and indepth. BLPs require strong sourcing.  // Timothy :: talk  17:58, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 01:15, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pista House[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Pista House (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)

Lots of routine coverage but mostly churnalism. Nothing that meets WP:ORGCRIT. CNMall41 (talk) 19:21, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lot's of independent credible news sources wrote extensively about Pisa House. So this does not qualify for deletion. Check citations first Rasalghul1711 (talk) 00:42, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As the creator of the page I am going to assume you did a deeper dive into sourcing so if you can show me which ones meet WP:ORGCRIT I will have another look and withdraw the nomination should they meet the criteria. --CNMall41 (talk) 21:42, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@CNMall41
1. Deccan Chronicle - Well established newspaper in India
2. Indian Council of Agricultural Research - An Indian government body.
3. The Hans India - English daily read widely in Telugu states.
4. Also Pista House's Haleem has received the GI tag by the Indian government which makes it a notable establishment.
5. Indulge Express - A subsidiary of the New Indian Express which happens to one of the biggest media conglomerate in India; wrote an entire article dedicated to the restaurant and it's owner
So in a nutshell, this is a article for a notable establishment and it's citations helps the article meet WP:ORGCRIT
' Rasalghul1711 (talk) 11:41, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for pointing out the references. First, let me point out that it is not necessarily the quality of the publication, but the quality of the reference itself. So, something like the The Hans India reference may be from a reliable publication, but it is marked as being from Hans News Service which indicates churnalism or WP:NEWSORGINDIA. The only reference out of those you listed which appear to meet WP:ORGCRIT would be the Deccan Chronicle; however, the author of that piece appears to be all over the board with what they write about so not sure how other Wikipedians reviewing that reference would take it. So, assuming the Deccan Chronicle does meet ORGCRIT, that would be only a single source. --CNMall41 (talk) 19:57, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What about the GI of the restaurant given by the government? Surely that does count as reliable. Rasalghul1711 (talk) 00:32, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Regulatory findings aren't notable. Oaktree b (talk) 20:42, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:15, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: Delete based on the source discussion above. Nothing found for notability otherwise. Oaktree b (talk) 16:20, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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/2024_January_22&oldid=1200712308"