Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 December 1: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 03:43, 8 December 2023

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< November 30	December 02 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete‎. Even though these were redirected by the author to circumvent deletion, WP:IAR applies due to copyright concerns. Any editor is free to create fresh redirects as needed. ✗plicit 01:43, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Call Me A Donut Wall

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

Fails WP:NTVEP & WP:GNG, non-notable tv coverage. ASUKITE 18:16, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. ASUKITE 18:16, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related articles (sorry...) ~~It will take me a moment to tag them, but I should have them tagged in a while.~~

Merge and redirect all to Call Me Kat. BD2412 T 20:17, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I forgot to mention that in my nomination, but that's the outcome I was hoping for myself, just a bit much for me to be bold about and do. Just wanted to note that I support this idea as it might save a lot of the editor's work (even if it creates a bit more) - I could see an episode list with the synopses included in a column, or perhaps a separate episodes list article. nevermind, I'm leaning towards delete again, but it looks like the user already started redirecting the articles anyways. ASUKITE 20:53, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The likely target already has such a structure, it is just not well-filled in. BD2412 T 21:00, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails GNG. The only sources I could find are routine coverage of the fact that it was the series finale or commenting on the guest appearance of Russell Dickerson. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:31, 24 November 2023 (UTC) Striking my !vote as I voted using the XFD tool and didn't come to this page first where the other episodes are listed. I will weigh in after evaluating those articles. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:32, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and merge all to Call Me Kat I have found very few RSes that have reviewed individual episodes, and each episode I found appears to be covered in only one RS. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:39, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Article creator has changed all of these articles into Redirects to the TV series. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:35, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Every one of these is a copyright violation: Orma.iasfbo.inaf.it:7007/~mauro/TV/PDF/CALLMEKAT.pdf

Redirecting them is insufficient. They need to be deleted. Bgsu98 (Talk) 00:47, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oof. I never found that. I'd say this could be speedied at that rate. Having had a second look at the creator's talk page, there have been some similar issues. Edited my reply above, I should have just given this more time. ASUKITE 03:45, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I'd like to see whether there is more support/insistence that a Deletion is necessary or if these pages can exist as Redirects.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:51, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect all, per COPYVIO and other issues noted above.

JoelleJay (talk) 21:03, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect each — MaxnaCarta ( 💬 • 📝 ) 23:16, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Obimo. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:42, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Akpotoro

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

I couldn't find the sources to confirm WP:GNG or WP:GEOLAND. It has been in CAT:NN for 3 years. Boleyn (talk) 17:41, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Nigeria. Shellwood (talk) 17:44, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Even if this is verified to exist as a community, it should redirect to Obimo. BD2412 T 18:07, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:49, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Obimo per above. Fails GNG and NGEO. // Timothy :: talk 12:53, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge‎ to Coalition combat operations in Afghanistan in 2008. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:43, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lowara Madi incident

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

Too minor an incident for a stand-alone, why do we need this? Slatersteven (talk) 16:21, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Slatersteven (talk) 16:21, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Minor incident a decade ago, no lasting effects. You can barely find mention of it now, likely not notable. Coverage at the time was scant. Oaktree b (talk) 16:57, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge referenced text into Ghulam Khan and Coalition combat operations in Afghanistan in 2008 and then delete. Why throw away the data? Buckshot06 (talk) 03:22, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:19, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per above sounds reasonable, but notably "merge and delete" is not a possible result. As such, something needs to be done about the original article as well. I'd suggest redirecting to Coalition combat operations in Afghanistan in 2008, but I've no strong preference here. -Ljleppan (talk) 09:29, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Coalition combat operations in Afghanistan in 2008. There is sourced info that could be useful in the parent article, but no independent notability exists for this event using criteria in WP:NEVENT. Cheers, Last1in (talk) 15:24, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable on its own. Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 18:35, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, this seems to be a non-incident whereby one party fired some shots and the other turned around and retreated. Quite how this is an article I am unsure, but I also don't think it's sufficiently close enough to being a notable subject that there is not any need for content retention. Hence, I don't think there is an appropriate case for any merging. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 22:39, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to see whether there is more support for a Deletion or a Merger.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:48, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Coalition combat operations in Afghanistan in 2008. PARAKANYAA (talk) 02:09, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 10:37, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

1001–1011 Jefferson Street

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

I couldn't establish that this meets WP:GNG or WP:NBUILDING ("Buildings, including private residences, transportation facilities and commercial developments, may be notable as a result of their historic, social, economic, or architectural importance, but they require significant in-depth coverage by reliable, third-party sources to establish notability.") This has been in CAT:NN for 2 years. Boleyn (talk) 20:48, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture, Geography, and Delaware. Skynxnex (talk) 20:58, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:36, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The only source cited is a dead link -- and when that link was live, it was to a page on the building developer's own website. So there are no independent sources provided, nor can I find any good sources myself. This building is described on this page merely as a "vision" since 2017, and there is no indication here that it is actually going to be built at all, much less any time soon. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:06, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 23:26, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bratenahl Place

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

I couldn't establish that this meets WP:GNG or WP:NBUILDING ("Buildings, including private residences, transportation facilities and commercial developments, may be notable as a result of their historic, social, economic, or architectural importance, but they require significant in-depth coverage by reliable, third-party sources to establish notability.") Has been in CAT:NN for over 6 years. Boleyn (talk) 21:08, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:35, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:35, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:35, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:35, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - A shame there are no sources, because this is a well written starter article. However, nothing is substantiated by secondary sources, so verification is an issue. So too is notability, as significant and indepth secondary sources are required to establish notability. — MaxnaCarta ( 💬 • 📝 ) 23:19, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 02:10, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

André Duval

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

He doesn't appear to meet WP:BIO or WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 21:43, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:52, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:53, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:53, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:31, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎ and I don't see an additional relist bringing on anything other than split input Star Mississippi 16:33, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Auburn–UAB men's basketball rivalry

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

Subject does not meet WP:NRIVALRY due to a lack of significant, independent WP:SIGCOV. Let'srun (talk) 21:47, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports, Basketball, and Alabama. Let'srun (talk) 21:47, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as I added another source to the article from AL.com (major news source in Alabama) talking about the rivalry. It looks like other sources have been added since too. AuburnShuffle (talk) 02:21, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Esolo5002 (talk) 07:29, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Here's a look at the sources, in the order in which they appear in the article: Auburn Tigers fansite (not an independent source); seems to call every competition Auburn's teams have a "rivalry": "Auburn has a lot of rivals. The Iron Bowl .... The Auburn/Alabama rivalry is .... Auburn has great rivalries with Georgia, Florida, and Tennessee. ... Today, we're going to talk about one of Auburn's great but severely undervalued rivalries, UAB Basketball." So, this is basically meaningless opinion-mongering, and explicitly trying to promote as a rivalry something not generally recognized as a rivalry. Second source is an unrecoverable dead link. Next, no mention of rivalry. Fourth: ditto, and laments the lack of games between the two schools. Next even says "Both UAB and Auburn have a rich basketball history" but mentions no rivaly, despite covering a four-game non-league (exhibition) game series between them. No. 7 mentions no rivalry, and is just a listing of games available on WatchESPN streaming. Next, no mention of a rivalry, just coverage of a game's highlights. 9th source: Ditto. Last: Says "Auburn and UAB aren’t annual rivals", and "the budding in-state rivals"; i.e., it is trying to predict that a noteworthy rivalry might develop.
It's become clear after half-a-dozen or so of these alleged-rivalry AfDs that what is happening here is that various editors are engaging in the WP:OR that if a series of games is set up between two institutions that this necessarily translates, as if by magic, into "a rivalry" in some encyclopedic sense, but this is clearly not the case. There is no in-depth coverage anywhere of any such rivalry existing, as a WP:Notable subject unto itself, between these two schools, or any of others in the similar AfDs. See, e.g., Liverpool F.C.–Manchester United F.C. rivalry for what an actually notable sports rivalry looks like, with significant in-depth coverage of the rivalry as "a thing" (with articles like "Manchester United vs Liverpool rivalry in 65 iconic images", "Liverpool v Manchester United: The bitter rivalry", "Man United v Liverpool rivalry in quotes", "Rival Fans Vandalise Old Trafford", etc., in major newspapers), not just passing mention of the word rivalry interspersed with some stats and some individual game coverage. A sports rivalry is a small subculture unto itself which can be written about as its own subject, not just the bare fact of two teams playing some games against each other (even if a sponspor pins a promotional name on the game series). — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 10:46, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I feel like you are misunderstanding the point being made in the first source. Auburn is mainly known for football and has a lot of rivalries due to its long football history. In men's basketball, that is not the case, and many who are new to following the team may not have realized that UAB (a team that is not very significant to Auburn in football) has much more history with Auburn in men's basketball. The source itself is obviously a fansite so it doesn't meet the criteria but I think the rundown is good enough to be worth including in the article anyway.

Also, all of the games between Auburn and UAB are regular season, non-exhibition games. Are you familiar with how the college basketball season is structured?

And, frankly, if your criteria for a valid college basketball rivalry is one that garners equally significant coverage as a Premier League rivalry, then you may as well have almost all of the rest removed. AuburnShuffle (talk) 20:14, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A website suggesting that some basketball competitions might turn into a "rivalry" to, um, rival that in football isn't encyclopedic material, per WP:NOT#CRYSTALBALL. And, yes, most of the rest of the articles on the alleged "rivalries" should be deleted. That's why they're all coming up for AfD. All sport competition involves "rivalry" of a general nature, pretty much by definition, but "a rivalry" as thing unto itself is not encyclopedia material unless there is a lot of significant, independent, and non-local coverage. Otherwise it's like writing about local bands and restaurants. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 16:35, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as this rivalry – defined not only as a "rivalry" in the "competitive" sense, but also as an annual series of official matchups –– meets WP:GNG. A quick WP:BEFORE search would have revealed many in-depth sources over a WP:SUSTAINED period of time (several of which have now been added to this article): "UAB, Auburn Begin Friendly Cage Rivalry" (about the first game in 1982); "Auburn, UAB renew entertaining rivalry" (1986); "Eagles: AU–UAB is healthy" (1990); "It's time to get reacquainted – Auburn–UAB: old rivalry, new faces" (1994); and "Lots of firsts should add a touch of drama to Auburn–UAB rivalry" (1996). Understand that not everyone likes basketball, sports, Alabama, or sports rivalry/match series articles, but WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not a valid reason to !delete. Cielquiparle (talk) 19:20, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: With all due respect, none of these sources appear to be significant, independent coverage of the rivalry itself. All of the sources you've added are routine game previews with no WP:SIGCOV of the rivalry itself beyond rehashing the results of previous games and quotes from the teams coaches, which it can be argued leads to independence concerns. I'm a huge college basketball fan and would have no issues keeping this article if WP:SIGCOV can be found, but WP:FAN isn't a good enough reason to keep any article. Let'srun (talk) 19:35, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If you actually read the articles, there are plenty of facts and figures independent of the coaches' quotes which are reported by quite a wide range of newspapers. Cielquiparle (talk) 19:45, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Let'srun - Can you please go into the issues with each of the sources? Specifically, the claims about these not being independent? What connections should we be aware of here between these teams and The Dothan Eagle/The Alabama Journal/The Birmingham Post? KatoKungLee (talk) 21:41, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The original sources are enough. What are the issues exactly with 1, 2, 3 and 4? KatoKungLee (talk) 21:36, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
1 is a fan blog, 2 is a routine game preview where the "rivalry" is a passing mention, 3 is not independent (as it is a interview of one of the teams coaches) and does not mention any rivalry, while 4 is also not independent as it is primarily interviewing one of the teams coaches. Let'srun (talk) 03:11, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
1 - There is nothing wrong with a site that is focused on covering certain teams. I'm not seeing a brief mention in the 2nd one, that would be a sentence. For #3, the person in the article was 13 years removed from UAB and was coaching Ole Miss. Again, I see no issues with the 4th one. It seems like you are looking for articles that aren't written by anyone who covers the team regularly, has never had any affiliation with the team at any point in time and isn't interviewing anyone. KatoKungLee (talk) 17:29, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Incorrect assertion. I am looking for WP:GNG level sources written by anyone who doesn't have a direct connection to the subject, which can include team beat writers. The third source doesn't even mention any rivalry, beyond the independence concerns. Interviews aren't GNG sufficient, and if you don't know that you should not be voting at AfD. Let'srun (talk) 21:15, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That is an unreasonable standard (and slightly incoherent) and shows why it's probably important for you @Let'srun to either 1) take a break and slow down with AfDs and PRODs, and/or 2) get some more experience in other areas of Wikipedia, especially in creating content and making edits to mainspace. We all appreciate the hard work you have put in to deletion-related activities, but lately some of your PRODs and comments are starting to look and sound a bit "off". Most importantly you have to demonstrate respect for others per WP:AGF; a bit of humility goes a long way if you are trying to build consensus, and the whole point of the AfD discussion is to build consensus. What might help is to limit yourself to three comments per AfD. You need to have confidence that if you are correct, others will recognize this and support your argument including the closer, and remember it's not a !vote-counting exercise. It's also important to be able to admit when you are wrong and just relax and let go. We all make mistakes and an important part of being smart is to know what you don't know. Cielquiparle (talk) 03:21, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as there is substantial disagreement over the quality of the sources. I'll note that this often happens with sources that appear to be interviews which are not always disallowed as RS, it depends on the surrounding content.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:30, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. A few obscure newspapers calling it a rivalry doesn't make it so. Also, "least appreciated", "friendly" and "entertaining" are not an indication of a noteworthy rivalry. Clarityfiend (talk) 11:35, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify: "friendly" only applied to the first match and all sports is entertainment. I actually came to this AfD discussion thinking I was going to !vote delete, and was surprised to find so much focused secondary coverage about the rivalry. WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not a viable reason to delete. Cielquiparle (talk) 11:13, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Which is why I didn't use IDONTLIKEIT. Obscure newspapers I said, and obscure newspapers I meant: The Dothan Eagle and The Anniston Star are both in Alabama and both only publish three times a week, The Johnson City Press gets no press, and College and Magnolia is a publication about the Auburn Tigers. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:19, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So? All of that is irrelevant to determining the notability of this subject. BeanieFan11 (talk) 13:50, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree with @Clarityfiend--Jasulan.T ^{TT me} 15:11, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per the significant coverage in reliable sources presented by Cielquiparle and KatoKungLee, plus these two AL.com stories; whether the sources are considered "obscure" in a voter's eyes is irrelevant. BeanieFan11 (talk) 17:56, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The title of that first reference is "UAB-Auburn on its way to becoming full-blown basketball rivalry". On its way, not there, so not particularly convincing. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:24, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yep. Classic WP:NOT#CRYSTALBALL material. I could write articles for various newspapers claiming that Cardi B and MC Lyte "on their way to becoming full-blown rap rivals" but that doesn't mean WP should have an article called "Cardi B–MC Lyte rap rivalry". This stuff is just fancruft. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 16:38, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Of course, you both ignore the rest of my comment and all the other sources... BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:40, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I made a source table for everything currently in the article. Up to you on how to interpret it. Conyo14 (talk) 05:35, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source analysis by User:Conyo14

Source assessment by User:Conyo14
[1]	SB Nation is a BLP source, but the author (Brian Spurlock) is a USA Today sports author. Y
[2]	Local newspaper separate from Auburn or Birmingham Y
[3]	Press company in Tennessee. Y
[4]	Fairly significant coverage Y
[5]	Third Alabama source outside the two cities Y
[6]	WP:BLOG and the source is mostly interview N
[7]	Partial
[8]	Doesn't speak to the tone of a rivalry ?
[9]	WP:ROUTINE N
[10]	WP:ROUTINE N
[11]	WP:ROUTINE N
[12]	WP:ROUTINE N
[13]	WP:ROUTINE N

Keep passes WP:GNG with the above mentioned sources. Alvaldi (talk) 16:42, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per the in-depth analysis of SMcCandlish. Will every pair of neighbouring colleges with a varsity team end up as a "rivalry" article? The purpose of NRIVALRY is to ensure the only "rivalry" articles we have are those with a well documented history of such. In 2017, one fringe outlet described it as "on its way to becoming full-blown basketball rivalry". I doubt the six years passed since then have created a body of coverage sufficient to qualify as a documented history of rivalry. Owen× ☎ 14:53, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: There still is no strong emerging consensus regarding the question of the sources, hoping a second relist can help avoid a "no consensus" close.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Aoidh (talk) 14:57, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails GNG. Agree with eval analysis of SMcCandlish. This seems manufactured for promo/booster purposes. Owen× points out above significant information from a source. Not seeing any sources showing this meets guidelines. // Timothy :: talk 05:19, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep there is enough significant coverage to pass GNG based on Conyo14's source analysis above. Frank Anchor 16:19, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 02:11, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lee Bo-ik

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

No evidence of satisfying Wikipedia's notability guidelines. Her only claim to significance is being related to some famous people, the cited references are neither reliable sources nor substantial coverage, and nothing better has been found on searching. JBW (talk) 21:57, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Women. JBW (talk) 21:57, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Korea-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:01, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Notability is not inherent. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 23:44, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already PROD"d so not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:25, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as mentioned above, not inherited, and this is article is also just a genealogical policy violation. microbiologyMarcus ^{(petri dish·growths)} 18:25, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:45, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wu Zhengyan

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

Fails WP:ARTIST and I can't find any significant coverage. Sgubaldo (talk) 20:57, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists and China. Sgubaldo (talk) 20:57, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:04, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. For those searching for sources, the subject's name is 吴争艳 / 吳爭艷. I'm hoping to get to this over the weekend. Folly Mox (talk) 21:44, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I found two articles (both suspiciously by the same author) that demonstrate SIGCOV. The subject has also had a collection published in print. Those are probably the three best sources, although I had a few other leads where the connection timed out on me, so who knows. There's also this 2013 dual exhibition which doesn't contribute to notability. I'm not able to assess notability here. Folly Mox (talk) 15:44, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:48, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: We could use additional analysis of newly found sources.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:23, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. I've decided to close this discussion as No consensus. If there were more participants here, I think the closure would have been more decisive. I'll just note that the article was tagged for discussion soon after its creation and has been subject to additional editing since its nomination. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:06, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Isaac Saul

AfDs for this article:

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

This article was previously deleted via a deletion discussion (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Isaac Saul). Most of the sources provided on the pages are from before the previous discussion, which would indicate that Saul is still non-notable. However, a few sources have been published since the last discussion in 2021. As such, I wouldn't necessarily consider this eligible for CSD, but it's worth discussing whether Saul is now notable. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 20:01, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 20:01, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Journalism, Politics, New Jersey, New York, and Pennsylvania. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:24, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for tagging me. I'd like to emphasize some of the new sources I've added to this article between the first and second nomination: ^[1], ^[2], ^[3],^[4], ^[5]. I thought that these references were some of the strongest in the piece. We now have direct mentions from CNN, Axios, the Financial Times, Forbes, Yahoo! News, Business Insider, Salon, and NBC Universal (none of which are articles Saul published himself). Doesn't this put the article well over the standard three-reference limit?

References

^ Lexington, Transylvania University 300 North Broadway; Fax: 859‐233‐8797, KY 40508 USA Phone: 859-233‐8300. "Creative Intelligence". Transylvania University | Calendar of Events. Retrieved 2023-11-17.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link)
^ Conley, Julia (2020-11-13). "Trump campaign presents 238 pages of ridiculous GOP poll watcher affidavits". Salon. Retrieved 2023-11-17.
^ Academy, NBCU (2023-10-11). "How Substack Journalists Are Growing Their Audiences". NBCU Academy. Retrieved 2023-11-17.
^ Avilucea, Isaac (August 2, 2023). "Tangle founder hosts high court chat in Philly". Axios.
^ Waldmeir, Patti (2022-05-30). "Two Americans talk across the political divide". Financial Times. Retrieved 2023-11-17.

Mover of molehills^{move me} 21:36, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

So my position is obviously keep, although I'm not sure if I'm allowed to comment on my own article. Mover of molehills^{move me} 14:11, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Mover of molehills you're perfectly entitled take a position in the discussion. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 23:59, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Mover of molehills the guideline for notability of people is WP:BIO, which asks for "significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject", while WP:THREE suggests presenting three references to show that WP:BIO is met. I don't think the five sources you linked provide the required coverage

Transylvania University: listing for a talk by Saul at TU, not independent coverage
Salon.com: quote from Saul, not independent
NBCU Academy: looks like a mini interview, so not independent
axios.com: listing for a talk by Saul, not independent coverage
Financial Times: quote from Saul, not independent

TSventon (talk) 02:59, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep — sources should notability, particularly the ones in the "Recognition" section.

DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 13:32, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The relevant notability criteria here is: WP:JOURNALIST, which says: The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors...The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews... At first glance Saul appears to satisfy this (given that this article makes the "influential" claim with regard to both the 2016 and 2020 elections). But it seems fair enough to have to take a closer look at whether the sources actually bear this out, as there is very little discussion about the specifics around the 2016 election, and rather thin discussion about his other work as a journalist throughout his career. Cielquiparle (talk) 17:20, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:00, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I've found a few new sources about Saul since I published this article that I wanted to share, in case it's useful to other reviewers. I haven't added these sources to the article yet, because I'm not sure what specific facts they would support that aren't already in there. However, I thought they could help to establish notability: ^[1], ^[2], ^[3], ^[4].

References

^ "American Democracy Summit Speakers". American Democracy Summit. Retrieved 2023-11-24.
^ "Isaac Saul - Official Member of The Progress Network". The Progress Network. Retrieved 2023-11-24.
^ "Frank talks to Isaac Saul, Founder of Tangle News about the Israel-Hamas war. – 77 WABC". wabcradio.com. Retrieved 2023-11-24.
^ Hibberd, James (2022-11-15). "'SNL' Ratings Hit Season High With Dave Chappelle Amid Uproar". The Hollywood Reporter. Retrieved 2023-11-24.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to evaluate newly found sources not placed in the article yet. Right now, there is disagreement over whether existing sources are sufficient to establish notability for this journalist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:21, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I just replaced the Transylvania listing of Isaac Saul's talk, which was justifiably critized by TSventon as not independent enough, with a more detailed article: ^[1] Mover of molehills^{move me} 23:17, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Brother, Nate (2023-12-06). "Transylvania Hosts Journalist Isaac Saul in Creative Intelligence Series". The Rambler. Retrieved 2023-12-08.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 04:28, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. None of the sources above demonstrate anything approaching notability. School newspapers are not independent sources on people their university invites to speak, nor are profiles by organizations the subject belongs to. It takes MUCH more recognition than a handful of mentions surrounding one or two events for someone to meet NJOURNO.

JoelleJay (talk) 01:37, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Understood, although please note that the sources above are only the sources that I added recently – there are quite a few more listed in the article itself. Mover of molehills^{move me} 23:51, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:20, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Little Grill Collective

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

Fails WP:NCORP WP:ADVERT WP:TNT promotional, advertorial article based on hyper-local sources on a 48 seat hole in the wall run of the mill restaurant. Graywalls (talk) 23:17, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Companies, and Virginia. Graywalls (talk) 23:17, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Graywalls (talk) 23:17, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There's plenty of media coverage far beyond that for a run-of-the-mill local restaurant. Just in 2023, there's [14] [15] [16], all with significant coverage from different local sources. This coverage stretches back significantly in time as well. There is also non-local coverage, such as [17]. The article could certainly use some improvement but I don't see a case for deletion here. Elli (talk | contribs) 17:19, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thrillist article is far from meeting the threshold of WP:ORGDEPTH. It is not a significant, independent, secondary source, but rather just one reflective opinion paragraph, so this would not be the source that can be used to meet the WP:AUD satisfying WP:NCORP source. Some of the other articles are just routine articles about the local happenings in the local press about local interest. NCORP not established. Graywalls (talk) 01:59, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A source does not need to meet ORGDEPTH to contribute to notability (and the coverage in that source is not just "trivial or incidental"). These are just the sources I found in spending a few minutes to search; I am sure there are more that would be harder to dig up. Your assertions that this is just a "run of the mill" restaurant have been demonstrated to be false. Elli (talk | contribs) 02:19, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

SIGCOV, ORGDEPTH, ORGIND expects at least (at the absolute minimum) one source meeting regional, national or intertional coverage that is independent of the article subject company/group, in-depth, and secondary and multiple coverage by the same publisher or same journalist counts as one. What's really expected is a nice big slab of solid wood of the highest standards. In its absence, bringing in sawdust by the truck load is not a substitute. In general, the proliferation of local restaurant and bar articles has been an ongoing issue on Wikipedia and this article is no exception. Graywalls (talk) 08:48, 5 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!} 23:20, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's true every source doesn't have to be significant coverage; however a paragraph in a relatively routine coverage in which it lists places to check out do not amount to something that is sufficient to support WP:ORGDEPTH. We have a 1/3 of a steak and a bucket of ground meat. A full steak that's expected is not found. Graywalls (talk) 01:01, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I've already seen your arguments both in your nom statement and in response above. They don't get any more convincing through repetition. It's bad form to reply to every !voter unless you have something genuinely new to say.Central and Adams (talk) 01:34, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 17:04, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. The claims to multiple independent sources has been acutely debunked by Uncle G with no reply in nearly a whole week. Consensus exists to delete. Daniel (talk) 04:28, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Crimean tunnel

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

TOOSOON. A proposed tunnel project that hasn't been built, despite several years of discussions, is not notable. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:12, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation, Russia, and Ukraine. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:12, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Recently there has been a lot of news about building a Crimean tunnel due to a leak^[1] This should not be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maxsmart50 (talk • contribs) 23:21, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree. this isn't a current project, but is an inevitable project. Current discussions of the project are important to document. Thor gunthorson (talk) 18:28, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  - A project that has supposedly been in development since 2018 but for which there are no finalized plans, no budget allocated, and no ground broken is not "inevitable". voorts (talk/contributions) 20:04, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree there are articles where these plans can be mentioned. Delete Marcelus (talk) 09:11, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2023/11/24/russia-crimea-tunnel-china/

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as there is an unbolded Keep in the discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:09, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There isn't enough sourcing. Inasmuch as most of the other sources are for background that couldn't possibly be about this subject, because they pre-date it by years, this is basically all hanging off one news cycle on 2023-11-24, and that in turn is almost all people re-reporting a Washington Post article. (I went and had a look. Everyone reported the Post's reporting.) There really isn't a second independent source for this, yet. As such it fails the requirement for multiple independent good sources. And this wouldn't be the first time that no-one else is able to back up some breathless exposé by the Post on what China is supposedly doing. We always need multiple independent sources for good reasons, and the Post on China exemplifies one of them. There hasn't been a "lot of news". There has been one story. And this isn't a newspaper. Uncle G (talk) 02:34, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- There are numerous different independent sources including the Kyiv Post an Moscow Times (a Russian newspaper in exile) which were both cited on here. I have another link to The Telegraph which is definitely a reliable source. https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2023/11/24/russia-china-discuss-building-underwater-tunnel-crimea/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maxsmart50 (talk • contribs) 05:02, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  - You claim of independence is clearly falsified by the text of The Telegraph piece, which has "the Washington Post reported" in its second paragraph, and by the text of the Moscow Times piece that not only says "and reported by the Washington Post" even hyperlinks the word "reported" to the Post's piece. Simply put: you are double-counting things to inflate your sourcing. Uncle G (talk) 08:53, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. There is a disagreement on whether to keep or redirect, but as far as rationales that directly address the issue of notability and sourcing (rather than cleanup-related issues like the unsourced portions or fancruft) there appears to be a general consensus that the sourcing is sufficient to show notability. Aoidh (talk) 15:07, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mach Five

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

AFD requested at WP:AFD. Rationale: Does not appear to be independently notable. NotAGenious (talk) 16:14, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. NotAGenious (talk) 16:14, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:19, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect The current article is pure WP:FANCRUFT, poorly referenced too. My BEFORE shows this is a minor popculture icon (at the level of many similar things that appeared in the background of Ready Player One, for exmaple), but I can't find any WP:SIGCOV analysis of it. The best source I found is this local news piece (fron The Everett Herald) about a fan building a replica: [18]. I don't think this is enough. (there is a two-page description in this self-published book, not very helpful given its nature). This could be redirected to Speed_Racer#The_Mach_5 for now per ATD. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:49, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Motorsport, Transportation, and Japan. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:49, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep References 5 and 8 appear sufficient to meet GNG, although the former needs to be located in archive. The sheer number of cultural references should be a clue that this is too iconic an element to be redirected or merged anywhere. Jclemens (talk) 04:31, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The cultural references are pretty minor and unsourced; 5 and 8 don't seem to indicate cultural significance (they are more about the movie and the car they made for it than anything) 38.75.235.237 (talk) 15:09, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
... and they wouldn't be real-world transformations of the fictional vehicle if it weren't already notable. Jclemens (talk) 21:03, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Either way, there is no real analysis of this in sources; they're talking about it in the context of the franchise 38.75.235.237 (talk) 21:15, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Non-sequitur. Fictional elements are almost always talked about "in the context of the franchise" but doing so non-trivially by independent RS'es establishes notability. Also note for the record that this IP address is the one for whom this nomination was originally opened, so should be understood to not be a separate individual than the nominator. Jclemens (talk) 17:08, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm not going to !vote on this AfD, as I have a decades-old-and-thus-now-minor WP:COI with regard to the Speed Racer franchise. However, I thought I should note that there has been at least one publication focused on the Mach 5. The Speed Racer Special, published in 1988, had a car-focused comics story followed by 10 pages of history and technical specs about the Mach 5. I don't know if this moves the needle for anyone's consideration. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 17:45, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I should also note that the "real" Mach 5s, which we are currently using an anime website for as a reference, got mainstream newspaper coverage. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 17:56, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That is a primary source 38.75.235.237 (talk) 23:40, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Per WP:TNT, with no objection to recreation if the article can be improved with sources, or during this discussion per WP:HEY. Right now it is completely unsalvageable. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 21:54, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
~~Neutral~~ https://www.forbes.com/2008/05/07/fastest-fictional-cars-forbeslife-cx_mn_de_0507fictional_slide.html?sh=4605943936de is all I could find. Dream Focus 15:29, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Speed Racer#The Mach 5 - The current article needs a complete rewriting, and even then, I am not convinced that the car is notable enough on its own that a separate article from the series main article would even make sense. The sources both in the article and presented here are not great - even the ones being noted as being the best ones here are simply on the fact that real life props/replicas of the car have been made, rather than any kind of genuine analysis or reception of the actual fictional car the article is about. Rorshacma (talk) 16:41, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:13, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Jclemens's sources and the "In popular culture" section. It does need more reception and more sources but AFD is not cleanup. I also agree that "The "real" Mach Five" would not exist if the fictional Mach Five was not notable. DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 07:38, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Jclemens make a good point. Dream Focus 05:36, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This clearly passes the GNG and there's coverage in Japanese. WP:NOENG applies here. DCsansei (talk) 22:00, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting one more time. Opinion and arguments are split right down the middle on whether or not sources are sufficient to establish notability. Let's see if another week can tip the scales between Keep and Redirect. Thanks to those participants who took the effort to go looking for additional sources.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:07, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect Per WP:TNT. Article is mostly unsourced. GreenishPickle! (🔔) 01:51, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets WP:GNG with 2 sources noted by JClemens and the 2 newspapers.com clippings by Nat Gertler. Current article doesn't require TNT and can serve as a basis for an improved article. —siro χ o 22:14, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Speed Racer#The Mach 5. Fails GNG, Nothing with WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth from WP:IS WP:RS found in article or above. If SIGCOV sources are ever found, it would take WP:TNT to create a proper article, as written this is just WP:OR fancruft. // Timothy :: talk 00:33, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎ due to lack of participation. This can be renominated immediately if so desired (ping User:Let'srun). Daniel (talk) 04:26, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

North Louisiana Football Alliance

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

Subject lacks the needed independent, in depth secondary coverage to meet the WP:GNG. Most of the current sources merely are from the league website or are quoting press releases and are not in any way independent. Let'srun (talk) 20:19, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Sports, American football, Arkansas, Louisiana, and Texas. Let'srun (talk) 20:19, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
LetsRun, do you have a semi-pro league that you feel is being threatened by the North Louisiana Football Alliance. I ask because im wondering how, out of the 74,919,671 wiki articles did YOU decide this one article should be deleted? Leave the NLFA wiki page alone. 2601:3C8:C000:62B0:3AA:C84C:624:E35 (talk) 01:01, 5 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!} 23:45, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:44, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain? Your claim reads more like your personal opinion and lacks facts. You stated that each source was taken from the league website when it clearly came from independent news sources. Also, take note that any and all non-creditable news sources were removed from the article months ago. So if regional newspapers and the local news aren't creditable news sources, nearly half the articles on Wikipedia should be removed. If it reads that bad, help improve it rather than delete it. 152.132.9.72 (talk) 21:04, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Good evening, @Let'srun

I'm just getting a chance to look at my notifications and I noticed that you tagged my article for deletion. I'm curious to know why you felt the need to randomly nominate an article I've worked almost 2 years on to maintain (along with the help of other creditable editors might I add) for deletion.

If the "subject lacked the needed independent coverage" as you claim, why didn't you make the necessary additions to it like everyone else who came across the article?

Did you even do any research to support your claim? Or do you just like picking random articles to nominate for deletion because you don't agree with the subject material or how it's written?

Since I've been a wiki editor I've always researched and provided citations for the material included, and if the source goes against wiki guidelines there has been no issues with wiki BOTS making the proper changes.

So I'd appreciate it if you'd remove your tag and leave my articles alone please. Thank you in advance. DLabS3 (talk) 02:05, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that it can be upsetting for a article of yours to be nominated at AfD, but I always look to see if there is coverage for a subject via a WP:BEFORE check, and unfortunately here I couldn't find much WP:SIGCOV with which to add. Here is the source analysis I have for this article based off of the sources listed here. #2 is a profile about the founder and has independence concerns. #3 is the same as the first source reposted, #4 is not WP:SIGCOV, #5 is not WP:SIGCOV as a single paragraph that appears to be directly reposted from the league website, #6, #7, #9, #10, #11, #12, and #14 are all league press releases and are not independent of the source. The only source that may possibly qualify for WP:GNG is #13, but I am not certain about the reliability of the source.

I also never said "that each source was taken from the league website". I only said that most of them are, which I maintain is accurate. Let'srun (talk) 20:17, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist since I gather there is at least one unbolded Keep vote here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:02, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:47, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dust Waltz

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

Fails WP:NBOOK. No significant coverage in multiple reliable sources other than this short review in a Vernon Press published book: [19] Mika1h (talk) 17:28, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Mika1h (talk) 17:28, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 November 11. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 17:42, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:32, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:49, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this. It barely looks like a publisher's release information. No sources indicate notability of any kind. Doczilla _{@SUPERHEROLOGIST} 09:09, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Significant coverage at [20]. It appears in the index of [21] so I assume there's something usable there. Notability does appear to be marginal so a merge could also be a good solution. ~Kvng (talk) 18:23, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. Right now, looks like No consensus. If it was a Merge, what would the target article be?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:00, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails GNG and NBOOK. No sources in article, above or in BEFORE showed WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth from WP:IS WP:RS. // Timothy :: talk 17:02, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:19, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lizandra González

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

The subject, a Cuban women's footballer, has not received sufficient coverage to meet WP:GNG. All I found in my searches were passing mentions like 1, 2, and 3. JTtheOG (talk) 22:47, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and Cuba. JTtheOG (talk) 22:47, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 10:00, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 10:04, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non notable athlete microbiologyMarcus ^{(petri dish·growths)} 18:32, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 02:12, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dennis Monokroussos

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

He exists, but I couldn't establish sources showing he meets WP:N. In CAT:NN for more than 13 years. Boleyn (talk) 16:40, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Sportspeople, Journalism, Internet, Indiana, Nevada, and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:17, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Contested WP:PROD, ineligible for soft deletion
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 22:41, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The name is familiar to me and the article has been around for a while so I thought he might have written a few books... but no, just a few articles on websites like chessbase. Hasn't played in a US championship or represented the US at anything, hasn't won anything important. Doesn't meet the threshold of notability, per the informal WP:NCHESS criteria. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 23:51, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Subject does not meet the WP:GNG or WP:NAUTHOR. Let'srun (talk) 04:59, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails GNG and NAUTHOR. microbiologyMarcus ^{(petri dish·growths)} 18:31, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:16, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Embassy of the United States, Wellington

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

There was an opinion voiced here that this embassy is notable. Rather than risk having the entire mass nomination derailed, I’ve decided to split off this one. Naturally, I disagree that it’s notable: a couple of bomb scares and a security boost — something common to pretty much all US embassies — do not make for a notable building; they’re entirely routine coverage. — Biruitorul ^Talk 22:28, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations, New Zealand, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 23:09, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I've expanded the article and it now focusses on the embassy building and its predecessors. The current building was purpose-built in 1977. Unfortunately, there's only a South Island newspaper (The Press) available online; none of the Wellington papers are accessible. Still, The Press had quite decent coverage when the new building was dedicated on 3 July 1977. User:Kiwichris, if you happen to be at the National Library over the next few days, would you mind having a look how the Wellington newspapers reported on the event? Schwede 66 04:04, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I probably won't be able to get to the National Library while this AfD is active. I have however added some more recent (but offline) info from Wellington papers about the embassy. Kiwichris (talk) 03:33, 4 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!} 23:19, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Focusing on the building itself was a good decision. — Maile (talk) 02:46, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:19, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Georgina Bakani

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

The subject, a Papua New Guinean women's footballer, has not received sufficient coverage to meet WP:GNG. All that came up in my searches were passing mentions like 1, 2, and 3. JTtheOG (talk) 22:01, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and Oceania. JTtheOG (talk) 22:01, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 10:00, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 10:04, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Per WP:GNG Svartner (talk) 01:21, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – GNG concerns as identified by NOM. microbiologyMarcus ^{(petri dish·growths)} 18:30, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to List of Kenya women's international footballers. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:19, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sylvia Lumasia

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

Redirect to List of Kenya women's international footballers. I am unable to find anything more than passing mentions such as 1 and 2. Fails WP:GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT. JTtheOG (talk) 21:45, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and Kenya. JTtheOG (talk) 21:45, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 10:00, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as above. Giant Snowman 10:03, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. The issue of the spelling can be handled editorially. There is consensus to keep the improved content. Star Mississippi 03:11, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Black Hawk, Louisiana

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

This is another GNIS mess lie, created by a sock-puppeteer, that we've been telling the world for 10 years. There's no "unincorporated community", a phrase that has been debased of any meaning, here. The 1880 Lippincott's confirms that this was a post office. Not a post-town nor even a post-village: a post office. And one that is non-existent in any history books that I can find. Ironically, once one knows how the GNIS is badly constructed by basically calling every single building a "populated place", it becomes apparent from the GNIS itself that this is a post office, as it lists it twice in two separate records: once as a building taken from a building on a map and once as a post office taken from a list of post offices. Surprise! The building is the post office. When they say that the GNIS removes duplications, it is a lie. I cannot find any history of Black Hawk railway depot nor Black Hawk plantation, either. I only know that they exist at all because a hypsometrist measured various precisely described nails and pieces of wire (I kid you not!) near to them. Simply, no-one has documented these things and they are undocumented dots on maps now. Uncle G (talk) 21:24, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Concordia Parish, Louisiana as a WP:ATD. estar8806 (talk) ★ 22:19, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Louisiana. Shellwood (talk) 22:46, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as suggested above. I can't find much otherwise about this place. Oaktree b (talk) 22:56, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete Not a community, no coverage in any source other than GNIS, never a recognized populated place, and a redirect is pointless because nobody would think to search for such a place on WP, and there is nothing that could be said about it in the target article anyway. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 00:07, 2 December 2023 (UTC) Redirect to Concordia Parish, Louisiana. The information given in the article convinces me that this is a place (broadly speaking), with some at least local recognition, but we can't say much more than that. And when we have to rely on OR just to determine whether our sources are all talking about the same place, we are in no position to have a standalone article. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 21:42, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

- I could tell you about top of 30d wire nail driven vertically into bench cut on E. root of a 3-foot chinaberry tree standing in road 5 meters back of levee, and 20 meters above negro church standing just outside of levee on Black Hawk plantation. Who says that the U.S. doesn't use metres? ☺ Apparently there was a Mississippi steamboat named the Black Hawk that sank almost 100 years before the hypsometrist, but contemporary 19th century sources (only 20 years after the event!) had it happening at the mouth of the Red River of the South and I couldn't match their maps of the area between the Homochitto and the Red River to the modern positions at all, to even say for certain that it was even roughly the same place. Uncle G (talk) 01:08, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I'm finding census data for Black Hawk, Concordia Parish, Louisiana in the 1890, 1900, and 1940 censuses. I haven't checked the 1910 and 1920 censuses yet, but the 1890 census calls Blackhawk in Concordia Parish a village with 323 residents; the numbers for 1900 and 1940 are smaller. More research is needed, and I'm working on it, but this was a real community. Firsfron of Ronchester 02:45, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- How big an area did this census unit cover? A census taker will assign every household some sort of location but it may not be a real community. Larger, purely rural areas with low population density are still going to have some sort of name in the census. If there are 160 40-acre farms spread across a 10 square mile (6400 acres) that’s very different from 160 homes clustered together in a community. —A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 03:42, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  - This is like the Black Hawk plantation and the Black Hawk railway depot. It's another description of something else that drops the name without telling us a thing. Firsfron's source merely says Ward 1, including Blackhawk village and gives the populations of wards 1 to 10, and sub-population for the village. Speaking as someone who regularly fixes these damned GNIS lie articles, that's not enough for keeping. For starters, we don't know how this relates to the random "populated place" GNIS rubbish. Was the village at the GNIS "Black Hawk"? Or was it the plantation? Or the railway depot? Or the sunk steamboat? The GNIS itself says it was none of them, because its coördinates are for the post office. We know all of these things existed, but barely and only because what we have is documentation of a census population figure somewhere in the same county, nails in trees (sic!) that were just outside of them, and a steamboat that sunk somewhere in the area but the river courses have changed so drastically that I couldn't tell you where things are now that the 19th century maps (no coördinate systems on them) were mapping. The Red River doesn't even have a mouth on the Mississippi any more. There's nothing that — literally — connects the dots to go on. Uncle G (talk) 08:44, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:GEOLAND and move to Blackhawk, Louisiana (the correct spelling in current use). The biggest disservice done by GNIS was to spell it "Black Hawk" (two words) – a spelling replicated by Wikipedia which then misled many readers into thinking that "no coverage exists" (per discussion above). The current version of the article (still called Black Hawk, Louisiana for now) now includes the information about Blackhawk, which we find was one of the last three rural pockets in Louisiana to receive reliable phone coverage (wireless or wired – they got wireless first) in 2005. (Lots of news coverage about the political battle leading up to this, but for this discussion see this Alexandria, LA newspaper.) Blackhawk, LA is frequently mentioned in conjunction with the work the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Vicksburg District) does in shoring up the nearby levee on the Mississippi River (e.g. 2018 news alert), and going back over 100 years, we find several newspaper articles about flooding in Blackhawk (referred to as a "small town" in this 1912 article). The more you search, the more you find, and even I find it baffling that it wasn't until the half hour or so that I found this 2017 Associated Press article about sugarcane farming in Blackhawk, which was also syndicated by the USA Today Network. Cielquiparle (talk) 05:44, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- There is still more work to be done to improve this article, but this can be done in the course of normal editing – e.g., the question raised by Uncle G above "Where exactly was Blackhawk Plantation?" is spot on. My hypothesis (requiring further research to verify) is that Blackhawk Plantation covered the area labeled in ALL CAPS on the helpful map provided by Firsfron, and that we have Black Hawk Lodge (on the same map) to thank for the two-word spelling. (There are also MANY "Blackhawk Hunting Club" notices in Newspapers.com that suggest that "Black Hawk" was a small subset of "Blackhawk".) As always, well done to all for raising great questions and sleuthing – I have suspected for some time that single-keyword searching on Google.com is "dead" but I'm increasingly worried that it's too hard to find the actual "web of trust" articles even if you use multiple search parameters. Cielquiparle (talk) 05:44, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- I enjoy the argument that you are making that the GNIS is unreliable for names. However, you highlight the problem, which is synthesis.
  The 1856 Lloyd's Steamboat Directory (No, not that Lloyds. Someone named James T. Lloyd. No, not that James T. Lloyd either.) says that a Black Hawk steamboat sunk on the Mississippi river in 1837 having "just reached the mouth of the Red River", and modern tourist guides reference this and say that that's where the name of Black Hawk Point comes from. Obviously, the place where the rivers met is inland, now, as there isn't even a Red River mouth on the Mississippi any more. I even have an 1881 USACE report definitely stating that the mouth of the Red River in 1881 was roughly 14 miles (23 km) downstream of Black Hawk Landing.
  In trying to reconcile all this and Lloyd's hand-drawn map with the GNIS post office, which is based upon middle 20th century maps, I checked the USACE navigation charts for the Mississippi River. They'll at least show where this Black Hawk Point is nowadays, right?
  They indeed do. But they show two other places with this same name. So the problem is that we still don't know whether stitching together a lot of newspaper clippings hasn't conflated a bunch of stuff. We know that there was a post office from the GNIS. We know from the hypsometrists that there were a Black Hawk plantation and a Black Hawk railroad depot, with a "negro church" somewhere. Ironically, your very own 1902 map has two distinct places, both with this name.
  Well the modern USACE navigation charts from 2007 have three (map #64), those two and the Black Hawk Point. Furthermore, Black Hawk Point and Black Hawk Landing are still on the riverbank even though we know that this isn't the 1837 course of the two rivers. I'd guess that the article actually currently is at the correct title, and that the plantation, railroad depot, landing, post office, and village 60 years later took Black Hawk the steamboat's name with Black Hawk being mis-spelled as Blackhawk, and that they are all in fact the same place and the Landing and Point have moved with the river. But I don't have a source that says this and connects up the literal dots here, and nor have you yet. None of those newspapers do. We could be synthesizing this for all that we know.
  You're already synthesizing a bit. The first 'phone newspaper article says that Shaw didn't have 'phone service. Blackhawk is where someone's friend named Grady Weeks had a lodge, and there's a nice handy map in the newspaper article showing that Shaw isn't at any of the Black Hawks. The second 'phone newspaper article says that it's called Shaw-Blackhawk, and has the same map that only shows Shaw. And your road construction article tells us that Shaw and Black Hawk are almost 3 miles (4.8 km) apart, because it's all about building a road between them. We know from another of your newspaper articles that Black Hawk Plantation stretched for 7 miles (11 km) "along the Mississippi River" somewhere in Concordia. The USACE report in 1881 had Black Hawk Landing 2 miles (3.2 km) south of the Grand Cutoff Bayou. USACE map #64 has the Grand Cutoff Bayou at Shaw with the three places downstream, Black Hawk to the south, Black Hawk Landing to the south east and Black Hawk Point to the east-south-east.
  Well at least we can trust that the GNIS is correctly including a Black Hawk post office to start with, right? Well, no. The 1855 USPS post office directory has this as Black Hawk Point post office.
  This is all very mixed up, and as I said, could be a synthesis. Oh for a decent history of Louisiana that simply connects the dots! But as I said, there isn't one. I've checked in the Southern Publishing Company's, the Bunner one, the Gayarré one, and the King one. I ignored the 1827 one, for obvious reasons.
  Fun fact: Two of your newspapers and three of your books, including for the attorneys and the catholics, are inaccessible to me.
  Uncle G (talk) 08:34, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  
  It is OK. "Borders" are often fluid, especially over long periods of time (in this case spanning 130+ years). This is an excellent discussion for the Talk page. Cielquiparle (talk) 09:40, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: and rename per Cielquiparle. More than enough evidence to meet GEOLAND. Owen× ☎ 15:11, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, _signed,Rosguill ^talk 15:51, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as not meeting WP:SIGCOV and a blatant violation of the policy WP:NOTDIRECTORY.

बिनोद थारू (talk) 02:14, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, per the expansion by Cielquiparle. BeanieFan11 (talk) 19:43, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:18, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of awards and nominations received by Rakul Preet Singh

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

Redirect ~~move to userspace then merge the salvageable content~~ to Rakul Preet Singh. This page is a disputed draftify. It still contains formatting errors, and is nearly entirely unsourced. microbiologyMarcus ^{(petri dish·growths)} 21:24, 1 December 2023 (UTC) Updated and stricken, per Jeraxmoira and Siroxo microbiologyMarcus ^{(petri dish·growths)} 00:02, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, and India. microbiologyMarcus ^{(petri dish·growths)} 21:24, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Previously G5'ed at Special:Diff/1187854967 by @Jeraxmoira: so this might not even go the distance. I'll re-add. microbiologyMarcus ^{(petri dish·growths)} 21:31, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
~~And...~~ Ponyo's ethics ruined my reference. microbiologyMarcus ^{(petri dish·growths)} 21:34, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I acted on the G5 in error. I checkuser blocked the account for socking, but there is no evidence that the Anankiaushdud was evading an active block or ban when they created the article, so G5 does not apply.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 21:39, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Do not merge as the sourced list already exists on Rakul Preet Singh. This list is copied from IMDb as indicated by the creator themselves [22]. ANI report [23]. Jeraxmoira (talk) 21:43, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Rakul Preet Singh. Does not seem to be a copyvio of IMDB. —siro χ o 22:24, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
For ref - [24] Jeraxmoira (talk) 05:49, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:04, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The whole thing is pretty much unreferenced but, taking it at face value, the awards here seem to fall into two categories: Ones which are notable and ones which are not. Of the ones which are notable (i.e. where the award has its own article) I think they are all already included in the main article. As such, I don't think there is anything here to merge. The main article lists 13 notable award nominations/wins and that's enough. Bulking it out with a load of non-notable awards doesn't make it seem more impressive. If anything it dilutes the impact of the notable ones. No need for a redirect. The article has no incoming links from article space. --DanielRigal (talk) 01:08, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per DanielRigal, list article adds nothing to main article. Wikishovel (talk) 06:45, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Awards-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:32, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: As above, not enough to warrant standalone article Ravensfire (talk) 21:23, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Sources not adequate. Xxanthippe (talk) 04:15, 4 December 2023 (UTC).[reply]
Just a quick comment in favour of the redirect: redirects are WP:cheap and there is an Awards and nominations section at Rakul Preet Singh § Awards and nominations. microbiologyMarcus ^{(petri dish·growths)} 18:03, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I see no reason for redirecting a WP:SDNONE-named page orphaned in mainspace. Suitskvarts (talk) 20:50, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. I had to look up "nomen dubium". Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:17, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hebia cinerea

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

Back and forth with edits/reverts so to AfD we go. Hebia is a monotypic genus with Hebia flavipes as the only species, per Preliminary Checklist of the Tachinidae (Diptera) of the world. Hebia cinerea is a nomen dubium (as per the only text in the body of this article) and should be deleted/redirected; where it should be redirected to is less clear. Kazamzam (talk) 21:16, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Biology-related deletion discussions. Kazamzam (talk) 21:16, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 23:11, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, nomen dubium. Hyperbolick (talk) 00:26, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - nomen dubium (also per diptera.org) without GNG coverage to make up for that. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 08:36, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎ , with no consensus to redirect at this time. This potential redirect can be explored via talk page discussion, potentially after some significant improvements are considered for the article as per comments in this debate. Daniel (talk) 00:58, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Crime in St. Louis

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

This article is redundant with the crime section on the main St. Louis page. I think anything that could be included here should just be put on that page. Additionally, this article appears to be not nearly as kept up with as the main page (leading someone visiting this article to be misled with old information). This article is generally of low quality and not even really written in the right tone. Damiens the Regicide (talk) 21:15, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime, Police, Politics, Social science, and Missouri. Damiens the Regicide (talk) 21:15, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The article appears to show notability with St. Louis commonly ranked as one of the most dangerous cities. AfD is not cleanup. Conyo14 (talk) 21:32, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect A confusing article that mish-mashes data for both St. Louis City and St. Louis County, Missouri unreasonably into one article, and poorly with out-of-date data and jargon (if I'm not going to look up the meaning of "index crime" the average reader isn't going to do it either, not to mention the article it's linked to is barely sourced). This should solely cover St. Louis City, and a redirect to St. Louis#Crime is highly suggested here as that seems to be much more up-to-date and focused, along with being less prone to edit warring, than this article. Nate • (chatter) 21:42, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Tag for improvements. There was no discussion on the article talk page for six years before this nomination for deletion, so Alternatives to Deletion such as improvement have not been considered yet. Robert McClenon (talk) 08:20, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to St. Louis#Crime. Don't have to create a new page for crime in every region unless it is a significant issue. Raymond3023 (talk) 08:44, 5 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!} 23:16, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 17:05, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and Tag, aggreeing with Robert McClenon, As pointed out by Conyo14 crime, and its coverage, is significant in St. Louis. Frigyes06 (talk) 17:43, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and improve. There is certainly no prohibition against having an article on crime in a specific city (e.g. Crime in New York City, Crime in Hong Kong), and there is no reason we couldn't have Crime in Davenport if there were sufficient sources to support encyclopedic notability. BD2412 T 01:38, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:15, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kingsford Smith Drive, Canberra

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

The only way for readers to verify this is to go to the road, contrary to our verifiability policy. There was only one source ever cited, and that was supposedly to support the long-standing claim in the article that the "latest road accident" here happened in 2006. That was altered in 2022 without a source at all. There are sources documenting the generalities of road construction projects in the A.C.T., but none that go to the level of anything as specific as what's in this article. "prro sourcing" seems to be gibberish that I cannot make head nor tail of, but doesn't seem to be a counterargument to our content policies. Uncle G (talk) 20:44, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per nom and I could not find any RSes to support the claims made in the article. voorts (talk/contributions) 20:52, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and Australia. Shellwood (talk) 22:48, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GEOROAD. TarnishedPath^talk 02:34, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. With no significant coverage from independent, reliable sources provided, I don't see a reason to keep. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 20:06, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Tainted mess‎ courtesy of a brand new account, and a separate obvious scammer targeting the article and AfD. Any established editor is welcome to bring this back to AfD if folks believe Al-Ghaili is not notable. NB: the page being "poorly cited" is a reason for clean up, not deletion. I recommend that be addressed or deemed not possible via a BEFORE prior to any further nomination. Star Mississippi 17:14, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hashem Al-Ghaili

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

Why the page should be deleted Vinnyb1322 (talk) 20:07, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Page in question is poorly cited, primarily drawing from the subjects personal social media feeds rather than a reliable source (See: Wikipedia:Reliable sources).

Additionally, the page is for a figure of minimal public note. Arguably, the figure in question does not meet the Wikipedia guidelines for notability.

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Science, Pakistan, Yemen, and Germany. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:11, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Vinnyb1322, your sole purpose on Wikipedia seems to be to get this article deleted. Why did it attract your interest, as a new editor? How did you discover AFD on your first day as an editor? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:53, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Good question, and a completely fair assertion! I'm a frequent user of Wikipedia, but have never contributed. I learned about the AfD process in the book "All the Knowledge in the World" by Simon Garfield. This book is what made me curious in contributing more to the site.

I came across the article, and found the content to be inappropriate for Wikipedia. Reviewing the talk page, the discussion is primarily skeptical of the content of the page. With one Wikipedian saying in 2018 that they would nominate the page for deletion if they were more familiar with the process.

The page is worded in an aggrandizing manner, and reads more like a brag sheet or resume than an unbiased collection of facts. I attempted to clean up the article myself, but while attempting to find more reliable sources for the information in the article I came up empty handed. That's why I moved towards deleting the page! Vinnyb1322 (talk) 19:08, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Vinnyb1322, well, I appreciate the full explanation. I think you can understand how this is atypical behavior for a brand new editor. I'm relisting this discussion so hopefully, it can get more opinions for other editors. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:09, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with Vinnyb1322's assertion that this page should be deleted. Instead, it needs to be improved using updated sources. I have done a quick search and there is sufficient reliable sources about this public figure. I'm listing some of them here:

- BBC: https://www.bbc.com/worklife/article/20180222-the-man-with-16-million-fans

- CNN: https://edition.cnn.com/travel/article/nuclear-sky-hotel/index.html

- Forbes: https://www.forbes.com/sites/cindygordon/2022/12/11/human-population-and-a-technology-innovation-to-blow-your-mind/?sh=1b51c9b219d6

- Forbes: https://www.forbes.com/sites/duncanmadden/2022/07/01/would-you-take-a-sky-cruise-in-a-nuclear-powered-flying-hotel/?sh=4c1cac76e0e8

- New York Post: https://nypost.com/2022/06/27/inside-giant-flying-luxury-hotel-that-can-stay-in-the-air-for-years/

- The Independent: https://www.independent.co.uk/travel/news-and-advice/sky-cruise-flying-hotel-ai-nuclear-b2110050.html

- Interesting Engineering: https://interestingengineering.com/science/hashem-al-ghaili-interview-sci-fi-film-orbital

- Interesting Engineering: https://interestingengineering.com/culture/megastructure-orbital-ring-around-earth-film

- Daily Mail: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-11529371/Could-BIRTHING-PODS-solve-Elon-Musks-fears-population-collapse.html

- Design Boom: https://www.designboom.com/technology/hashem-al-ghaili-ectolife-the-worlds-first-artificial-womb-facility-12-14-2022/

- DW: https://www.dw.com/en/successful-on-facebook-hashem-al-ghailis-advice-for-the-right-strategy/a-36369881

- Space.com: https://www.space.com/orbital-indie-sci-fi-trailer

- Arab News: https://www.arabnews.com/node/1336071/middle-east

- The Mirror: https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/weird-news/flying-hotel-never-lands-could-27333572

- Metro UK: https://metro.co.uk/2022/06/27/design-for-a-nuclear-powered-flying-hotel-with-swimming-pool-16899357/

- Alarabiya English: https://english.alarabiya.net/media/digital/2018/02/22/How-a-Yemeni-man-s-love-for-science-got-him-16-million-followers-on-Facebook

There are a lot of links that can be used to improve this page. Also, Al-Ghaili has delivered 4 TEDx talks in global platforms:

1. TEDxCluj: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bT-0oGDJqyo

2. TEDxRoma: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z5H9uGSZTyk

3. TEDxZagreb: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=COsVj2zb6s0

4. TEDxZolior: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ULKQiARO6y4

- His Facebook page has over 34 million followers: https://www.facebook.com/ScienceNaturePage

- On his website, he mentions to have garnered 21 billion views: https://hashem-alghaili.com/

- He has published a Sci-Fi novel this year: https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/197170429-simulation

- He has an upcoming Sci-Fi film with a trailer that garnered over 4 million views on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ngO6Mnmzc8A&feature=shared

- He published two viral technology-related concepts of his own:

1. Sky Cruise: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZrodDBJdGuo&feature=shared

2. EctoLife artificial womb: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O2RIvJ1U7RE&feature=shared

My suggestion is to improve the page with new sources rather than delete it. 87.200.57.238 (talk) 01:13, 9 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!} 23:09, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! This is me, Hashem Al-Ghaili. The proposal to delete this page appears to be part of a bigger scam. I received extortion emails that demanded payments in exchange for keeping the page active. You can find the emails here: https://i.imgur.com/oLafmJC.png

The scammer is demanding a payment of $1999 to edit the page and keep it active. Is this scam run by Vinnyb1322? It's hard to tell. But one thing for sure, Vinnyb1322's account was created just to flag this article for deletion. He has never contributed to Wikipedia before, apart from proposing this article for deletion. I think it's important to protect Wikipedia's integrity by not allowing such scams to take over the platform.

I shared what I experienced on Reddit: https://www.reddit.com/r/wikipedia/comments/18epc01/a_wikipedia_admin_is_threatening_to_delete_my/

The comments there were helpful and made me confirm that there is indeed an ongoing scam behind the proposed deletion of this page. Needless to say, I'm more than happy to assist Wikipedia's admins in improving the page if the decision is to keep it. I can do so by providing authentic, reliable and up-to-date sources. However, I won't be writing about myself for self-promotion. I would rather let my work speak for itself. Thank you! HashemAlghaili (talk) 05:34, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome! If it interests you, there is currently a discussion about this scam on WP:ANI, where you would be more than welcome to participate and help us!

Regarding the page, it's best for you not to write about yourself directly. There are many guidelines in place for people writing about themselves, and it's recommended to propose edits on the talk page rather than to edit your own article directly. Happy editing, ChaotıċEnby(t · c) 06:14, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Some context that may or may not be relevant to this discussion: https://www.reddit.com/r/wikipedia/s/KozqxV7Zze —CX Zoom[he/him] ^{(let's talk • {C•X})} 00:12, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
See also: WP:SCAM. It's impossible to verify whether the Reddit post is genuine, but worth noting that this sort of deletion discussion / threat combination is a known scammer modus operandi. —Ganesha811 (talk) 00:19, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"Our backhand system is running out of space due to receiving 10,000 entries per day, so we all administrator’s started conducting a AFD (Article for Deletion) section survey, reaching out to those whose Wikipedia page is nominated for deletion by the Wiki moderators, and if the page owner is willing to improve the page we assist accordingly and if not Interested we move forward and submit the final repost to moderators and they delete the page and clear our records."

As an actual administrator (in fact, the third to comment here, after Liz and Ganesha): lmao. jp×g 🗯️ 03:17, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Is this from something I did incorrectly, or would this be a scam that just trolls for new AfD discussions and uses them to extort people?

I'd like to make it clear that I had nothing to do with that email. Vinnyb1322 (talk) 03:39, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It does seem kind of sus for this to be your first edit, but they also falsely claimed to be two other users they obviously weren't, so who knows. jp×g 🗯️ 06:59, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Reluctant Keep, per the BBC source from the IP, this Arab News report and this DW segment. I say reluctant because if we required BLPs to meet the equivalent of WP:CORPDEPTH he would fail by a wide margin, but that's not policy. Mach61 (talk) 04:52, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. RL0919 (talk) 20:39, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Chexo

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

As with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Xabbatog: only one source exists AFAICT, suggesting this is not notable for its own article. -sche (talk) 19:07, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink and China. -sche (talk) 19:07, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. (non-admin closure) Let'srun (talk) 18:56, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

307 (number)

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

None of the sources contain more than passing mentions of the subject, with none focusing in-depth coverage on the number. Stuartyeates (talk) 18:51, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly meets WP:NNUMBER#Integers. There seem to be at least 3 unrelated interesting mathematical properties listed on the page. (307 is the number of one-sided octiamonds, 307 is the third non-palindromic number to have a palindromic square, 307 is a central polygonal number). If not sufficient, most of that should be merged into 300 (number)]. —siro χ o 20:05, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Agree on this one. Seems to fit the three unrelated properties point. ThatOneArizonan (talk) 23:37, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No, 307 is not a central polygonal number. 301 is a central polygonal number, because $(24^{2}+24+2)/2=301$ . 307 is a centered 2-gonal number, being $18^{2}-18+1$ , but since it's so far down the list, I doubt it's been used as an example of such a number. XOR'easter (talk) 23:45, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:15, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, interesting enough number. Hyperbolick (talk) 00:28, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, seems to be interesting enough to have its own article per WP:NNUMBER#Integers. V.B.Speranza (talk) 14:03, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are currently 3 properties cited to OEIS sequences that are designated "nice". It's further down the list in each case than I would generally like, but one of those lists is finite. We could also mention A006300, where 307 appears early on, but there doesn't seem to be an article to wiki-link for that. XOR'easter (talk) 00:43, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's surprising how little content we seem to have on the subject: a few articles touch on the relevant topological/graph theoretic concept (Graph embedding, Toroidal graph, Combinatorial map, Rotation system) but apparently there's nothing substantial on enumerative aspects (Hurwitz number is a redirect to ELSV formula, nothing about the Harer-Zagier formula that I can find, etc.). — Preceding unsigned comment added by JayBeeEll (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 merge‎ to Inuit religion#Deities. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:57, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ignirtoq

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

Fails WP:GNG - the only mentions online are directly ripped from this article. There is one singular mention on one line with no source in a single not particularly notable book from 1907; aside from that I can find absolutely nothing else. CoconutOctopus talk 18:34, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Mythology and Religion. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:40, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We can probably merge to Inuit religion § Deities based on the 1907 source[25] and the fact that it is listed in a Gale reference from 1992[26], and this Oxford University Press reference from 1995[27].

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 20:40, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 18:57, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Inuit religion § Deities per Siroxo's refs and recommendation above. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 19:57, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Note OwenX's change of !vote due to new sourcing, this creates a consensus. Daniel (talk) 19:37, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

First International Bank

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

Delete non notable organization, non encyclopedic content. microbiologyMarcus ^{(petri dish·growths)} 18:22, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance and Companies. microbiologyMarcus ^{(petri dish·growths)} 18:22, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Dakota-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:40, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment- Not to be confused with First International Bank of Israel, I found citation of it being "Largest bank in North Dakota", so it may be worth keeping it for that reason, although the sourcing could certainly use some improvement. Whosethose (talk) 02:15, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 20:39, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: would we keep an article based only on the subject's merit as being the largest bank in, say, McAllen, Texas? North Dakota has the same size population as McAllen. Other than an occasional small deal or lawsuit, I couldn't find any news coverage about this bank. Owen× ☎ 21:21, 8 December 2023 (UTC) Changed to Keep per Sammi Brie's thorough work on sourcing. Thank you! Owen× ☎ 19:07, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep I've given it a go to see if I can't improve this article. Seems to be just enough coverage. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 05:14, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sammi Brie began adding sources. While we are at it we probably need to remove the Forbes (contributor) WP:FORBESCON article from references - it was in there before the AfD. Lightburst (talk) 15:09, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 18:57, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:09, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Eugenia Railean

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

The subject, a Moldovan women's footballer, has not received sufficient coverage to meet WP:GNG or WP:SPORTCRIT. JTtheOG (talk) 18:00, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and Moldova. JTtheOG (talk) 18:00, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 10:00, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 10:06, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - As above. Perhaps if she'd appeared on a late episode of Dynasty. MisterWizzy (talk) 14:06, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. RL0919 (talk) 20:41, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Shenzhen NORCO Intelligent Technology

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

Fails GNG and NCORP. Has been an orphan since 2014. Sources involved are not RS or SigCov. Cheers, --The Lonely Pather (talk) 17:52, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and China. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:37, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to List of Tunisia women's international footballers. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:10, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Marwa Abidi

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

Redirect to List of Tunisia women's international footballers. I was unable to find any coverage on the subject, nor is there any indication of notability. Fails WP:GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT. JTtheOG (talk) 17:52, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and Tunisia. JTtheOG (talk) 17:52, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 10:00, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as above. Giant Snowman 10:03, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:11, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Pokémon universe

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

While the settings in Pokemon are memorable, I'm not entirely sure this article is necessary. Information from each specific "region" is available in a given article's information (For instance, Kanto is described in depth in the Red and Blue article) and all of the other in universe history is very specific information that isn't really too important to the series' summary. I'm sure there's some discussion on regions individually (Likely lacking for a full article, but still) but the whole fictional universe doesn't seem to be individually distinguishable from a general summary of the series in the main article or the descriptions in individual articles. Don't really think there's a good AtD here, maybe a redirect/light merge to the main series article? I don't know, really. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 16:48, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Video games. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 16:48, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - if nothing else, per WP:TNT. This is one giant wikia-grade WP:GAMECRUFT violation. If this is somehow kept, it should be renamed to something like Universe of Pokemon or Setting of Pokemon, as "Pokemon universe" makes it sound like some sort of official name or brand, which it isn't (which is why I don't even really support a merge/redirect to the series article.) Sergecross73 msg me 17:04, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- If you see that it's going to be deleted due to the amount of deletes, you can feel free to salvage the information while you still can. I'm just making a suggestion here. --Rtkat3 (talk) 18:05, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:32, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I could see this being notable, but per WP:TNT it needs a total rewrite. Right now it is very unsuitable for Wikipedia. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 20:29, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: TNT per Sergecross73. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:10, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Redirects for Kanto (Pokémon) and Johto should be retargeted as they target here. Curbon7 (talk) 21:37, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the heads up. It'd be easy to retarget them to the main article/see also links included in their respective sections. Sergecross73 msg me 21:45, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I almost !voted keep. But there is no verifiable "Pokemon universe". Each game takes place in a new location. Not a single location is separately notable from the game it appears in. The rest is just WP:SYNTH, and the common elements are already covered at Gameplay of Pokémon. Shooterwalker (talk) 21:29, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per User:Shooterwalker, as well as the "Pokémon world sausage" confirming that even the food in the Pokémon universe is retconned and handwaved. QuietCicada - Talk 02:27, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge the few relevant referneced sentences to Pokémon, creating a new section called 'setting' there. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:43, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge to it's own section on Pokémon in the spirit of WP:PRESERVE. --Rtkat3 (talk) 18:05, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Can you be more specific? Beyond giving zero rationale for keeping, what would you merge, and where? It's all already covered in better quality in other articles. Sergecross73 msg me 03:35, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  - There should be a settings section on that page where the information can be placed. Right? --Rtkat3 (talk) 16:04, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Sure, but I mean, like, what would you merge? It's all unsourced, shallow in-universe observations about the fictional Pokemon locations. Sergecross73 msg me 21:13, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Star Mississippi 23:04, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Philippe Étienne (athlete)

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

No indication of notability. Never won a medal and placed 24th in the 1975 Pan American Games,. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 16:01, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Haiti. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 16:01, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Olympics-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:43, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, thank you for nominating this article for deletion because it gives us a chance to improve it. This subject is very difficult to research because his name is the same as a prominent French ambassador and most Haitian sources are in French. What we do know is that he competed at six events at major international championships (100m and 200m at 1976 Olympics, 1975 Pan Ams, 1975 University Games) and that he was an associate of then-president Jean-Claude "Baby Doc" Duvalier. These connections need to be looked into further before a deletion decision is made. --Habst (talk) 14:25, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A person who could run a bit, but sadly not fast enough to make them remotely notable on that count. MisterWizzy (talk) 13:54, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@MisterWizzy, thank you for your reply. This discussion is a difficult one because we decide whether to keep an article based on notability, not speed -- although the two are definitely correlated. Étienne ran the men's 200m at the 1976 Olympics. I did the research, and it appears that every single 200m Olympian currently has an article from 2020, 2016, 2012, 2008, 2004, 2000, 1996, 1992, 1988, 1984, 1980, 1976, 1972, 1968, 1964, 1960, 1956, 1952, 1948, 1936, 1932, and 1928.

I had to go all the way back to 1924 to find a single men's 200m athlete without an article. It would defy probability to say that Étienne is the only 200m Olympian, including many of his contemporaries who were slower than him, from that time period out of thousands who is not notable. This combined with the fact that his name is the same as a prominent French ambassador, is why I think what we do know about him needs to be researched further before we decide to delete. What do you think? --Habst (talk) 17:08, 8 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!} 23:11, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Getting into the Olympics because he's a pal of a dictator does not constitute notability. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a valid argument either. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:08, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Clarityfiend, thank you for your vote because it helps us think more about the article. The reason why I brought up Étienne's probable association with Duvalier is because I think it might be one of many leads for research on reliable sources. For example, see the article about Dieudonné LaMothe, who was a contemporary of Étienne and selected for the same reason, and there are many reliable sources about him.

re WP:OTHER, thank you for pointing that out, it's absolutely true that just because something else exists, that should affect decisions made on an unrelated or marginally related thing. My argument isn't that because these articles exist, then Étienne's article should exist -- it's just used as a probabilistic indication of notability, similar to how the rules in WP:NSPORTS are laid out to say "reliable sources are likely to exist for these articles if..." If sources exist for hundreds (thousands?) of other 200m Olympians without exception since 1928, it would stand to reason that sources likely exist for Étienne too -- we just need to find them, which is why I think we need to investigate the leads we have further before proceeding to delete. What do you think about that? --Habst (talk) 15:54, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Subject does not meet the WP:GNG due to a lack of independent WP:SIGCOV. Keep arguments read a lot like WP:OSE and WP:MUSTBESOURCES. A note to Habst, this subject ran in the 100m, not the 200m. User:Let'srun 17:40, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Let'srun, thank you for your vote. A note to Habst, this subject ran in the 100m, not the 200m -- I think this sentence is exactly why we need to improve this article -- the subject actually did run in the 200m (see source), but the article currently only mentions his 100m run. I totally agree that just saying WP:MUSTBESOURCES is not a defense -- that's why I am asking you to help us find Haitian or other sources for Étienne. I tried, but I could not find any tools at WP:LIBRARY that cover Haiti from that time period. Do you know of any leads? --Habst (talk) 18:44, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:32, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of Mizuno sponsorships

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

Same reasons as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Puma sponsorships, primarily WP:OR, WP:NOTDIRECTORY and WP:NOTADVERTISING. Joseph2302 (talk) 13:29, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Advertising, Companies, Sports, Lists, and Japan. Joseph2302 (talk) 13:29, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Wikipedia is WP:NOTPROMO. Let'srun (talk) 13:48, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Is this necessary? SpacedFarmer (talk) 13:17, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for the same reasons as other AfD outcome mentioned in the article, and the others currently nominated. Ajf773 (talk) 09:14, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:34, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Gurza

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

Promotional, not notable Orange sticker (talk) 13:30, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: coverage in the CBC [28], this Vice piece [29] and the BBC article already used in the article. Oaktree b (talk) 14:38, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Disability, Sexuality and gender, Internet, and Canada. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:44, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the above sources ^, and I've also added some more independent references which show Gurza has received press coverage over multiple years for different projects, which seems to indicate notability. ForsythiaJo (talk) 17:44, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Sources now present in the article establish WP:BASIC/GNG. Possibly nominated too quickly after creation. —siro χ o 19:30, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Photos are more than likely copyvios, I've reported them, so don't be surprised if they aren't there anymore. Oaktree b (talk) 22:59, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep article now establishes notability. microbiologyMarcus ^{(petri dish·growths)} 18:36, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:01, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Valda Berzins

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

I'm of the view the article should be deleted primarily due to lack of verifiability. The "Biography" section is written as a detailed narrative with no cited sources. I also could not locate any of this information when searching myself. In addition there are a number of clean up issues on this article that have been present for roughly a decade without being resolved. I feel the way the article has been written leads to a false sense of notibility Rg9444 (talk) 12:33, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 December 1. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 12:57, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Sources currently in the article are the subject's blog and other non RS sites. I can't find mentions of this individual in Gnews. Most of the prose currently in the article could be OR. Oaktree b (talk) 14:43, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Women, and Australia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:45, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Some mentions like [30][31][32] in Australian papers. Does not seem like subject meets WP:BASIC. —siro χ o 19:22, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Update, delete, while there may be print sources, I don't believe we can presuppose BASIC given the dearth of coverage in the internet era. —siro χ o 04:42, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the first 2 citations are dead and the next 2 are blogs. Can't find anything good on the subject.Royal88888 (talk) 06:25, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete lack of reliable sources to meet WP:BIO. LibStar (talk) 22:35, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, noting the aforementioned link-rot, I am unable to identify any sigcov to establish notabilty.

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 00:02, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of international trips made by Mahathir Mohamad post-premiership

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

All unregistered editors (these IP addresses are in Malaysia) of this article, Leslie cheung jin hui (talk · contribs) and 林熙隆 (talk · contribs) are sock puppets of LeonChow99 (talk · contribs) (zh:LTA:LC99). Long-term abuse and cross-wiki abuse. Txkk (talk) 12:47, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Transportation, Lists, and Malaysia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:46, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: What exactly is the guideline/policy-related argument for deletion?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:28, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There has been no reason for deletion presented besides being from a LTA'er, but we don't usually document travel by a former government official after they departed their post. Nate • (chatter) 14:54, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/merge I'm not sure why it's notable to compile trips made by someone no longer in office, are there any other of these? Mention the significant ones at Mahathir_Mohamad#Post-premiership_(2020–present) but we don't need every speech given compiled, no longer encyclopedic. Reywas92^Talk 15:08, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: how is this remotely encyclopedic? And the sockpuppetry issue should be handled independently in WP:RfCU. Owen× ☎ 16:17, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎ with no prejudice to renomination as per scope_creep's last comment. Daniel (talk) 01:03, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Chawarin Perdpiriyawong

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

Bit part actor who started work yesterday. No indication of significance. Fails WP:NACTOR, WP:SIGCOV. Refs are PR, profiles and interviews. scope_creep^Talk 11:59, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Not sure how the individual "Started work yesterday" when the article says it was in 2022. I'm unsure of the awards won/listed in the article, so I'm not !voting until we can comment on how notable they are. Oaktree b (talk) 14:45, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Not commenting on the sources but for his notability, as WP:SINGER he's had (at least) a song charting on a national music chart [33] (link found there [34]) BloubDeFontenilles (talk) 15:22, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That helps, I'm assuming there is more coverage of the individual in Thai sources. I can find a few mentions in the Pinoy press, and much coverage of this individual in the "Boy Love" genre, which seems to be very popular in Thailand. Oaktree b (talk) 16:33, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Source 4 in the article seems reliable. Rest are somewhat trivial, we have more than enough though to build out the article. Having a charted single in also contributing to notability. The individual is also mentioned in Filipino sources and in Singapore, suggesting broad popularity across that corner of the world. The individual seems to pass notability requirements. Oaktree b (talk) 16:36, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Television, and Thailand. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:46, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ref 4 may be reliable but its not significant. It is an interview, stating in the article "Get to know Nunew Chawarin". It reads like a PR piece, nothing more. That is whole problem with the article. The guy hasn't done a thing. All the coverage is PR and inteviews. There is nothing significant. scope_creep^Talk 17:45, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Winner of multiple awards, such as Manimekhala Awards (which is a rebirth of Mekhala Awards which was a top award for TV in Thailand), Nataraj Awards (a prestigious award). I think nominator should also check out Category:Newspapers published in Thailand. Many sources cite as references are well-known newspapers. Before Internet days, those had circulations over hundred thousands, some even reached 1 million copies per day like Thairath. ( --Lerdsuwa (talk) 04:40, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, the original Mekhala Awards were prestigious and the awardees were decided by a panel. This is a different type of award. It a popular vote award, meaning anybody can phone in or vote by app to vote. The downside of the award presentation in 2022 was one of the countries leading actors who has been internationally recognised got 14 votes while this dude got thousands. So its not a good award and can't be used to establish notability. On top of that is based on attraction, more than anything else by its own admission and that is not a good metric to determine if somebody is notable. Model articles are deleted right, left and centre on here for exactly that reason. Also, it hasn't got a wikipedia article. Also paper circulation size is no indication of quality either. The Daily Mail which is banned on here, because its crap has got a readership of 2 million odd on any one day. So that makes no sense either. Well will look at all these PR references in the next day. scope_creep^Talk 11:24, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Only 5 catergories of Mekhala Awards have popularity vote as seen from the description of this post https://www.facebook.com/ManeeMaekkala2022/photos/a.100878265953558/144850098223041/. The Outstanding Y Couple Award do have popularity vote and he came out second according to vote result https://www.facebook.com/ManeeMaekkala2022/posts/pfbid023fHBttZXkaxyyuE8chKxBTka7hnBHodnKQ18mdBnT1WDeT4ai4C6VgYz6iqNYeEl but get the Outstanding award. (I think they pick outstanding award recipient to be different from popular one). I don't see New Star – Y Series award in the voting so the award is based on merit alone. --Lerdsuwa (talk) 02:49, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I was going on what it was actually saying on the competition site not on a facebook post. scope_creep^Talk 05:32, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

May I know the website address of the competition site? --Lerdsuwa (talk) 10:26, 8 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!} 23:14, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A popular figure with a very large following in the market he's active in. I'm not sure why profile pieces and celebrity news should be inadmissible as references to establish notability; if that were the case we wouldn't have any references for a large number of celebrity biographies. While they're not particularly high-effort pieces of journalism, profile pieces by major news sites serve as an indicator of public interest, and these ones by Kom Chad Luek (Oct 2022), Sanook (Mar 2023) and INN News (Sep 2023) all provide overviews of the subject's career in the writers' own voices. And while the content of interviews don't usually count as a secondary source, having major interviews conducted by multiple established publications can also serve as an indicator of interest, with commentary from the interviewers that taken together can partly contribute to notability. These include the Thairath piece mentioned above (Jun 2022), (The Standard (31 Aug 2023), and Woody Milintachinda (Oct 2022 and Sep 2023). The subject has also been featured in traditional glossy magazines L'Officiel Thailand (Apr 2022) and Praew (Jul 2022). In any case, he should meet WP:NACTOR #1, having had starring roles in the TV series Cutie Pie and the film After Sundown, the latter of which lacks an article but should be notable by way of reviews in The Standard and Sanook. --Paul_012 (talk) 19:19, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That is an interesting comment you've made on profile pieces which are the majority of these references. The thing that lets me down, in a reflection of the type of comments you've made in the past in similar Afd's, is the fact that you seem to disregard and indeed wholly ignore the huge effect PR agencies make in shaping public perceptions of a particular individual, to try and ensure that person has a successful career in the media. In the article above: [35], choosen for particular reason, it states in the opening sentence "Get to know Nunew Chawarin, a new actor who is famous from the Cutie Pie series", a typical PR agency statement. The article has statement that indicates that its a PR agency. This one: [36], all of it is from social media. Are we supposed to suspend disbelief here due to an argument of quanity meets quality at some level. I don't think so. We will go all the references in the first block today or tommorrow. scope_creep^Talk 08:46, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your tendency to oversimplify and draw unproven conclusions suggest that you don't have a good enough understanding of how Thai entertainment reporting works, or are purposefully ignoring the nuances for argument's sake. That is simply the style of writing used by entertainment reporters. Yes, they often have close connections with celebrities and their agents, which sometimes makes ascertaining their independence difficult, but nothing in those pieces have anything to indicate direct PR material. For an example of actual PR material, the first Thai Post citation in the article is basically identical to this piece on Sanook. This clearly indicates it's a PR piece (and the language is quite clear for native Thai readers). It's unfortunate that it's usual practice in Thai entertainment news not to clearly label these supplied PR pieces, but that in no way means that they contain nothing but PR. They also do original reporting, which the Thairath interview clearly is. --Paul_012 (talk) 10:04, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Thai newspapers industry is graded like every other industry. I'll look at everyone of these newspapers along with the references, today or tommorrow. Trying to qualify this argument as though that make is ok is disengeous and dishonest, particularly on a paid article. scope_creep^Talk 10:27, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Este actor y cantante es uno de los más reconocidos actualmente en Tailandia a pesar de que su primera serie fuera transmitida en 2022 ha alcanzado numerosos premios como actor y cantante otorgados por especialistas. Es solicitado para interpretar OST de diferentes series. Sus fans son numerosos en Tailandia y en el extranjero. 152.207.147.61 (talk) 02:42, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Translation. For convenience, here is a Google translation of the above message. If anyone with a knowledge of Spanish notices errors in Google's effort, please post corrections. JBW (talk) 12:29, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This actor and singer is one of the most recognized currently in Thailand, despite the fact that his first series was broadcast in 2022, he has achieved numerous awards as an actor and singer awarded by specialists. He is requested to perform OSTs from different series. His fans are numerous in Thailand and abroad.

Comment I think it will no-consensus !vote at best with 4 keep !votes. I don't see the point of doing a source analysis. I don't have the time at the moment leading up to Christmas. I do intend to do a source review in the article and remove anything that is low-quality or non-standard. If it comes to it that what is left is junk then I will renominate, but can't do anything at the moment. scope_creep^Talk 23:48, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 07:09, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 14:54, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nour Al Hassan

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

Refs are PR and profiles. Fails WP:SIGCOV. scope_creep^Talk 10:18, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Women, Language, Technology, and Jordan. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:30, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom, and my search for sources; this seems to be WP:PROMO without substantial independent and reliable sources to support notability at this time. For example, this CNN Money source is primarily based on what Al Hassan says; the article is also largely built around materials produced by Al Hassan and her company, a blog post, and various promotional sources. Beccaynr (talk) 21:59, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nour Al Hassan's biography is not a public relations page but a testament to her impactful contributions to women's empowerment in the Middle East. I have made changes to the page according to your feedback, and I would like to explain why I believe it should not be deleted.

I understand that the page can be further amended to meet Wikipedia's standards, and I will contnue to do this. Nour's advocacy for women's rights and her role as a role model for many in the region are key aspects that warrant inclusion on Wikipedia.

Advocacy for Women:

- Nour Al Hassan's commitment to advocating for women's rights in the Middle East is well-documented in various reliable sources.

- Her efforts extend beyond rhetoric, as she actively engages in initiatives aimed at improving the status and opportunities for women in the region.

Role Model for Women:

- Nour serves as an inspiration for countless women in the Middle East, with her story resonating as a tale of overcoming challenges and breaking barriers.

Job Creation for Mothers:

- An integral part of Nour Al Hassan's legacy is her commitment to creating job opportunities, particularly for mothers who face constraints in leaving their homes.

- This goes beyond mere business accomplishments, showcasing a socially responsible dimension that aligns with Wikipedia's emphasis on documenting positive societal contributions.

Incorporating these aspects into Nour Al Hassan's biography not only adheres to Wikipedia's standards but also enriches the platform by recognizing individuals who contribute significantly to societal progress.

Thank you very much. Wwat2023 (talk) 12:58, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:25, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Since it bas been relisted, it is worth examining the references. I'll look at the first two blocks.

Ref 1 [37] That is a image of Nour Al Hassan. Non-RS
Ref 2 [38] "She spoke to The Arab Weekly via WhatsApp." That is a WP:SPS source.
Ref 3 [39] This is a Forbes profile on a X of Y list. It is non-rs.
Ref 4 [40] This is a press-release. It states its a press-release. Non-rs.
Ref 5 [41] Another profile. Non-RS
Ref 6 [42] Another profile. Non-RS
Ref 7 [43] An event listing. Non-rs.
Ref 8 [44] An executive interview.
Ref 9 [45] Another profile. Same image as used above in the other profiles. Non-RS
Ref 10 [46] Another profile. Same image as used above in the other profiles. Non-RS
Ref 11 [47] A short interview.

So there you have it. Three interviews and another 8 non-rs references. Two of the interviews are primary and one is a whatsapp chat is non-rs. This is all PR. scope_creep^Talk 12:15, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I think if we had one more decent source this would be at notability. I agree with the assessment given above, not quit notable, yet. Oaktree b (talk) 14:48, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was userfy‎. ✗plicit 14:52, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Himalayan Institute of Cultural and Heritage Studies

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

Zero third-party coverage Sohom (talk) 10:05, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

True that. Not much third party coverage as of now. Can an article on this organisation be created again in a few months/a year or so, since more coverage is likely to come in this period? Apandeyhp89 (talk) 10:13, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Organizations, Education, and Himachal Pradesh. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:31, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:24, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy if Apandeyhp89 would like to keep on working on it, in the hope of finding new reliable sources in the next few months. Otherwise it's a delete. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:31, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy Per Chiswick Chap. ~~ αvírαm|(tαlk) 13:13, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 14:50, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalaya, Jalpaiguri

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

zero tird-party coverage found. Sohom (talk) 09:03, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and West Bengal. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:32, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets WP:GNG Rasel Hasan🇮🇳 (talk) (contribs) 17:45, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Mr. Rasel Hasan Can you explain why you believe it meets GNG (specifically it's best to link to atleast three reliable third-party sources that would show that the subject is notable). Sohom (talk) 13:40, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Nothing out there as far as references that can show WP:GNG or WP:NORG. --CNMall41 (talk) 06:33, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:23, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom.I don't think the subject meets WP:GNG or WP:NORG and reference are n't showing reliable.~~ αvírαm|(tαlk) 11:57, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 14:51, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kladara

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

PROD objected with non-SIGCOV sources (only mentions). Still cannot find coverage on the subject. Timothytyy (talk) 09:52, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Archaeology and Bulgaria. Timothytyy (talk) 09:52, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:23, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per nom, nothing in RS nor Google News. dxneo (talk) 17:15, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 12:38, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Mentions of the term in old Croatian texts in Gbooks, nothing substantial found. Oaktree b (talk) 14:29, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 04:53, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Government Mamit College

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

No refernces outside of press release Sohom (talk) 10:40, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and Mizoram. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:25, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previously deleted by WP:PROD, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:12, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

pls do not delete — Preceding unsigned comment added by Coolcolney (talk • contribs) 05:55, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Short question, why ? If you want the page to be kept, you need to prove that the page is notable and that requires you to show that atleast three reliable, independent third-party sources have covered the subject in-depth. Sohom (talk) 13:45, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Coolcolney^^ Sohom (talk) 13:45, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 12:38, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sohom I will update with more source

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relisting. We still need some more opinions here. There hasn't been much participation in this discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:54, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I can't find any sources that confirm independent notability for this school.Cortador (talk) 09:17, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; Fails WP:ORG. LibStar (talk) 02:14, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Star Mississippi 15:26, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Launceston Players

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

Unreferenced promotional stub for a company that fails WP:GNG. The creator of the article is also very clearly associated with the company, considering their username is identical to the article's title. Sgubaldo (talk) 10:24, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Theatre and Australia. Sgubaldo (talk) 10:24, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Plenty of coverage in Trove. Jenks24 (talk) 10:46, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I've removed the lines promoting a modern production and its quality as presumably contributed by the creator of article, but added a range of history sources and sites highlighting the output of the organisation. RossRSmith (talk) 12:07, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:27, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:10, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 12:38, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Poorly written and neglected article, but this is apparently the oldest still-operating amateur theatre group in Australia. It is covered in an academic journal article and the many news articles listed on their AusStage entry (which is only older articles stored on Trove, not comprehensive) show sufficient coverage for notability. --RL0919 (talk) 13:28, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to University of Peradeniya. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 12:39, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Gal Bangalawa

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

No refs on the page, nothing found to showthat notability standards are me. Incidentally the si.wiki seems to have even less. Possibly as an AtD could be a redirect to University of Peradeniya JMWt (talk) 11:09, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education and Sri Lanka. JMWt (talk) 11:09, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the university as suggested seems fine, I don't see much sourcing discussing the building, beyond simply mentioning it. Oaktree b (talk) 14:51, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - As suggested. Information is not adequate to keep this as a separate article --L Manju (talk) 16:03, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture and Sri Lanka. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:47, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to University of Peradeniya.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 02:03, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to University of Peradeniya, as fails to satisfy WP:GNG. Dan arndt (talk) 04:04, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:22, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge the usable content and then redirect microbiologyMarcus ^{(petri dish·growths)} 18:40, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:06, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

History of the Jews in Gaza City

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/History of the Jews in Gaza City

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

Fails to meet Wikipedia's general notability guidelines for the topic to have a standalone article. There is no significant coverage, no independent sources, and no reliable sources dealing directly with the topic. Makeandtoss (talk) 10:56, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep historical facts are obviously notable. Many sources exist on the topic. JMWt (talk) 11:24, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see any reliable and independent source in the article that has significant cover of Jewish history in Gaza specifically, so this does not satisfy WP:GNG. However, as you said historical facts are obviously notable, in the appropriate article: History of Gaza. Makeandtoss (talk) 13:20, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I mean. Have you done any WP:BEFORE? What you are claiming as being absent is clearly in the academic record. Sources exist. Many of them. JMWt (talk) 14:21, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I did. No independent, reliable and secondary sources that report significant coverage seem to exist; certainly not plenty of them. Makeandtoss (talk) 15:34, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry - you are trying to tell me that there are no RS about the history of Jews in Gaza? There clearly are. Jews have left archaeology there going back thousands of years.

It is distinct from a general article about the History of Gaza just like every other article that shows the history of an ethnic group in an area such as History of the Jews in Wales. Your replies do not reflect normal practice on en.wiki JMWt (talk) 16:15, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
https://www.jstor.org/stable/23729416 this is an extensive history of the area, the best so far. Oaktree b (talk) 16:21, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"No independent, reliable and secondary sources that report significant coverage seem to exist". My words are clear, so please do not play with them. Please do not engage in ad hominem if you are unable to defend your position. I saw the JSTOR article, and since I am not a Hebrew speaker, I cannot comment on what it means with "Jewish settlement" or what the scope of the article is. I have commented on the rest of the sources presented. Makeandtoss (talk) 15:01, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep. Easily notable per WP:GNG. Suggest speedy keep as not to waste time of other editors on a pointless vote. Some sample sources:

- "The lost history of Gaza's Jewish quarter". Hadeel Al Gherbawi.
- "Gaza’s Rich Jewish History Includes Decades of Friendship with Local Arabs". Nadav Shragai.
- Ancient Jewish communities in Gaza. Schwartz, Joshua. (1999, Dec 15).
- Kidron, Anat, and Shuli Linder-Yarkony. “A Hebrew Community in a Mixed City? Acre during the British Mandate.” Israel Studies, vol. 24, no. 3, 2019, pp. 50–74.
- Handbook of Oriental Studies: Handbuch Der Orientalistik. The Near and Middle East. Corpus inscriptionum Arabicarum Palaestinae (CIAP). By Moshe Sharon · 1997. p.28-29
- "Gaza, like you never knew it". Nadav Shragai. Israel Hayom [48]

Marokwitz (talk) 14:22, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Before we begin to analyze these sources and what they say, please present links, because this purported article by the Washington Post doesn't seem to exist. [49] Makeandtoss (talk) 15:32, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It can be found on Proquest; however, upon a second check, it is was published under letters to the editor section and cannot be considered a reliable source. Striking it out. Marokwitz (talk) 16:01, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Five of the six sources you cited are problematic:

First source while it is useful, is about the quarter in the city, and not about a 2-3 thousand history of Jews in Gaza.

Second source is a magazine affiliated with Tikvah Fund, a neoconservative foundation [50]

Third source doesn't seem to exist either. [51]

Fourth source is not available for online reading so no verification is possible.

Fifth source: nothing about Jewish history in Gaza pages 28 and 29 [52]

Last source: Israel Hayom is a tabloid.

If you want to convince us of this article's notability, then a higher standard than this has to be met.

Makeandtoss (talk) 08:02, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There are pages upon pages of information about the history of Jews in Gaza in the Handbook of Oriental Studies. You can search within the book, which is available on Google Books for easy verification. [53]

Israel Hayom is a wide circulation newspaper (the most widely circulated in Israel) used extensively in Wikipedia and is considered a reliable source. It is a Tabloid only due to its printing format, this term is used only to describe size, not to refer to other qualities of the publication.

Being associated with a neoconservative foundation does not make a source unreliable. Reliable sources are not required to be neutral.

You can't convince me that the article about the history of the Jewish Quarter of Gaza is not about the history of Jews in Gaza. It is not required to discuss a "2-3 thousand year history." Marokwitz (talk) 18:36, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The last source is extensive, seems ok. Oaktree b (talk) 16:07, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Literally the first source, about an ancient synagogue in the city, is proof. The photo at the top of the article is proof of the long history they have in the city. Unsure why this wouldn't be notable. Oaktree b (talk) 14:53, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I hope you are not meaning israelandyou.com, the shabby blog? We are not discussing if Jews have a history in Gaza, we are discussing if this warrants a standalone article per Wikipedia guidelines; it doesn't. Makeandtoss (talk) 15:28, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know now, it's been removed from the article. Oaktree b (talk) 15:46, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I removed it, unreliable sources like that one are not acceptable for usage in WP. Makeandtoss (talk) 15:49, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Please stop removing things as we're trying to review the suitability in AfD, you aren't helping the situation. "because I say it isn't" doesn't help me review the source for notability. Oaktree b (talk) 16:05, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I would have assumed it was a travel site, but now that you've removed it, we can't evaluate it. Please undo the changes. Oaktree b (talk) 16:06, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Frankly, as a Veteran Editor, I'd expect better from you. You can't change things you don't like while they're being discussed, it's borderline disruptive and not helping the case here. Oaktree b (talk) 16:08, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As a veteran editor, I can identify unacceptable sources as soon as I see them. You are better off expecting better from the editor who used these blogs to create a Wikipedia article. Makeandtoss (talk) 08:03, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This source is fine [54], this provides background [55], this in French [56], this traces the history of a young Jewish individual in 1665 in the area [57]. Oaktree b. Page 93-94 mostly here, but the rest of the volume is useful [58]. (talk) 16:00, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This from a 1943 newspaper gives context of the area [59] and this is the history of the Jewish settlement in Gaza [60]. Not sure how much more we need at this point. Oaktree b (talk) 16:19, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Israeli settlements are covered in the Israeli settlements article. The Almonitor source is about the Jewish quarter which is a different topic. The rest cannot be considered as significant coverage. Makeandtoss (talk) 08:05, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The definition of "Significant coverage" in WP:GNG is "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material. Can you elaborate why the sources provided by Oaktree (except for #8) cannot be considered significant coverage of the topic "History of the Jews in Gaza City"? Marokwitz (talk) 19:52, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Judaism, and Palestine. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:48, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep one minute of WP:BEFORE on JSTOR shows https://www.jstor.org/stable/23729416 and https://www.jstor.org/stable/23723826, in addition to the links above. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:32, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The sources here are in-depth reliable and verifiable references that clearly establish notability. Alansohn (talk) 18:15, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Article has several books cited which by nature provide deep material + direct online sources including by other countries' for International and further neutral coverage - and the ad-hoc pro-palestinian magazine "This Week in Palestine" as the 1st source which merited it's own English-Wiki article and describes (at flaky glance) Jews situations-population such as during the Hellenic period 2000 years ago; probably more when reading the entirety of it. (* Side-note: comparing the magazine old-issue source to the Wiki-link shows a same writer, so same magazine). WP:FORK - Big amount of material with vast sections for different periods from biblical lands of Israel-Judea times up to 20th century, and the "history of gaza"'s length (and "GA" status BTW), satisfies WP:SPLIT + as said about independent notability of a nation-population history in X-place. *BTW, another flaky glance: doesn't seem to be much info on Jews in "history of gaza", so support adding few summary-lines (where/if missing) on that general article's period-sections. אומנות (talk) 18:57, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete on verifiability grounds, not on notability grounds. Almost entirely unsourced. Only a few sentences in the article have any source cited, and a not insignificant percent of them are merely small factoids, e.g. one of the only sentences with a source is one claiming that one rabbi was from Gaza, but scholars disagree that this means a Jewish settlement existed in Gaza City at the time. The vast majority of the article is unsourced material that must be deleted. Where is this material coming from? Is it a verbatim quote from an unknown source? Is this a copyvio? Is this an original research essay? We don't know. But if you were to trim the article down to only what is sourced, it would not warrant a WP:SPLIT, and I do not know of any appropriate target for a merge. Vanilla Wizard 💙 19:22, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
One editor above has been removing items as sources during the course of this discussion, we had 14 items as sources at one point. Oaktree b (talk) 20:58, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
True as that may be, having reviewed some of the sources removed, them being in the article would not change that the material is unverified. Citing a source listed at WP:RS/P as unreliable is no better for establishing verifiability than having no source at all. Though I should also add that when I wrote my !vote I didn't even have in mind all the CN tags where a source used to be before the nom removed them, I was referring to the vast majority of the article that never had any sources in any revision. Vanilla Wizard 💙 21:40, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Slightly adding onto my !vote: I also support draftifying per the side conversation below. No denying that good sources exist on the subject, but I feel like I must not be looking at the same article as the keep !votes that suggest that the article is well-sourced right now. An article with almost 20K bytes of text, only a minuscule percent of it sourced, is not ready to show to readers. Vanilla Wizard 💙 18:12, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There have been enough sources invoked in this discussion to make me believe this is a notable topic of scholarship Zanahary (talk) 23:01, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I believe there is no doubt that the topic is important, in my understanding the article is quite detailed and full of reliable sources. There is always the possibility to improve the article, And it would be good to do this instead of opening another deletion discussion. Eladkarmel (talk) 18:23, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You wrote the majority of the article, correct? It might have been wise to say that. JMWt (talk) 18:37, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I thought it was pretty clear to those who are here in the discussion. So yes, I created the article. Eladkarmel (talk) 20:46, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - There is a lot of important and sourced information here. Dovidroth (talk) 09:38, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

So far the only verifiably reliable sources presented have been these two: [61], [62]. Neither can be described as having significant coverage of Jewish history in Gaza, however, they could be used for an article on Jewish quarter in Gaza. Makeandtoss (talk) 15:06, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming the article will be kept, which seems very likely, a cleanup process is in order after the AfD ends. I will wait until after it's closed to delete the aforementioned paragraphs of text that never had any sources to verify any of their sentences, but sooner or later we do need to remove all the unsourced material. An article with this much text and almost none of it sourced being in mainspace isn't acceptable. Perhaps an alternative to deletion is draftifying? Vanilla Wizard 💙 18:07, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: per above, there is ample sourcing for an article shown above and in the article. // Timothy :: talk 11:37, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, for all reasons listed above. The corresponding article on Hebrew Wikipedia (which the English article appears to borrow from heavily) is fairly well-cited; it would be worthwhile to go through the references there and incorporate them into the English article. Ploni^💬 16:07, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep‎. Withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:44, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Annakili Sonna Kathai

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

Cannot find any RS for this film at all. Kailash29792 (talk) 10:32, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I found some sources. DareshMohan (talk) 14:12, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw: Good work DareshMohan. I also found this, please see how to use it. Kailash29792 (talk) 14:58, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and India. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:49, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge‎ to Pasuruan. Daniel (talk) 04:24, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Untung Suropati Stadium

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

Non-notable stadium for a likely non-notable team, definitely doesn't pass WP:GNG. No sensible redirect target unless the team article is kept at its AFD. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:12, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports, Football, and Indonesia. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:12, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, would the other team article Persekap Pasuruan be a potential rd target? I am on the fence to !vote as I sense that could also go towards an afd too. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 22:23, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 10:00, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect ~~to Persekap Pasuruan~~ as possible search term but not independently notable. Giant Snowman 10:02, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect to Pasuruan, @Bungle and GiantSnowman: Pasuruan United F.C. (which is at AfD) also plays at the stadium, and it appears to be owned by local government, I feel it's better served to merge and incorporate both teams into a sports section on the Pasuruan article. Govvy (talk) 21:51, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I am in agreement with this. Giant Snowman 12:01, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. There is a general consensus that the topic meets the general notability guideline, and that the preexisting biases in the article can be resolved. But this consensus to keep is dependent on the title reflecting a more neutral tone; those in favor of deletion are surely correct that the article should not exist under the present title. Since an independent move discussion is now underway, however, no move will be made as a result of this AfD. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 16:52, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Glorification of martyrdom in Palestinian society

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Glorification of martyrdom in Palestinian society

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

Article fails to meet all of Wikipedia's five general notability guidelines, which determines if a topic deserves a standalone article:

1- Presumed: article is an indiscriminate collection of information; a collection of small pieces of information from different sources, resulting in troublesome original research

2- Significant coverage there are no independent, reliable and secondary sources addressing the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content.

3- Reliable: sources used in the article are either unreliable or mediocre, and in both cases do not deal with the topic directly.

4- Secondary: Most sources are not secondary, many of them primary reporting on violent incidents

5- Independent: Most sources are not independent of the subject, many of them are Israeli news website and academic institutions.

This article is a clear example of original research with questionable references, it should be deleted to maintain adherence to Wikipedia's strict guidelines. Makeandtoss (talk) 10:09, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Warning to closing editor: A banned sockpuppet has attempted at least once to canvass editors with a specific viewpoint to come to this discussion. Makeandtoss (talk) 19:38, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I don't like the title and the way the article is written, however I'm not sure point 2 above (at least) is correct. this appears to be a published book on the "politics of national commemoration" of Palestinian martyrs. This appears to be an academic paper focusing on the "visual representation of martyrdom in Palestine". I think there is something there, I don't really understand the point that the nom is making by saying there are no RS on the topic. Unless I'm somehow not understanding the difference between the topic and these sources.. JMWt (talk) 10:44, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Both of these two sources -not used in the article- deal with the topic of martyrdom in Palestine, not the topic of "glorification of martyrdom in Palestinian society". Either way, there are still issues with the rest four notability guidelines. Makeandtoss (talk) 11:01, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Mm well. Surely there's a big crossover between there being significant public "visual representation" and it being "glorified". Maybe the solution is to change the title to something like Public representation of martyrdom in Palestinian society JMWt (talk) 11:13, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Rename to Martyrdom in Palestinian society or Martyrdom in Palestinian culture as a neutral name for this phenomenon. The topic is clearly notable per WP:GNG. Some bibliography (there are endless more examples):
- Suicide, Violence, and Cultural Conceptions of Martyrdom in Palestine. By Neil L. Whitehead and Nasser Abufarha
- "For Palestinians, a Rush to Claim ‘Martyrs’ Killed by Israel". New York Times. By Raja Abdulrahim and Hiba Yazbek. Dec. 31, 2022
- The Polyvalent Politics of Martyr Commemorations in the Palestinian Intifada. Lori A. Allen.
- "Martyrdom and national identity". Bassem Eid. March 2008.
- Female Martyrdom: The Ultimate Embodiment of Islamic Existence? By Rivka Yadlin
- Martyrdom and Visual Representations of the Palestinian Islamic Movements. Attila Kovács. Marokwitz (talk) 12:56, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keeping would serve no purpose, as the different article name proposed has a different scope from the current article, better to delete this and start from scratch there. Makeandtoss (talk) 13:17, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I feel there is no real difference as martyrdom is the elevation of the individual to a status of heroism or sanctity - which is by definition "glorification". This is true for martyrs of any society. Marokwitz (talk) 16:23, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's possible that we can rename, and remove the glorification word, although although as said by Marokwitz glorification kinda comes in with the definition of martyrdom. Regaridng the topic, Martyrdom in a society is worthy of an encyclopedic entry. Homerethegreat (talk) 15:23, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Probably could be written more neutrally but the sources show that this a recognized and studied concept in reliable sources that tie specifically into the national aspect, not just Islam. Maybe rename and deal with some of the neutrality issues. PARAKANYAA (talk) 13:05, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article could be written better, but it is sourced and the phenomenon is important and well documented. Dovidroth (talk) 13:59, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
TNT or Merge to ~~Shaheed with a sentence or two added into~~ Martyr#Martyrdom in the Middle East -- This article is incredibly fraught with WP:NPOV problems, from the infobox image on down. In my personal view, it appears to be a well-sourced polemical WP:ESSAY filled with WP:OR and WP:SYNTH attacking an entire society for the views of a group within it. However, there is encyclopaedic information buried in the article. A selective merge to ~~Shaheed with a summary sentence in~~ Martyr would allow for a non-POV and non-advocacy article to be maintained. If Merge is not an accepted consensus, I would strongly support a result of WP:TNT. Cheers, Last1in (talk) 15:37, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well that makes no logical sense given there a) there are many Palestinians that are not Islamic and b) some of them are celebrated as martyrs.

We can't just merge ideas together because it looks neater in our minds when the facts don't support them being the same thing. JMWt (talk) 16:17, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You have examples of Christians and Jews treated as Martyrs in Palestine? Please provide them! Otherwise, we are doing exactly what you deplore -- lumping everyone into "Palestinians who glorify martyrdom" when it's untrue. Cheers, Last1in (talk) 17:01, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well, you know. This is getting into the weeds of the issue, but it does help if you know what you are talking about - or take the time to research it. Try this source

Quote "Some martyrs are Muslim, while others are Christian. Some, like the revolutionary icon Ghassan Kanafani, were devout Marxists." Unquote JMWt (talk) 17:09, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That is not a source I had seen and I find it fascinating. I don't think it's RS, but it's still fascinating and I would bet there are RS sources that support the same view. I will adjust my comment above. Thank you and Cheers, Last1in (talk) 17:22, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep quite a lot of secondayr sources, article seems to be describing in a tone applicable and coherent. If you wish to make more accurate, you can add years. Regarding sources, Ithink they appear to be reliable, can you point to a specific source and explain the problem? Regarding title, it's rather straight to the point... Notable topic. Homerethegreat (talk) 15:49, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep article is amply sourced and as described above, more source have come to light. I'd suggest a rewrite, but we can likely keep the article. Oaktree b (talk) 16:39, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Terrorism, Islam, Israel, and Palestine. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:50, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Not a !vote one way or the other yet, but change the title to remove "Glorification of" from the name. The topic of martyrdom is encyclopedia-worthy, but the current state of the article is a POV-charged mess and will need to be rewritten entirely. I don't question the number of sources discussing the topic more broadly, so I don't know that I can say to do an outright delete on notability. That said, there's a fair case to be made that some TNT could help with the cleanup process. In the meantime, we can at least improve the title. Vanilla Wizard 💙 17:13, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

!Voting now. TNT delete. I took another look through the article and I don't think what we have is salvageable. The article does have sources, but they're cobbled together (WP:SYNTH, WP:NOR) to form a misleading narrative. To give just one example, there's a whole original research paragraph suggesting that the reason why a large percent of young Palestinians have post traumatic stress disorder is because of the glorification of the concept of martyrdom, as opposed to everything else that's been going on in the Israel-Palestine conflict. Is the topic of martyrdom in Palestinian society notable? Quite possibly. But is this material acceptable? Absolutely not. Vanilla Wizard 💙 18:59, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Being moved by the arguments that it is not appropriate to have an article about martyrdom in the culture of one specific nation as if it is a uniquely Palestinian phenomenon. I reread the article and it really does come across more as an essay that tries to persuade the reader that a core tenant of Palestinian culture is the brainwashing of one's own child into sacrificing themselves as a martyr. The article at no point mentions that martyrdom of the deceased is common on the Israeli side (or across other cultures as well), or that the broader Israel-Palestine conflict (as opposed to some essential quality of the Palestinian people) could be contributing to the phenomenon of martyrdom. This page only serves to dehumanize a nation. The basic Martyrdom article does a much better job at describing the topic and there is no need to split it into POV forks. I support TNT at a minimum as a middle-ground position between deleting and keeping, but my preference is now to delete with prejudice against recreation. Vanilla Wizard 💙 20:29, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. If one reads the article and views the sourcing, the notability is obvious and abundantly clear, and AfDing this article based on this reasoning is flat-out wrong. There is room for discussion whether the title is the appropriate one, but that's not for AfD. Longhornsg (talk) 20:59, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: TNT per Last1in and Vanilla Wizard. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:19, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The attitude towards martyrdom in the Palestinian society is indeed a unique phenomenon, which presents itself in the media, education and finances. The phenomenon calls for an article, and I think this article presents it in a coherent, well sourced way. As per the claims of Makeandtoss:

The article is structured and coherent.
Sources are reliable: the largest group of sources is that of scholarly articles in respectful journals. To count a few: Journal of Political Ideologies, Studies in Conflict & Terrorism, Journal of Middle Eastern and Islamic Studies, Social Research, Security Studies, Terrorism and Political Violence... These are clearly secondary sources, and they make up the foundation of the article. There are some citations of global media such as CNN and AP News
Some sources are Israeli. Counting, they are definitely not the majority. -GidiD (talk) 12:53, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I see no reason to delete the article. I wrote it after I came across the fact that there is a wide and in-depth academic literature dealing with this important topic. As with every new article I create, I'm always happy to have additional editors help improve and expand the entry, and add additional perspectives. Eladkarmel (talk) 18:11, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This article is completely biased, misleading, and has no place on Wikipedia. The phenomenon of glorifying martyrdom is not limited to the Palestinian community, as depicted in Israeli narratives. For instance, the dead of the Zionist bands like Lehi and Irgun are called "martyrs" and memorials are dedicated to them in Israel. Dl.thinker (talk) 22:10, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as first choice, remove "glorification of" as second choice. As Dl.thinker says, all societies glorify their own "martyrs". The soldier who volunteers for a mission with little chance of return is universally lauded as a hero. The literature on this particular example consists mostly of Zionist authors using it to dehumanise Palestinians. We should not buy into it. Zero^talk 22:31, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - possibly rename This seems to be a well researched and attested phenomena to a particular region, but perhaps a less editorial or leading title would serve us better. Perhaps "Culture of martyrdom in Palestinian Society" or "history of martyrdom culture in Palestinian Society" or "history of martyrdom veneration in Palestinian Society"...possibly a few more options in that direction.

I also don't like some of the tone of the current piece in places and would sift through it to ensure it is properly neutral where needed, but not enough to eliminate the piece altogether imo.

Also - *perhaps* this could be folded into the martyrdom page, but I'm concerned as to how short and cursory that page is at present. Mistamystery (talk) 06:16, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and rename to Martyrdom in Palestinian society. No particular concern, other than the name. "Glorification of" can already be deleted in this discussion. Dropping this is concensual. Whether it should be Martyrdom in Palestinian society or in culture, or another word order as above, is already a secondary concern and should be debated on the talk page. If we partially change the name now something good would have come of this AfD after all. gidonb (talk) 13:29, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and rename to Martyrdom in Palestinian society. This is a well-documented and well-studied cultural topic. Zanahary (talk) 20:31, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the article is well-sourced and presents a historical perspective to the ongoing conflict. Cloud200 (talk) 21:01, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, goodness knows why, but I was WP:CANVASSED by email to oppose the deletion of this article by Zapdungar. I have no way of knowing whether I was the only one or why I was chosen. Pincrete (talk) 22:10, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Seems that the Zapdungar account has been blocked indefinitely as a sockpuppet account, with the block log showing the account is believed to be one of more than 286 alts of User:AndresHerutJaim, whose use of Wikipedia since 2011 has been exclusively to promote a particular perspective on articles related to the Arab-Israeli conflict. I was not expecting there to be such a deep rabbithole to this user's prolonged illegitimate use of the encyclopedia. I certainly hope this AFD hasn't been tainted by canvassing attempts. Vanilla Wizard 💙 06:42, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oh you sweet summer child, that ship has already sailed. nableezy - 18:03, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose an another way I could've phrased that was "I hope the !votes we have so far are legitimate", just trying to assume good faith, but this certainly complicates things. Now whoever closes this gets to deal with not only the obligatory checking-to-make-sure-everyone-is-extended-confirmed job that comes with any Arab-Israeli internal !vote, but also ensuring the !votes aren't canvassed, and I honestly have no idea how one could even tell. Vanilla Wizard 💙 00:25, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the article is definitely relevant to the ongoing conflict. Glorification of martyrdom in Palestinian society is well documented not only on the article itself but in many news articles I've seen on the conflict. An example is : https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2023/7/14/why-do-some-palestinian-teens-in-jenin-dream-of-martyrdom Vincenty846 (talk) 05:25, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That al Jazeera article is not about glorification of martyrdom, it's mainly about the lack of any kind of future among these young refugees as a response to a grim past and present: His comments reflect a belief among many young people in Jenin that fighting the occupation is their main purpose in life. Faced with a lack of prospects for the future, in the eyes of young people here, resistance is the only way to confront a reality in which Israeli soldiers breach their homes, arrest their parents, and even kill their friends or relatives. Pincrete (talk) 06:28, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Quote: "The teenagers did not hesitate when asked what they aspired to be when they grew up. “Martyrs,” they said in unison, referring to the term used by Palestinians to describe anyone killed by Israelis." Is aspiring and dreaming to become "martyrs" not a sign of glorification?

Is a picture of hanging "supersized banners bearing the portraits of martyrs" in the article (https://www.aljazeera.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/DSF3255-1-1689160316.jpg?w=770&resize=770%2C513&quality=80) not clear photographic evidence of glorification of those martyrs?

I am not referring to the main context of the article in itself; but I am referring to the clear signs that "martyrdom" is being glorified in Palestinian society based on statements from those children and photographic evidence put in the example article. Vincenty846 (talk) 08:06, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Is aspiring and dreaming to become "martyrs" not a sign of glorification? actually no, and certainly not as a distinctly Palestinian trait. If you asked the youth in certain areas of Northern Ireland during the Troubles or those in South Africa during the challenge to Apartheid, the answer would have been much the same. What that says is much more about what those who see themselves as fighting for their freedom than it says about Palestinians as such. I happen to have been reading this weekend some of the writings of imprisoned Irgun members in the years leading up to 1948. The extent to which those members 'readied themselves' for what they saw as their probable fate - the noose or death in combat - was quite chilling. Survivors and future generations honoured them of course. What we have here is another manifestation of "one man's heroic freedom fighter is another man's psychopathic fanatic terrorist with a death-wish". Pincrete (talk) 08:38, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I disagree. I don’t care if it is not a “distinctly” Palestinian trait since that is not the main point of what is being discussed here. The degree to which such “Martyrdom” is venerated in Palestinian society in itself is very notable and very relevant to current events; hence my support to keep the article.

If anyone would like to make articles about “Glorification of Martyrdom in Apartheid South Africa” or “Glorification of IRA Martyrdom in Ireland during the Troubles” they are very welcome to do so if they think those topics are very notable. Vincenty846 (talk) 11:56, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don’t care if it is not a “distinctly” Palestinian trait - you have to if you are describing Glorification of martyrdom in Palestinian society, rather than "Glorification of martyrdom in human beings" or "Glorification of martyrdom in national resistance groups" or even "Glorification of martyrdom in nations who see themselves as under threat". Much of the article is WP:OR, simply pointing to 'examples' of violent deeds and extrapolating from that a general death-wish/death-cult trait among a whole population. Since long before Boudica, those who are seen as fighting oppression tend to get lionised in very two-dimensional ways. Pincrete (talk) 14:57, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
TNT The article does have sources, but they're cobbled together (WP:SYNTH, WP:NOR) to form a misleading narrative. per Vanilla Wizard. Plus The phenomenon of glorifying martyrdom is not limited to the Palestinian community, as depicted in Israeli narratives. For instance, the dead of the Zionist bands like Lehi and Irgun are called "martyrs" As one might add are Steve Biko and Bobby Sands. If there is an article to be written about attitudes to martyrdom (which incidentally seems to have a broader definition in Palestine) - this is not it. The article also seems more interested in giving - what the writer appears to see as particularly offensive - examples of 'martyrs' being celebrated than in actually detailing the attitude to martyrdom.Pincrete (talk) 08:45, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article is well-sourced, and while some parts may warrant rewriting or restructuring, I can't think of a good reason why the article should be deleted. EytanMelech (talk) 17:40, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename to Martyrdom in Palestinian society. Fulfills WP:GNG. \\ Loksmythe // (talk) 18:28, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

TNT - as variously described above by others, this is a shoddily constructed, attack-like article cobbled together out of dated, weak scholarship, news and other lesser sources to present a clearly POV narrative under an equally deficient title. Far removed from an encyclopedic build of a topic from the best sources -- composed as it is in the reverse of such a manner -- unpicking the issues would be a more monumental task than starting it afresh, hence TNT. Iskandar323 (talk) 19:10, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Rename (remove “Glorification of”) and STARTOVER - the article does reference at least six scholarly sources on the topic, and there are probably more so there does appear to be academic research on the topic:

1. Hatina, M. (2005). Theology and power in the Middle East: Palestinian martyrdom in a comparative perspective. Journal of Political Ideologies, 10(3), 241–267. doi:10.1080/13569310500244289
2. Meir Litvak (2010) “Martyrdom is Life”: Jihad and Martyrdom in the Ideology of Hamas, Studies in Conflict & Terrorism, 33:8, 716–734, DOI: 10.1080/1057610X.2010.494170
3. Daphne Burdman (2003) Education, indoctrination, and incitement: Palestinian children on their way to martyrdom, Terrorism and Political Violence, 15:1, 96-123, DOI: 10.1080/09546550312331292977
4. Loadenthal, M. (2014). Reproducing a Culture of Martyrdom: The Role of the Palestinian Mother in Discourse Construction, Transmission, and Legitimization. In D. Cooper & C. Phelan (Eds.), Motherhood and war: International perspectives (pp. 183, 197). New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
5. Bilal Tawfiq Hamamra (2020) Mothers of martyrs: Rethinking Shakespeare’s Volumnia’s collective motherhood from a Palestinian perspective, Psychodynamic Practice, 26:3, 248–259, DOI: 10.1080/14753634.2020.1762715
6. Franke, L. (2014, April). The Discursive Construction of Palestinian istishhādiyyāt within the Frame of Martyrdom. In Martyrdom in the Modern Middle East (pp. 190–191, 193–195, 200). Ergon-Verlag

The article would need rewrite to be more comprehensive, accurate, unbiased, and neutral, and more scholarly references would need to be used. There has been research published on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict from social psychology perspectives, as well.

Also I was not canvassed; my Wiki email is disabled. Wh15tL3D09N (talk) 22:04, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bilal Tawfiq Hamamra's Mothers of martyrs: Rethinking Shakespeare’s Volumnia’s collective motherhood from a Palestinian perspective, is a study written by a drama and English lecturer! The study covers how Hamamra presents Shakespeare’s Coriolanus - and specifically Coriolanus' mother Volumnia - to modern Palestinian students. It is the main source for most of the 'Perceptions of motherhood' section (though much claimed to be sourced to the study isn't actually in it and is WP:SYNTHED so as to appear sourced).

The study is an interesting 'take' on parallels between a Shakespeare play/society and a modern situation, but PLEASE - a scholarly sources on the topic of Palestinian mother's attitude to martyrdom. Would we cite Hamlet scholars to support modern Danish societal attitudes? Pincrete (talk) 07:47, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That’s interesting. I wonder how it even got published in ‘Psychodynamic Practice’. Wh15tL3D09N (talk) 08:12, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It may be making a huge contribution to ‘Psychodynamic Practice’ or to the teaching of Shakespeare to Palestinians. That doesn't make it a meaningful study of ' 'Perceptions of motherhood' in Palestinian society - certainly not THE meaningful study around which to craft a section. Pincrete (talk) 16:22, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I was just on the Suicide attack Wiki page, and it has a section on martyrdom: “Clerics have supported suicide attacks largely in connection with the Palestinian issue. Prominent Sunni cleric Yusuf al-Qaradawi had previously supported such attacks by Palestinians in perceived defense of their homeland as heroic and an act of resistance.

^[1]

”

Wiki page:

Suicide attack#Support for "martyrdom operations"

Thank you, Makeandtoss, for opening this discussion. If this issue actually has any validity based on reality and research, to take a leaf out of your book, it probably shouldn’t be censored. Wh15tL3D09N (talk) 15:39, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

So if anyone is interested, here is a book I found by Nasser Abufarha that touches on martyrdom in Palestinian resistance: https://www.theleftberlin.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/The_Making_of_a_Human_Bomb_An_Ethnograph.pdf

It does appear there is encouragement of martyrdom culture through amaliyyat fida’iyya (operations of self-sacrifice), al-’amal al- istishhadi (the work of martyrdom), and istishhad (dying in martyrdom) that arises from social psychological, cultural and political reasons, but the book focuses more on the historical and political backdrop of Israeli occupation. It probably could be used to provide a more balanced perspective/article on martyrdom in Palestine. Wh15tL3D09N (talk) 22:23, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ David Bukay (2008). From Muhammad to Bin Laden: Religious and Ideological Sources of the Homicide Bombers Phenomenon. Transaction Publishers. pp. 295–. ISBN 978-0-7658-0390-0. Retrieved August 19, 2012.

Delete - per Zero. There is nothing inherently Palestinian about "glorification of martyrs". Indeed, Israel honors its fallen soldiers as national heroes, so do most countries, armed groups, or ethnic or religious groups. This article is, to be blunt, an exercise in propaganda. It seeks to otherize what is a near universal phenomena. Every war memorial on the planet is a "glorification of martyrs". But, as has been a recurring theme in new creations in this topic, this article seeks to create an emphatically POV spin on something that applies to all parties and pretending like it only applies to one. And it should not be allowed. I doubt it wont be, given the predictable canvassing that has likewise been endemic in this topic area, but it shouldnt be. nableezy - 22:26, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There's significant difference between fallen soldier and suicide bombers who blow themselves up among civilians. Cloud200 (talk) 22:35, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I can promise you that your unsourced personal views on this topic are not something I am interested in reading. Kindly go share them elsewhere. But, for the record, that glorification in Palestinian society extends to the children killed in bombing by Israel, who they consider among their martyrs. But you wouldnt know that if you read this propaganda screed pretending to be an article, because it doesnt try to explain a topic it tries to prove a point. nableezy - 22:53, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
And it also extends to children who are willing to execute suicide attacks when they grow up. Notably, al-Aqsa Martyrs' Brigades are responsible for a number of suicide attacks, matching their official name. Cloud200 (talk) 20:17, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If you wish to dismiss these as "Jewish propaganda", here's Hamas own leaders speaking of "We salute the Jihad-fighting Palestinian woman, who tends to the martyr and tends to her husband, and perhaps will become a martyr herself" about a suicide bomber (and much more) Cloud200 (talk) 20:20, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
MEMRI is also a propaganda outlet, so point very much not made. Iskandar323 (talk) 20:28, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

lol I dont think you understood what I wrote, but I dont really see the point of explaining it to you. But for anybody who isnt approaching this with the most racist framing they can conjure (oh hey, there are camps for children to play IDF soldier! omg omg omg), shaheed (martyr) is used in Palestine for any person killed by Israel or fighting against Israel. See for example al-Jazeera: about 10,600 martyred in Gaza since the start of the war, 40% of them children. The now 6,000 children killed in Gaza the last two months are all martyrs in Palestinian society and they are all indeed glorified as such. This drivel that is being pushed in the afd and the article is propaganda, pure and simple, it is a biased and incomplete telling with some tidbits of truth mixed told in a way to push an untrue narrative. Maybe when this is over an actual article could be created, but it wont be based on this garbage. But also, please dont place quotes around things people never said, it is quite dishonest. nableezy - 20:52, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Nableezy What is exactly "incomplete" here? That Hamas and ISIS routinely use *suicide* bombings and praise their executors as martyrs? That they brainwashed and drugged people to participate in suicidal attacks against civilians? You say Hamas calls martyrs "any person killed by Israel". Does that also extend to any person by Hamas own rockets falling short in Gaza? As for "killed by Israel", you're also not telling the whole truth - Hamas uses civilians as human shield, without asking them if they want to participate or not. How does it make any better that they then praise them as "martyrs"? They're dead specifically because Hamas decides e.g. to place rocket launchers in residential buildings, specifically because they know there will be a response. Cloud200 (talk) 14:49, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No, I did not say Hamas calls martyrs any person killed by Israel. If you are unable to read what I wrote the first time I dont see the point in explaining it a second time. Please dont ping me again with this level of inanity. Thanks in advance. nableezy - 14:51, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is what you wrote just a few lines above: "shaheed (martyr) is used in Palestine for any person killed by Israel or fighting against Israel." Cloud200 (talk) 10:19, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Now see if you cant tell the difference between is used in Palestine for any person killed by Israel or fighting against Israel. and You say Hamas calls martyrs "any person killed by Israel". nableezy - 14:12, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RS/P: The reliability of MEMRI is considered to lie between no consensus and generally unreliable. Many editors argue that MEMRI has a history of providing misleading coverage. Vanilla Wizard 💙 20:59, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or TNT and rename to Martyrdom in Palestinian society. Martyrdom is a major aspect of Palestinian life under Israeli occupation, but it isn't unusual for oppressed peoples to """glorify""" their martyrs. The article itself insults and blames Palestinians for something they can't control (oftentimes being their only chance to better their situation). It also explains the motives of martyrdom as simply being due to the Palestinians' religion, an absolutely childish reduction. Salmoonlight (talk) 22:33, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep article + keep name. the Glorification of martyrs exists in Palestinian society and is well documented. It even caused International incidents. No reason to delete article. P.S. use of the term "TNT" in this context leaves bad taste. TaBaZzz (talk) 08:30, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the article and improve any problems that it has incrementally. I don't see obviously unreliable sources. User Vanilla_Wizard wrote that the content regarding the PTSD is OR but it's clearly not since a scholarly article is cited. Several editors noted that the article presents a misleading narrative without producing evidence thereof.

The main argument for deleting the article seems to be that every society glorifies its fallen heroes. This is true, but this doesn't mean that it's not a valid topic for an article. Each society does it in a different way and these differences are notable. To take the Soviet Union as a example (it's more distant in time and won't be as controversial, I hope), the fallen soldiers (real or fabricated) were definitely glorified, especially if they took many enemies with them. On the other hand, the violence against civilians was not usually celebrated (unless the said civilians were various enemies of the people - it's complicated) and instead was often denied. Also, the major difference is the role of religion vs ideology. Alaexis_¿question? 09:34, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Have you checked the sources? The paragraph I used as an example of the article's problematic nature cites two sources. Let's take a cursory glance at what we're citing. The first is from one Daphne Burdman of the "politically neo-conservative" think tank Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs. Just from that information alone I sincerely hope I don't have to describe how Burdman is not offering neutral or reliable work from an academic perspective. I would argue that Burdman's article titled (in all caps) "HATRED OF THE JEWS AS A PSYCHOLOGICAL PHENOMENON IN PALESTINIAN SOCIETY" with the opening abstract stating that the Palestinian nation hates the Jews for three reasons - 1) because the Quran tells them to, 2) because of extremist Islamic militancy, and 3) because Yasser Arafat indoctrinated all the children to do so - immediately disqualifies any and all work of hers on the encyclopedia. Let's maybe not use ahistorical rants from a hard right pro-settlement think tank as an "academic" source on an article about the Arab-Israeli conflict. Is that too much to ask? Am I being too picky by wanting better sources than that?

The second source, from what I can find, doesn't even seem to mention what the article cites it for. Granted, for all I know it might be buried somewhere deep in the full version which costs $60 to view. Given the tragic state of the rest of the article, I wouldn't bet money on that, figuratively or literally in this case.

Take a look at the rest of the sources, too. I'll preface this by saying: yes, we at least have a couple sources that should be fine, there's one from CNN and one from AP, no qualms with that. But sources that pass WP:RS for either notability or indeed verifiability are few and far between, and sufficiently neutral ones are near impossible to come by. Is anyone really going to argue that the Zionist Organization of America is a "neutral, reliable, secondary source"? The article also cites the "World Security Network", an organization I can find no information on, and whose website I can't access because Firefox flagged their website as (ironically) a security risk. Any analysis of the sources that goes beyond merely skimming them will reveal that the citations are a mix of heavily biased think tanks, foreign ministries, random miscellaneous potentially-unsafe websites, and various Israeli media outlets, the lattermost somehow being the least unreliable or biased ones in the article despite many of them being from a conservative slanted publication. It's not enough for a citation to "look academic" or be on a research website, that alone does not make it RS. It could have all the superficial professionalism in the world, that doesn't change that it very well might be from an incredibly disreputable and biased think-tank, organization, and/or author. This dumpster-fire of an article does not meet RS by any stretch of the imagination.

Vanilla Wizard 💙 18:21, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure that your arguments re the reliability of sources are based on the policy. If Daphne Burdman's article were published on the site of the think-tank she works for, I would agree with you, but it was published in Terrorism and Political Violence peer-reviewed journal.

As for the second example, I couldn't find it in the article as well and tagged the sentence.

The Zionist Ogranization of America is clearly biased, but it doesn't mean they are unreliable (WP:BIASED). In one case when it's cited, it's easy to confirm that Yahya Ayyash street exists using google maps (https://maps.app.goo. gl/fHQMUobM4wZVX9sE8 - remove a space in the URL, for some reason it blocks the original one). This is the archived version of the WSN website, so at the very least it's not a hoax.

The article could definitely use some work but overall the topic is notable and the sourcing is not stellar but fixable. Alaexis_¿question? 20:25, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It is true that even a clearly biased organization can be used in certain contexts for verifiability, but this also puts the notability of the material into question. See NPOV § Bias in sources: This does not mean any biased source must be used; it may well serve an article better to exclude the material altogether. If all we're looking to establish is verifiability, we might as well use Google Maps directly. But if we want to establish that there is due weight to mention individual examples of an individual being made a martyr, we're going to need better sources. Vanilla Wizard 💙 20:42, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's fair enough, if no one except for the Zionist Organization of America mentions it, this particular event shouldn't be in the article. Possibly it's better to merge the notable individual events into the relevant sections. Alaexis_¿question? 10:04, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets GNG per sources in article and listed above. Ample soucing showing WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth from a variety of WP:IS WP:RS. Oppose rename, current name meets WP:PRECISE, proposed change would alter the topic of the article to a different subject. // Timothy :: talk 11:24, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Rename - "Glorification" not necessary. I'd agree with some of the above points regarding sourcing (that some of the current sources do not meet RS), but there are enough good sources to establish notability. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 20:47, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep of course. Moe than a notable topic. One may read the Koran which has martyrs as well. (Some misread Koran assuming that martyrs will get 72 virgins but in reality those are just grapes as one can check in Aramaic). Not sure if we need "Glorification" though. With regards, Oleg Y. (talk) 01:57, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - There is nothing uniquely Palestinian about what is said here that does not already have an article. We already have Istishhad (essentially, seeking martyrdom, which before 7 October already had #Contemporary significance), Shaheed (which as of 26 November 2023 grew its own "Glorification of martyrdom in Palestinian society" section, but before 7 October already had #Modern_usage), and Palestinian Authority Martyrs Fund (the arguably uniquely Palestinian aspect of this topic). What else is there to talk about? The intent of the article appears to be to say "Palestinians honor fallen soldiers" (see Yom HaZikaron) in the language of "Palestinians revel in death", which is, to say the least, not neutral. --Orgullomoore (talk) 20:22, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: and fix NPOV issues. There's sufficient RS to establish notability, and more encyclopedic information than could comfortably fit into Shaheed#Glorification_of_martyrdom_in_Palestinian_society as a section. "Too biased" is a good reason to rewrite, not to delete. Owen× ☎ 15:19, 9 December 2023 (UTC) ...and Rename per all. I suspect this article would have received more support had it been named more NPOVly. Owen× ☎ 13:21, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, _signed,Rosguill ^talk 15:35, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep and rename: Clear POV issues with this article which I can understand may make some people want to re-create the article from scratch, but the issue is a notable one. "Glorification of..." definitely needs to be removed from the title though. --GnocchiFan (talk) 15:40, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Since there seems to be an allegation that some of the sources used in this article are fringe, I've had a look at some more academic sources in the topic, which show a clear notability for the topic of martyrdom in Palestine specifically. Note that I am not an expert so if there are any issues with these sources, please let me know and I will delete. I have suggested these for article improvement on the talk page:
- Chen, Tianshe (June 2012). "Exploration of the Hamas Suicide Attacks". Journal of Middle Eastern and Islamic Studies (in Asia). 6 (2): 106–120. doi:10.1080/19370679.2012.12023205. ISSN 1937-0679.
- Davis, Joyce M. (19 May 2015). Martyrs: Innocence, Vengeance, and Despair in the Middle East. St. Martin's Publishing Group. ISBN 978-1-250-08505-4.
- Hatina, Meir (October 2005). "Theology and power in the Middle East: Palestinian martyrdom in a comparative perspective". Journal of Political Ideologies. 10 (3): 241–267. doi:10.1080/13569310500244289. ISSN 1356-9317.
- Khalili, Laleh (2007). Heroes and Martyrs of Palestine: The Politics of National Commemoration. Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/cbo9780511492235.
- Pitcher, Linda M. (1998). ""The Divine Impatience": Ritual, Narrative, and Symbolization in the Practice of Martyrdom Palestine". Medical Anthropology Quarterly. 12 (1): 8–30. ISSN 0745-5194.
- Whitehead, Neil L.; Abufarha, Nasser (2008). "Suicide, Violence, and Cultural Conceptions of Martyrdom in Palestine". Social Research. 75 (2): 395–416. ISSN 0037-783X.
--GnocchiFan (talk) 13:05, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename per GnocchiFan and others above. Would suggest as a possible new name Martyrdom in the Arab-Israeli conflict with the associated broadening of the scope (this new article would include relevant info on Israeli settler violence and earlier Zionist militias and definitely help with NPOV issues imo). Cheers, Dan the Animator 19:20, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I do like the suggestion to broaden the scope to the broader Arab-Israeli conflict instead of singling out a nationality like the current version does. That would certainly help. Vanilla Wizard 💙 19:30, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I also agree that broadening the scope would be a good direction for this article. GnocchiFan (talk) 22:02, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: According to Nasser Abufarha, there are cultural conceptions and dynamics that underlie the motivations of violence through suicide: "martyrdom is mediated through cultural forms" and "acts of violence are already legitimate and culturally appropriate forms of resistance in Palestine." He wrote a whole book about it. The martyrdom phenomenon in Palestinian society is unique though, both in its relation to Israel and in its education system, which is having an impact on children. According to this article https://www.haaretz.com/middle-east-news/palestinians/2023-12-12/ty-article-magazine/.premium/how-unrwa-became-the-second-most-important-organization-in-gaza/0000018c-5deb-d798-adac-fdefaf450000 Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Morocco have decided to "improve their societies by means of educating toward moderation and peace" while Palestine has decided "to turn education into a strategic tool for violence and raise a young generation of shahids." Here is the impact on children as evident by their quotes on what they learn in schools: "They teach us that the Zionists are our enemy and we must fight them," says one 12-year-old boy. Another says: "They teach us that [Jews] are bad people. They killed our young." Another boy says: "I'm ready to stab a Jew and drive [a car] over them." Another says: "We have to constantly stab them, drive over them and shoot them." Yet another adds: "Stabbing and running over the Jews brings dignity to the Palestinians. I'm going to run them over and stab them with knives." A 6-year-old girl, meanwhile, says: "People love Palestine and they are ready to die for Palestine. I want to fight against them [the Jews] and to defeat them in war." Shir Zablodovsky in the article states that the education is "causing children to want to commit suicide...If the people had free will, they would probably not choose to be shahids. But you're born into that, and all they keep repeating to you from childhood is not how to improve your life but how to harm others in order to achieve redemption." Wh15tL3D09N (talk) 02:54, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Also GnocchiFan has made the lead more neutral, and I have added to the Background to make it more comprehensive (and added in some Palestinian POV about the significance of their land, historical significance of the Battle of Karameh, their desire for the peace process and independence, how they are willing to sacrifice their blood for the land.) and taken out the Wikipedia:Synth. The article is more neutral than what it started out as originally. Wh15tL3D09N (talk) 03:35, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Wh15tL3D09N: Suicide bombing itself seems to have mostly stopped? Obviously other groups still do it, but I have not heard of many reliable reports of it from Palestine from the past decade or so (I've not heard of ANY reliable reports but I obviously might have missed some). The militants are willing to RISK death but they mostly (at least 99.9% of them) intend to stay alive and keep fighting as long as possible, they are vastly more likely to have a gun or rocket launcher (and body armor if they can access it) than a suicide vest. Irtapil (talk) 15:55, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Irtapil: This is pure speculation, but I think I has something to do with the West Bank barrier. You bring up a good point, Nasser Abufarha’s book, The Making of a Human Bomb, was published in 2009. He probably wrote it during the Second Intifada because in his book he writes how suicide bombings are increasing. It is definitely good to look at the date of publication for sources because research can become outdated with new information or change in circumstances. Wh15tL3D09N (talk) 17:50, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The topic is covered in-depth here, here, here, and elsewhere. Rename "Palestinian martyrdom" or "Martyrdom and Palestine". 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 21:37, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for linking these scholarly articles: I've added them to the refimprove section on the talk page so that (if this article is kept) we have good grounds to make this more neutral. GnocchiFan (talk) 12:41, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and rename - Martyrdom in Palestinian culture or preferably Martyrdom in Palestinian language and culture (see discussion). This article should exist, but with a neutral non-judgemental perspective. I have not read it thoroughly yet, but the content seems like a reasonable start, other than the sensationalist and judgmental current title. "Language" should probably be added to the scope, since concepts like translations of شهدي in English and foreign news would be important to include. (I think that's not quite the right word, my Arabic vocab is small and my grammar is non-existent. That root by itself means "witness" and is used as a prefix to some news reports, but I think that's also the word used to talk about people who died in war?) Importantly I only recently learned that the word and concept applies not only to deaths in combat, but also innocent victims of war. It is a thing I obviously don't fully understand, but that I - and most other English speakers following the news - would definitely benefit from understanding. Irtapil (talk) 15:40, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Doctor Who: The Monthly Adventures. The history is there if independent coverage is eventually found for these to convert to merges Star Mississippi 14:30, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Harvest (audio drama)

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

Not independently notable, does not pass GNG. Best redirected to Doctor Who: The Monthly Adventures. I am also nominating the following related pages because they exhibit the same characteristics. They do not meet the GNG, and they ought to be redirected to the same target:

Heavy Grasshopper (talk) 11:04, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science fiction and fantasy and Radio. Heavy Grasshopper (talk) 09:52, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - This should probably be added to the group under discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Colditz (audio drama). ~Kvng (talk) 15:04, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Kvng I was planning to create another bundle of these articles here, but I ran out of time and it slipped my mind. In my opinion bundles are best kept at 10 articles or less to allow realistic scrutiny. Since no one has opined here yet, I'll add 9 more to this AFD shortly. Heavy Grasshopper (talk) 10:36, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No responses, please do not add more articles to this bundled nomination that will likely close as No consensus if this continues. I hope you notified each article creator of this AFD.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:27, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect/Delete all Lacks significant independent coverage. Reywas92^Talk 20:47, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Scherzo, which has independent notability as the direct inspiration for The Message (podcast) as documented in Slate here. [63] I’d also note that all of these will have at least one independent source in Doctor Who Magazine, which will have reviewed all of them, and which is published independently of the BBC. But with Scherzo I can confirm two are available. El Sandifer (talk) 05:18, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That Slate reference to Scherzo provided above is not significant coverage, it's a clear passing mention, stating that one element of Scherzo inspired one element of The Message. Also, the statement that Doctor Who magazine has reviewed them all feels a bit like WP:SOURCESEXIST. We need evidence of that- citations-, so we may check if the reviews were significant, reliable, independent, etc etc. Heavy Grasshopper (talk) 09:45, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It’s certainly enough of a reference to create a “cultural impact” section out of it, if only a sentence or two long. That’s hardly fleeting—it’s significant information about the story. As for DWM, I’m hardly speculating on the source existing. I guarantee you every one of these has a review. But to stick with Scherzo, looks like it got a review in issue 341, on top of a preview in 338, both of which will be a solid couple of paragraphs. And DWM, though it has a license from the BBC and scads of access to people on the show for interviews (not that there was a show to have access to at the time of these audios) is independent—it’s published by Panini, not the BBC, has its own editor, and is given leeway to publish negative reviews, which it often did. So I’m not speculating here—all of these have at least one viable source, Scherzo has two. El Sandifer (talk) 15:44, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Great, thanks for the information about the magazine. It's a shame none of the Dr Who audiodrama articles I've seen seem to cite it, perhaps that can be done. I don't think the Slate source helps for AFD purposes for Scherzo. Sure you could create a one-line cultural impact section from it, but it doesn't contribute to Scherzo meeting the GNG. Heavy Grasshopper (talk) 19:11, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I strongly disagree that “is the direct inspiration for a clearly independently notable work” is a trivial mention. That’s clearly significant, to my mind. So I stand by my strong keep for Scherzo, and a more moderate keep for everything else given that it’s all sure to have one source—-I’d at least want to confirm that neither Dreamwatch nor SFX were regularly running reviews as well. Ooh, and the Celestial Toyroom would also be an obvious source to check. But with three separate magazines that are all reasonably likely to have been covering the Big Finish releases and one that definitely was I think the odds that these meet the GNG are strong. El Sandifer (talk) 23:19, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for giving your views. Let me know if you do find reviews in those other magazines. Heavy Grasshopper (talk) 08:41, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Will do, but none of those magazines have the sorts of thorough indexes that Doctor Who Magazine does, so it’s trickier. Glancing at a random 2015 issue of SFX I can find online, I see that they are running Big Finish reviews at that point, but I couldn’t tell you when they started doing that. Still, only increases the odds that all of these are sourceable. El Sandifer (talk) 20:10, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, right now we have no consensus. But if there are sources out there, it would help if at least a few could be located and brought into this discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:50, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect unless reception (reviews) are found. GNG is an issue. The Slate article cited above makes a passing, one sentence mention of one of those dramas. That's not enough to keep that drama, but the source probably would be useful for improving the topic of Doctor Who: The Monthly Adventures which is pretty bad and has notability issues itself (WP:NOTCATALOGUE...). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:33, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:07, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hatim El Otmani

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

WP:BLP. Fails WP:SIGCOV, WP:BIO. scope_creep^Talk 09:37, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Environment, and Morocco. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:01, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment- I found this [64] Currently inbtw to vote because of his contributions. Wasilatlovekesy (talk) 07:12, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's a different person. 196.112.247.211 (talk) 10:49, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't the one who added that link! so I kindly ask you to remove the article from the deletion sorting CiconiaBiblio (talk) 11:30, 13 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!} 07:25, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Most of the references are passing mentions in the first block. I will not do a source review for that first block because there is nothing there. scope_creep^Talk 16:24, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete complete vanity spam sourced to non rs and blackhat SEO. GRINCHIDICAE🎄 18:18, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Otherwise, this would be a Soft Deletion and I'm guessing would be instantly restored.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:48, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per Praxidicae/GRINCHIDICAE. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scribbie (talk • contribs) 07:54, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Mentioned here [65] but hardly substantial coverage. What's used now in the article is interviews, primary sourcing and non-RS. Oaktree b (talk) 14:15, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Participants determined that the coverage in the sources presented do not amount to significant coverage to satisfy notability guidelines. ✗plicit 02:24, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Arianit Shaqiri

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

Arianit Shaqiri doesn't pass WP:GNG, only notable for being the brother of Xherdan Shaqiri as noted in the lead. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 12:03, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@ItsKesha: The subject of this article has been independently covered by reliable sources, so why does it not pass WP:GNG? --Λeternus ^(talk) 19:34, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, Kosovo, and Switzerland. Shellwood (talk) 13:59, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Clear case of WP:INVALIDBIO Dazzling4 (talk) 15:51, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Dazzling4: Well, if the person A has sources which cover them independently, then their relation to person B is irrelevant, isn't it? --Λeternus ^(talk) 19:32, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There isn't anything in his page at the moment that satisfies notability requirements, so I'm assuming his inclusion was likely due to his brother. Dazzling4 (talk) 00:58, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:09, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. GiantSnowman 12:50, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- @GiantSnowman: What about sources present in the article? --Λeternus ^(talk) 19:28, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  Which ones? Giant Snowman 21:54, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  [66] by Telebasel (seems not to work at the moment); [67] by RTV21; [68] by Blick; [69] by Annabelle (magazine); [70] by Blick; [71] by Abendzeitung; [72] by Albinfo; additionally [73] also by Blick. Some of these sources deal primarily with his brother, although they also cover Arianit Shaqiri in great length. --Λeternus ^(talk) 22:27, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  1 doesn't work, 2 is "The special feature of this academy is that this football school was opened by the brother of the famous footballer Xherdan Shaqiri", 3 is "Xherdan Shaqiri has opened a football school. "I don't want the kids to be lounging around on the couch all day."", 4 is "Xherdan Shaqiri: a meeting with Switzerland's best footballer", 5 is an article written by Arianit about Xherdan, 6 is an article about Xherdan, 7 is an article about 5, 8 is an interview with Arianit talking about Xherdan. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 22:25, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  As I mentioned previously, some of these sources deal primarily with his more notable brother, but they cover Arianit significantly as well. According to WP:GNG, "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material." Source 2 is about the academy opened by Arianit (which yeah, we know happens to have a more famous brother); 3 covers Arianit in more detail (in German): "Arianit Shaqiri (28), Xherdan's big brother, only makes it to FC Basel's U18 team. He has to choose between trying to become a professional and becoming an apprentice car mechanic. He chooses the apprenticeship and completes it...And yet he never wanted to give up football. His wish is to work with children. His brother's football career helps him. Xherdan Shaqiri (25) says: 'I always thought it was a good idea. Ari was always informed about supporting young talent, and I was happy to help him fulfill his dream.'"; 4 deals with all Shaqiri brothers and covers Arianit specifically (in German): "Arianit came to the U18 team at FC Pratteln...Arianit became a car mechanic...At 23 years old, Arianit is the oldest and quietest of the three. He was in the military for most of last year. As a fusilier. Cannon fodder, as they say." 5 was not written by Arianit, but by Max Kern, and deals almost entirely with Arianit; 6 also covers Arianit in some detail (in German): "Arianit, the eldest, lives with the 21-year-old in Grünwald, not far from the Ribérys' house...When things got serious, Arianit went to the U18 of FC Pratteln...Arianit tore the cruciate ligament...Arianit became a car mechanic..." 8 deals with Arianit himself as well (in German): "Arianit Shaqiri (28), Xherdan's big brother, only makes it to FC Basel's U18 team. He has to choose between trying to become a professional and becoming an apprentice car mechanic. He chooses the apprenticeship and completes it. And yet he never wanted to give up football. His wish is to work with children...The training is led by brother Arianit and Stefan Kohler (ex GC, Winterthur and U21 national player)." --Λeternus ^(talk) 20:22, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The subject of this article has been independently covered by reliable sources. It is irrelevant if he is related to someone who is more notable than him. --Λeternus ^(talk) 19:55, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:20, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep coverage is significant, passes GNG.--Ortizesp (talk) 22:27, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - none of the coverage mentioned can be deemed as WP:SIGCOV. As some other users noted correctly, they all cover his brother, both directly and indirectly, and, to make it clear: WP:INHERIT is not an argument for deletion discussions, and this one is an example. Angelo (talk) 23:32, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{@SUPERHEROLOGIST} 09:10, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete due to lack of sources that actually cover Arianit specifically, and not his brother. Right now, even half the biography in this article is about Xherdan. Unless significant independent coverage of Arianit can be demonstrated, what little information there is can be at most be rolled into Xherdan's article. Cortador (talk) 11:16, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I have done some searches online and found less that don't even satisfy WP:SIGCOV.--Tumbuka Arch (talk) 11:58, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: BLP, fails GNG and NBIO. Nothing above, BEFORE, or in article meets WP:IS WP:RS with WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth. BLPs require strong sourcing, WP:N is not inherited. // Timothy :: talk 05:10, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 00:27, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

AC Ventures

AfDs for this article:

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

I'm concerned that most of the sources listed here don't seem independent enough to unoquivically verify this fund's notability. Tech in Asia (TiA) dominates the reference list. However, WP's entry about TiA isn't in good standing but more importantly can Singaporean sources, specifically those that focus on business and tech be considered independent by WP's standards. Media censorship in Singapore says, "Instead of subscribing to the Western press model, it (Singapore) believes that a non-adversarial press can report accurately and objectively." So can a media outlet that's subject to state restrctions be considered independent? Then there's pieces like this KR-Asia profile https://kr-asia.com/unlocking-indonesias-economic-potential-ac-ventures-commitment-to-women-led-businesses-and-esg-investing which appears to be a repackaged press release with little or no editorial oversight. Judging by the page's maintenance tags and source list I think a discussion about this subject's notability is needed.~ 𝔓^420°𝔓^Holla 08:48, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance, Companies, Technology, and Indonesia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:01, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi GDX420, thank you so much for these inputs.

Duly noted your concerns about the coverages. I have removed the sources you mentioned, and will promptly replace them based on your comments.

From what I see, ACV is one of the reputable VCs in SEA, and they do have coverages from other reputable media aside from TiA, KrAsia.

I will revise the article accordingly, and then we can revisit this discussion again. 182.2.147.248 (talk) 11:00, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi DGX420, I have revised the article to be neutral in tone and replaced most of the links with more authoritative ones from a diverse source of websites. Please consider withdrawing your nomination. Further feedback is welcomed! Loxy Monster (talk) 10:05, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

Source assessment table
Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
https://www.techinasia.com/top-venture-capital-southeast-asia	Questions over Singaporean publication's independence	No	~ Appears to be a listicle	✘ No
https://techcrunch.com/2022/09/13/ac-ventures-announces-first-close-of-a-250m-fund-for-southeast-asian-startups/	~ My understanding is that companies pay to get featured in TC.	~ My understanding is TC can support some facts but isn't considered reliable enough to support notability.	The article is about the fund.	✘ No
https://www.thejakartapost.com/business/2023/03/24/executive-column-ac-ventures-says-founders-must-keep-innovating-despite-tech-winter.html	It's an interview	No consensus at WP:RSN	Paywalled	✘ No
https://technode.global/2022/07/04/indonesias-pina-raises-3m-seed-funding-led-by-ac-ventures-vibe-vc-and-y-combinator/	"Serving users through software versus relationship managers allows PINA to provide holistic financial advice without steep fees and account minimums." Doesn't sound like independent journalism to me.	It looks like another press release aggregator.	It's not about AC Venture it's about PINA	✘ No
https://technode.global/2023/01/31/indonesias-edenfarm-raises-13-5m-funding-led-by-tmi-appworks-ac-ventures/	Routine press coverage	Rehashed press release with little or no editorial oversight	It's not about the subject, it's about a company that they funded	✘ No
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-09-13/vc-who-backed-carsome-raising-250-million-for-early-stage-fund	It's not a Bloomberg editorial	~ Might be reliable to an extent but, is it reliable enough to support notability?	Paywalled	✘ No
https://www.idnfinancials.com/archive/40823/ula-secures-investments-tencent-jeff-bezoss	Press Release	No consensus but I doubt it.	Press release with little to no editorial oversight.	✘ No
https://www.techinasia.com/agaeti-convergence-merger	Non independent per my hypothesis in my nomination.	To my knowledge there hasn't been enough on-Wiki discussion about this sources reliablity to determine whether it is reliable or not.	It's clearly about the fund	✘ No
https://acv.vc/ac_team/pandu-sjahrir/	It's the fund's website so there may also be a WP:ELNO issue here that needs looking into.	~ Primary sources are reliable up to a point in that one can verify who their CEO is by looking at the website, the same way as one can verify that the sun exists by looking at it but that's not anout to verify notability.	~ It's more about the CEO really	✘ No
https://www.techinasia.com/pandu-sjahrir-maps-act-energy-transition	See my hypothesis in my nom	Not enough discussion on this source's reliability but some discussion on Singapore's press' independence (or lack of).	It seems to be about the CEO and not the fund.	✘ No
https://finansial.bisnis.com/read/20210607/563/1402268/pandu-sjahrir-jadi-ketua-asosiasi-fintech-ini-rekam-jejaknya	Blog site	Blog site	Again it seems to be about the CEO and not the VC fund.	✘ No
https://www.techinasia.com/pandu-sjahrir-maps-act-energy-transition	See nom	See nom	Not about the fund	✘ No
https://www.fortuneidn.com/news/bonardo/fortune-indonesia-40-under-40-dari-gibran-hingga-reza-rahadian	To my knowledge the publication has a reputation for editorial standards.	I haven't checked WP:RSP but one would assume that Fortune is reliable	Again it's about the CEO and not the fund.	✘ No
https://techcrunch.com/2020/10/11/ac-ventures-announces-the-first-close-of-its-80-million-fund-for-indonesian-startups/	~ See WP:RSP	~ See WP:RSP	Routine press announcement	✘ No
https://techcrunch.com/2021/11/30/indonesia-focused-ac-ventures-closes-oversubscribed-205m-third-fund/	~ See WP:RSP	~ See WP:RSP	Routine press announcement largely based on interviews with staff.	✘ No
https://technode.global/2022/02/14/indonesias-ac-ventures-appoints-venture-capital-veteran-helen-wong-as-senior-advisor-and-venture-partner/	Press release aggregator	Press release aggregator	Another routine press announcement	✘ No
https://www.techinasia.com/helen-wong-ac-ventures-venture-partner	See nom	See nom	Bears a striking resemblence to press releases at the time and appears to be a routine press announcement.	✘ No
https://forbesasia100towatch.com/people/helen-wong/	Paid profile	Published with little to no editorial oversight	Brieft bio	✘ No
https://techcrunch.com/2022/09/13/ac-ventures-announces-first-close-of-a-250m-fund-for-southeast-asian-startups/	~ Only up to a point but my understanding is that TC can't verify notability.	~ Up to a point.	It looks like most of it is based on an interview and the subject's media prospectus with little in the way of independent analysis.	✘ No
https://techcrunch.com/2022/10/13/waste4change-is-building-a-circular-economy-in-indonesia/	~ Only up to a point but my understanding is that TC can't verify notability.	~ Up to a point.	It's not about the VC fund.	✘ No
https://techcrunch.com/2023/07/19/with-37m-seed-round-maka-motors-begins-ev-pilot-on-indonesias-streets/	~ Only up to a point but my understanding is that TC can't verify notability.	~ Up to a point.	It's not about the VC fund.	✘ No
https://www.techinasia.com/ac-ventures-leads-agritech-firm-koltiva	See nom	See nom	It's not about the VC fund.	✘ No
https://asiatechdaily.com/indonesian-vc-firm-convergence-ventures/	Blog	Blog	Not about the subject in question	✘ No
https://kr-asia.com/unlocking-indonesias-economic-potential-ac-ventures-commitment-to-women-led-businesses-and-esg-investing	See nom	See nom	Not much in the way of independent analysis or critical thought here.	✘ No
https://www.thejakartapost.com/opinion/2022/10/18/how-esg-is-transforming-southeast-asias-tech-game.html	It's a national newspaper	It's a national newspaper	Doesn't appear to be about the subject in question.	✘ No
https://www.techinasia.com/ac-ventures-partners-bcg-create-indonesian-esg-standards	See nom	See nom	It's about data provided by the fund but not the actual fund.	✘ No
https://www.techinasia.com/ac-ventures-partners-bcg-create-indonesian-esg-standards	See nom	See nom	See previous	✘ No
https://www.thejakartapost.com/opinion/2022/10/18/how-esg-is-transforming-southeast-asias-tech-game.html	See nom	See nom	See previous	✘ No
https://kr-asia.com/unlocking-indonesias-economic-potential-ac-ventures-commitment-to-women-led-businesses-and-esg-investing	Looks like a PR whitewash and not independent journalism	To my knowledge there's not been enough on-wiki discussion to reach a consensus on this source's reliability	Is something that's based on interviews and a press release with little to no independent coverage significant? I don't thinks so.	✘ 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}}.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:46, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Based on the source table and the overly-PRish tone in most sources, I'm not seeing notability. I can't find any sort of sourcing either. Oaktree b (talk) 20:48, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"DealStreet Asia" and fancily-named sites that just reprint PR items are about the extent of it. Oaktree b (talk) 20:49, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree with the source analysis, nothing I can find meet GNG/NCORP criteria for establishing notability. HighKing⁺⁺ 14:15, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Though it is clear that the sourcing could still use improvement, a persuasive argument has been provided against a merger, and there is no consensus for deletion. Vanamonde (Talk) 09:55, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

State Bank Archives and Museum

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

Could not find any 3P significanr coverage of this specific mueseum, lots of coverage of other monetary museum Sohom (talk) 14:30, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. The article contains a significant number of independent sources. The nomination seems to be unusual Ldm1954 (talk) 16:52, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Museums and libraries, Finance, Business, Economics, and West Bengal. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:58, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. I express my gratitude for dedicating your valuable time to assess the content of this article. I am puzzled by the inclination to remove the article based on its perceived limited coverage in the media. The article has been meticulously supported by a substantial number of citations, which serve to underscore its relevance when juxtaposed with other institutions classified under the umbrella term 'monetary museums,' as appropriately characterized in your review. The relative obscurity of the museum in question should not be construed as indicative of its lack of significance or as a rationale for excluding it from Wikipedia. The SBI Archives and Museum, despite its lesser-known status, stands as a pivotal resource for both economic historians and inquisitive citizens, providing a foundational point for delving into the intricate history of banking and financial economy in India/Bengal. Sneharshidasgupta (talk) 13:16, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have no doubt that other monetary mueseums are relevant. However, this specific article is about the SBI museum in Kolkata, and I personally have not been able to find any third-party coverage of this specific museum. If you cannot provide enough sources on this specific museum, then that means that this specific museum is not notable and should not have a article. Sohom (talk) 14:42, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

~~Oppose~~. I appreciate your reply; however, my intended point may not be fully grasped. I do not intend to address the pertinence of other monetary museums in general. Rather, my focus lies in delineating the significance of the SBI Archives and Museums vis-à-vis other institutions of similar nature. Specifically, despite potentially receiving limited media coverage, its salient relevance and prospective importance should not be obscured. Simply put, your rationale positing 'less coverage = not notable' is particularly flawed in this specific context, as the crux of the issue lies in the distinctive nature of this institution being the State Bank of India Archives and Museum, and not some independent private initiatives. In the case of the latter, or even if it were some lesser-known government initiatives, perhaps I would have agreed with you. This Wikipedia article functions as a guide for researchers and the general populace, facilitating their exploration of the SBI Museum and Archive and promoting its global recognition. I kindly request that this article not be subject to removal or merger but rather undergo enhancement. Sneharshidasgupta (talk) 03:58, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A few instances of third-party coverage:

a) Sahapedia: https://museumsofindia.org/museum/12396/sbi-archive-and-museum

b) The Hindu: https://www.thehindubusinessline.com/money-and-banking/SBI-MUSEUM-A-peek-into-the-evolution-of-Indian-banking/article20468064.ece

c) Economic Times: https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/markets/cryptocurrency/best-crypto-exchanges-apps-in-india-for-2023/articleshow/105462734.cms

d) The Indian Express: https://indianexpress.com/article/cities/kolkata/governor-visits-sbi-archive-revisits-bapu-s/

e) The Times of India: https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/kolkata/a-walk-down-history-when-india-banked-on-calcutta/articleshow/73103013.cms

f) A notable school visit to the SBI Archives and Museum: https://mhsforgirls.edu.in/archive/mhs-archive/visit-to-sbi-museum-and-archives Sneharshidasgupta (talk) 04:19, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

For the SBI Archives and Museum's scholarly importance from a historical perspective: see, pp 43-46, https://bankinghistory.org/wp-content/uploads/2009-1-bulletin.pdf#page=31 Sneharshidasgupta (talk) 04:31, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

b) and d) are the only two that confer any kind of notabiity. But I don't think that passes the 'significant coverage' POV of the notability guidelines. I'm open to the idea of a merge/redirect to the main SBI article as proposed by @Rupples. Sohom (talk) 10:47, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Sneharshidasgupta. This Wikipedia article is not here to facilitate exploration of the SBI Museum and Archive and promote its global recognition — for that interested parties can go direct to the museum's own website. What we're looking for is independent significant coverage in reliable sources to determine whether in Wikipedia's evaluation this museum is notable. Out of the 14 references currently in the article only this one is about the SBI museum[74] and may count towards notability though looking at the raison d'etre of the LBB website makes me cautious of accepting its article as independent, but I'll give it the benefit of the doubt. The rest of the references are about other museums, history of banking in India and history of SBI — not its museum, or they are not independent as they're from the SBI museum itself. Rupples (talk) 10:58, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As to the references above a) is a directory listing; b) maybe OK, can't accurately judge as behind paywall; c) about cryptocurrencies, irrelevant; d) maybe OK, can't accurately judge as behind paywall; e) about the RBI museum; f) school visit, not significant coverage; and the bankinghistory.org piece merely mentions the museum on page 46, the article is about the bank's history, not the museum. Needs more coverage to satisfy GNG IMO. Rupples (talk) 11:27, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for the wrong link for c and e! Revised links, access here: https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/sbis-history-cell-remains-one-of-kolkatas-best-kept-secrets/articleshow/4394836.cms https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/kolkata/guv-seeks-sbi-help-for-coin-museum/articleshow/4225721.cms Nevertheless, based on your comment, I do understand these passing mentions of the SBI Archives would not suffice considering these are not major coverage. Sneharshidasgupta (talk) 11:46, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Rupples Thank you for your comment; which, if I may add, is more constructive. I understand the rationale of your argument. Henceforth, exercise your discretion judiciously! As a new editor, I lack familiarity with the procrustean bed of notability guidelines. I shall be careful. Sneharshidasgupta (talk) 11:32, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Have you tried to find coverage in non-English sources, if you're proficient in other languages? I rely on such sources being found by others and evaluating them using Google translations. Rupples (talk) 11:45, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have not. I will go through a few vernacular sources and see if I can find notable mentions. Thanks for the recommendation! Sneharshidasgupta (talk) 11:48, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's better. SBI's history cell remains one of Kolkata's best kept secrets [75] IMO counts towards the GNG, so getting there. Rupples (talk) 12:35, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, it is not the best quality but it definitely counts towards notability Sohom (talk) 21:12, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Selectively merge content directly on the topic, namely the Archive, Museum and Library sections, and redirect to a new heading in the State Bank of India article if independent coverage is not deemed sufficient for notability. Rupples (talk) 17:09, 24 November 2023 (UTC). Revised opinion set out below. Rupples (talk) 19:08, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{@SUPERHEROLOGIST} 07:20, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: To make it more explicit, I no longer agree with my previous rationale to deletion and would happily support a merge. I do see atleast some (atleast 4) reliable sourcing here (thanks to the work done by @Sneharshidasgupta and @Rupples) and while I don't think it rises to a keep (due to the fact that the sources are not of the best quality), a I would definitely not support a outright deletion anymore. Sohom (talk) 14:13, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To consider merge.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 04:21, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Right now, two editors are objecting to Deletion and two others, including the nominator, are supporting a Merge but without providing a Merge target article. If this is what you'd like to happen, please mention ONE article that would benefit from the addition of some of the content of this article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:48, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The target article for a merge is State Bank of India under a new heading "State Bank Archive and Museum" and redirected, as suggested previously — assuming nominator Sohom agrees. Some, if not all of the existing categories should be added there as well. Rupples (talk) 04:11, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
State Bank of India is the target article that I had in mind as well. (Maybe @Ldm1954 and @Sneharshidasgupta could weigh in as well ?) Sohom (talk) 11:57, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I continue to Oppose the deletion. I also Strongly Oppose a merge. Let me explain.

The State Bank of India is where people will go to find out banking information, for instance where it is, how many countries it is in, number of employees etc.

The museum, to state the first line is an initiative to document and preserve the history of banking in the Indian subcontinent. That is very different from a bank, and their intent is to cover banking in general. You may question whether it has managed to cover all of India, but that is not something we should do in Wikipedia -- we document.

To give perhaps an extreme example to illustrate, we would not merge State Bank of India cricket team into State Bank of India. Ldm1954 (talk) 15:41, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm reading both User:Sneharshidasgupta and your opinions as keep. Appreciate the point you've made so I'm going to take a second look at the sources. The article has been stripped down to concentrate on the museum rather than ancillary topics. We're assessing notability for the museum under WP:NORG and the GNG. The sources that contribute to notability are [76], [77], [78]. [79], strictly speaking is same as timesofindia. [80] in my opinion doesn't count as it seems to be a listing. Sources are not brilliant because most are not indepth. It's borderline, but I think there's sufficient here to scrape a GNG pass. So the question I'm asking myself: "is the content better presented merged into SBI or dealt with in a separate article?". It's again a close call. Agree, it doesn't fit particular well in SBI if the aim of the museum is to exhibit and explain material, not just in the context of SBI but more generally. Based on this I'm going to change my view to weak keep. Rupples (talk) 19:04, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Ldm1954 The first line that you are quoting is misquoted from the primary source The Archives is in possession of the rich documentary heritage of the Bank dating back between 1806 and 1955. It includes the first minute books of the Bank of Calcutta and with other important and valuable records among others. More than 25000 records with proper reference media for retrieval of the records for the research purpose. The series of records are as follows:..... As it stands right now most of sources are press releases and very shallow coverage, and I don't see enough material here to make a standalone article. Yes, Wikipedia's mission is to document, but that does not mean every venture by every notable company must be documented as a seperate article. This is merely a museum established by the for profit company to document it's own history, not the history of banking on the Indian subcontinent. This is no different from a particularly history bank branch/location. Sohom (talk) 19:58, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:20, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Independent Music Awards (Music Resource Group)

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

Spam for non notable defunkt award farm. Refbombed to PR, reproductions of routine notices and primary sources. Lack coverage in independent reliable sources.
Previously deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Independent Music Awards. duffbeerforme (talk) 08:42, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music and Awards. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:34, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:26, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:12, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:15, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Source 2 and 14 are green per source tool, I guess it's ok. Notability is established. Oaktree b (talk) 14:28, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If you can't even make the effort to actually look at the sources the you really shouldn't be !voting. duffbeerforme (talk) 12:12, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source two is a list of the winners, source 14 has now been removed. Oaktree b (talk) 15:01, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

So you still haven't bothered actually looking at the sources. No it is not a list of winners. duffbeerforme (talk) 01:23, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:09, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

None of the existing sources are any good. They're all either routine announcement presumably reproduced from the subject, or "X teams up with" type articles which are not independent. If these awards are to have any notability there really ought to be something written about them (rather than merely relaying who won) by someone truly independent of them. Elemimele (talk) 07:00, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: There don't seem to be any sources about the actual Awards, and at most press release-style announcements of them happening. I think this article needs at least one or two independent sources actually focussing on the Awards themselves as an event. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cortador (talk • contribs)
Delete Not really seeing any good independent coverage of the awards. Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:39, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 02:28, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Cypres

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

Not enough sources found to justify a stand-alone article. Possible WP:ATD is redirect to automatic activation device. Has been in CAT:NN for over 13 years. Boleyn (talk) 15:08, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Products and Technology. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 15:50, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:10, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:02, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm guessing a merge to Automatic activation device is DUE, as there's only a table entry there right now. There's a good deal of short coverage [81][82], but I'm not seeing enough in the WP:PRODUCTREV style for an independent article. Redirect should probably be categorized {{r with possibilities}}. —siro χ o 08:09, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete rather than merge. There seems to be a couple mentions of this product in the automatic activation device, and I wouldn't put anything more in there other than some references that verify its existence like the ones linked above. Searching for other sources doesn't yield anything new. Waddles 🗩 🖉 16:45, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:19, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails WP:GNG and WP:NPRODUCT. UtherSRG (talk) 18:45, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 23:58, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Zeta Energy

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

Fails WP:NCORP. References are blogs, mentions and even WP:FORBESCON. A WP:BEFORE search found the same along with a ton of press releases. CNMall41 (talk) 06:46, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Technology, and Texas. CNMall41 (talk) 06:47, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I was not done creating the page when I published it in order to be able to attach a graphic. Sorry about that. I am still adding the cites and links to it. Modwiki (talk) 20:51, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comment. Is there additional information to wanted to add to the page to show notability? Do you feel it is a notable company and if so what references per WP:THREE would say count towards WP:ORGCRIT?--CNMall41 (talk) 18:59, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Here are my observations:

1. There is a case on Zeta Energy in Strategic Management: Theory and Cases, one of the world's most widely used strategy textbooks and used in thousands of business schools around the world.

2. CleanTechnica, which published an interview with Zeta Energy's management, is a top rated news source for clean tech news, and is rated "generally trustworthy" and "High for factual reporting due to proper sourcing and a clean fact check record" by MediaBiasFactCheck.com.

3. Zeta Energy won a $4 million dollar award from the U.S. Department of Energy ARPA-E program, and news of this award was widely reported, including on ABC13 Eyewitness News and several Houston newspapers.

4. Sandy Munro, the auto industry's most famous tear-down analyst did a one-hour segment on Zeta Energy for his show, Munro Live, which has over 387,000 subscribers. He is famously unbiased and became the leading source for cost breakdown info for Tesla vehicles and other EVs. This was the source of his interest in Zeta Energy because Zeta Energy makes batteries that are expected to change the cost structure of EVs. The episode got 271,000 views. Modwiki (talk) 18:50, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Support nom, scarce sources BoraVoro (talk) 15:30, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 07:03, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I'd like to see an evaluation of the sources brought into the discussion. Also, there is an unbolded Keep here so Soft Deletion is not an option.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:59, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete references [2-8] seem to be trade publications.

Reference [11] is unable to be accessed or assessed.
Reference [14] is trivial coverage that reads like a press release and provides no original or independent analysis or coverage of significance. It is routine reporting of capital raised. Think this clearly fails WP:CORPDEPTH other sources seem to be primary or unreliable, such as reference [9] which is a YouTube video. Delete or draft

Cray04 (talk) 08:04, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Lithium–sulfur battery where the company is currently mentioned, as WP:ATD. —siro χ o
Delete Unable to find any references that meet GNG/NCORP criteria for establishing notability. HighKing⁺⁺ 18:41, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 02:32, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Xab Pagri

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

Like Xabbatog: all I can find is a single brief mention in one book, which suggests this is not notable enough for its own article (hence why, after a decade, the article is still just one sentence long). Merging this to Tibetan cuisine or List of Tibetan dishes is possible, but it's not clear that this dish or xabbatog actually exists (at least under anything like these names). I have not checked whether more entries like these two were also created by the same user. -sche (talk) 04:55, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. -sche (talk) 04:55, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:22, 1 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!} 07:18, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- Like Xabbatog, there are no sources for this that I can find. Every mention appears to be a mirror of Wikipedia. When there is a dish that doesn't even have online recipes, I am extremely sceptical. Cheers, Last1in (talk) 19:32, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 02:34, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Xabbatog

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

All I can find is a single brief mention in one book, which suggests this is not notable enough for its own article (hence why, after a decade, the article is still just one sentence long), and indeed suggests that xabbatog may not even be real. (This came up on Wiktionary's Requests for Verification page, where we couldn't find evidence that it was real.) See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Xab Pagri. -sche (talk) 04:50, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. -sche (talk) 04:50, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:22, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy. It's quite possible this is real, but the only source is published by the Chinese government. Which still doesn't mean this isn't real, but we need better sources for pretty much anything written by China about Tibet. I couldn't find much else that I could rule out having been taken from WP, couldn't even find a recipe in English. It's possible that someone who reads Tibetan would be able to find some recipes, which would at least prove this dish is real. Foods from small countries without a history of food journalism or academic study are very difficult, especially when we're dealing with transliteration, which is why I would prefer to userfy. Valereee (talk) 13:53, 1 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!} 07:18, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- There are no sources for this that I can find. Every mention appears to be a mirror of Wikipedia. When there is a dish that doesn't even have online recipes, I am extremely sceptical. Cheers, Last1in (talk) 15:24, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy deleted‎ by Bbb23 per criterion A7. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris ^talk! 19:40, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Garrett Kelly

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

No references SlightlyToastedCheesecake (talk) 04:37, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Businesspeople, Politicians, Disability, and Ireland. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:23, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge‎ to List of viral videos. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:18, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sticking Out Your Gyat for the Rizzler

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

A 15-second TikTok audio clip of a child singing a parodied version of a song that doesn't have an article to begin with. All relevant sources I could find are really just articles that explain Gen Alpha/Gen Z slang to parents and use this song as an example of such lingo. Regardless, even if there was an in-depth review of this song from the most credible of sources along with a Wikipedia article about the song it's parodying or its artist, I still don't think this deserves its own article because it remains in the end as simply a child singing various slang and meme phrases, but that's just my opinion. Maybe it warrants a mention in a relevant article at, but it does not have enough notability or proper coverage to warrant its own article. Waddles 🗩 🖉 04:25, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music and Internet. Waddles 🗩 🖉 04:25, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to List of viral videos per NOPAGE. This is notable, but all the coverage of the song uses it exclusively to segue into discussions about gen alpha slang, or lazy "look how other people reacted" churnalism. There isn't enough meat on the bone for a standalone article.Mach61 (talk) 05:11, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've wrote it into List of viral music videos now. Mach61 (talk) 14:44, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Mach61. This article reads more like a joke entry than an encyclopaedia article and there's no notability here for it to be saved. Buttons0603 (talk) 08:16, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge. Wikipedia does not measure notability by level of "seriousness", and just because the topic of an article seems "absurd" or "ridiculous" does not automatically exclude it from the encyclopedia.
In Wikipedia, what matters is whether a song has had more of an impact on culture (measured by both quantity and quality of sources), and in this case, it arguably has. That impact is larger than that of the original song, maybe not enough to grant an article of its own (at least at the moment), but certainly large enough to not be scrapped altogether but at least merged into another article. Sr. Knowthing ¿señor? 11:53, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm aware that very absurd or ridiculous topics can be covered on the site, but this is a run-of-the-mill meme that does get some coverage (whether its reliable coverage or SEO spam disguised as journalism) but eventually goes no further than that. The defacto consensus for when a meme is notable enough for an article appears to be when itself gets parodied or reinterpreted in another piece of media or is spun-off into something like a brand, TV series, an actual song, etc., but that's based on my judgement looking through articles of internet memes.

I disagree that this has had an impact on culture in the same sense a newly-released song would, considering the coverage of this is exclusively "what is [x]?" mush that gets printed out for every TikTok meme or trend simply to cash in on the success or take advantage of SEO to drive traffic into their sites. It's a very common pattern that those sort of sources get used for every internet-related article on Wikipedia that inevitable gets deleted or draftified. That being said, if its notability is not enough to sustain an article but is noteworthy of being mentioned one way or another, I am not opposed to a brief section or mention within a relevant article like Mach61 made. Waddles 🗩 🖉 16:38, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Coverage in the New York Times is not routine. This meme meets the GNG, it's just that it makes more sense as part of a list. Mach61 (talk) 16:54, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete 46.162.68.151 (talk) 22:55, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Please explain why you wish to delete this article; this isn't a vote Mach61 (talk) 23:58, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/Merge A merge may be a good option for this song, but it definitely does not deserve its own page. There is really no encyclopedic knowledge to be had with this song, it is just a 15 second audio clip with little notability. Hungry403 (talk) 20:40, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is something that many people want to know about, especially gen alpha teens who might want the meanings of the words to use them properly in context with friends. The article provides that information. I don’t see why it should get deleted. 141.157.217.57 (talk) 00:23, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@141.157.217.57: Well, you'd normally go to a dictionary if you were looking for the definition of words, Wikipedia isn't one. I'm sure you could even find these words on Wiktionary if not Know Your Meme or a Fandom article which might go more in-depth. Waddles 🗩 🖉 02:01, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

They can read the urban dictionary definition for it then. Hungry403 (talk) 04:27, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge to list of viral videos per nom, WP:NOPAGE, and what Sr. Knowthing said. Though it could be argued the information in this article is somewhat encyclopedic (good snapshot of the internet both ironically and unironically for the past 365 days) and the sources are good for an article, this stuff can be summed up and put into a list pretty easily, and honestly an article like this is just inviting a new vandal each hour. Also, do note that because all of this is a meme, this discussion might be derailed by IPs trying to keep it because it's funny; not adding the notice since it hasn't happened yet, but just giving a heads up. AdoTang (talk) 03:53, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Should this article be deleted, I believe it should be redirected to the list of viral music videos element talking about the song. Sr. Knowthing ¿señor? 00:41, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've done just that now (which is allowed, just usually proscribed) since that's the clear current consensus, and because it might reduce vandalism of this AfD. Mach61 (talk) 02:49, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 03:04, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

International Language Academy of Canada

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

Fails GNG. There’s two CBC articles about a Ukrainian student finding a job at the school but that’s it. Also the page was created by a user with COI. NM 03:46, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. NM 03:46, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language and Canada. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:24, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails NORG, considering the COI issue it could probably be speedy deleted as PROMO. 4.37.252.50 (talk) 02:19, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already PROD'd so not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:46, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:44, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

MEHL Hockey

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

Removed WP:PROD.

Non-notable league for non-notable sport. No non-WP:PRIMARY sources to be found. Simulated ice hockey is not even notable enough to have an article. A412 (Talk • C) 03:45, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. A412 (Talk • C) 03:45, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Ice hockey, Internet, Canada, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:27, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Non-notable organization. I found no independent reliable sources on Google or in newspapers for "MEHL Hockey" or "Minor Elite Hockey League". The article is supported only by two primary sources, neither of which establish notability. Flibirigit (talk) 11:59, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: this is not even the most notable hockey league called MEHL. I couldn't find a single secondary source, unfortunately. Akakievich (talk) 15:48, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per NFT. Who thought it was a great idea to start an article for a fantasy league? Ravenswing 22:10, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree that WP:MADEUP applies here. User:Sportsnhorns created the page, whose username matches the reported CEO of this league. Flibirigit (talk) 23:50, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  I added the text confirming Sportsnhorns was the owner, for what it's worth. It's the first of its kind to be on WP as no one's thought of it yet. Mehkhali (talk) 05:25, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No sources are present to indicate notability. Fails WP:GNG and appears to potentially have some COI. Let'srun (talk) 00:41, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per others. --Hockeyben ^{(talk -} ^contribs) 06:56, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:MADEUP. Seems to be an article someone created for their personal fantasy league, has no place on Wikipedia. The Kip 22:54, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:42, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Arizona–Texas Tech football rivalry

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

I cannot find any WP:SIGCOV showing that this subject meets the WP:NRIVALRY (or WP:GNG.) Let'srun (talk) 03:29, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports, American football, Arizona, and Texas. Let'srun (talk) 03:29, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm finding isolated articles labeling this one-sided (26–5–2 in favor of Tech), long-distance (10 hours driving) series as a rivalry (e.g., here, here, here, and here), but nothing in-depth to satisfy WP:GNG or to suggest that this was an actual, notable rivalry. And per WP:NRIVALRY, "[s]ports rivalries are not presumed notable." Cbl62 (talk) 05:18, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This article was created in August 2023 after it was announced that Arizona would join the Big 12 Conference, creating the potential for the "rivalry" to be renewed. We're way WP:TOOSOON to use that as a basis for this as a stand-alone piece. Cbl62 (talk) 05:22, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:TOOSOON should only matter for articles that take place within a few years. Sports rivalries are built over decades. Decades these two colleges have been around but no WP:SIGCOV. Come back to me in five years when these two teams have ESPN and newspapers outside their respective states. Conyo14 (talk) 05:07, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom. It's TOOSOON. glman (talk) 03:55, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. These two teams were conference mates between 1932 and 1957 as members of the old Border Conference, however this, which is probably the best source that I was able to find from that era, pretty much confirms that it was a one-sided affair that only Arizona fans ever thought of as a rivalry. Ejgreen77 (talk) 11:46, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Ejgreen77: I also did a "before" search and didn't find anything better than what you found. And the one passaage in your source where "rivalry" is mentioned is where the Texas Tech coach said he didn't really care whether a contract was signed to continue the series, noting "rivalry should be friendly and worthwhile." As you noted, this actually tends to undercut the notion that a truly notable rivalry existed even back in the Border Conference days. That said, a notable rivalry may develop in the future with both teams in the Big 12, but it's too soon to say whether that will happen. Cbl62 (talk) 15:43, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. If an editor wants to create a Redirect from this page title, feel free. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:42, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Endless-piston principle

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

No indication of notability. Zero sources. Orphaned for a decade. PepperBeast (talk) 23:04, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. PepperBeast (talk) 23:04, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete My searches picked up some info [83] [84] [85] but it's not independent RS coverage and just shows this is a WP:NEOLOGISM coined by a single company. SmartSE (talk) 01:01, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- The sources you provide are from different researchers at multiple companies so your WP:NEOLOGISM argument does not fly. Also just because the researchers are employed in the private sector does not make their papers unreliable. ~Kvng (talk) 15:23, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  - Smartse's argument is that they are not independent, and so do not show that the no original research bar has been met. I could publish a company paper making up a name for something, but it wouldn't be appropriate for Wikipedia unless third-parties acknowledged my newly named concept and it had become part of actual human knowledge. And even then, as in this case, if I'd just made up some we-have-reinvented-something-old-and-made-it-seem-new name it would only belong in Wikipedia if others had explained that my new name was really just the old thing. Uncle G (talk) 08:26, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Progressing cavity pump. Further research reveals these to be synonyms. Definitely a notable topic under either name. ~Kvng (talk) 15:23, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:50, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Chua et al. 2021, pp. 161, 206 are convincing. The authors cite one of the commercial WWW-site sources for the "endless-piston principle" and say that they are rotating displacement pumps. Chua et al. are engineering professors. Amusingly, the first sentence of the article outright says as well that these are rotating positive displacement pumps. Alas, from that our readers only get to progressing cavity pump via screw pump, when really they should be able to get there directly; but progressing cavity pump is where we have this by its actual non-commercial-puffery name, and that latter is where this commercial-puffery name should redirect, as a credible, but not proper, alternative name.
We should not merge any of the content. It's a cleaned up version of the original version of the article which is a almost a straight lift, with some word changes here and there, from ViscoTec's own self-promoting commercial blurb. "Our pump technology provides additional benefits compared to other conveying mechanisms" becomes "Compared to other conveying methods, this pumping technology has even more advantages to offer", for one example. Wikipedia has copied and lightly re-worded an advert. Ironically, this copyright violation is of the very same page on ViscoTec's WWW site that the engineering professors cite and explain.
In fact, deleting all of this copyright violating and advert-repeating edit history first and then putting a redirect in place seems the best outcome, to remove temptation.
Uncle G (talk) 08:26, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

references

Chua, Chee Kai; Yeong, Wai Yee; Low, Hong Yee; Tran, Tuan; Tan, Hong Wei (2021). 3d Printing And Additive Manufacturing Of Electronics: Principles And Applications. World Scientific Series In 3d Printing. Vol. 3. World Scientific. ISBN 9789811218378. This type of material extruder belongs to the category of rotating displacement pumps […]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 03:26, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete to expunge the advertorial material and then create a redirect, as suggested above. XOR'easter (talk) 16:26, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete then create new redirect per Uncle G. I wasted time looking for good references; this is just engineering spam for one company. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 21:05, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As per @A. B., there are no sources. @Uncle G has found one source but it isn't very descriptive. I don't think this article can be rewritten without violating copyright, single source or notability. I think a paragraph or two written into the positive displacement or progressing cavity articles using Uncle G's source will be enough. Matarisvan (talk) 15:03, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:35, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Edward Bosco

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

Procedural nomination following closure of this RfD. The page was created out of a redirect by an anonymous editor in April 2023; the redirect was then restored by Xexerss hours later without any explanation I can find. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 03:22, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Anime and manga, and United States of America. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 03:22, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I only reverted this IP edit given that the article didn't cite any source at the time, so there was no reason to remove the redirect. Well, it's not like the article has any reference now anyway, but I sincerely ignore whether the subject is notable or not. Xexerss (talk) 03:52, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Bosco is not a notable figure. Blubewwy (talk) 12:48, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I could not locate any reliable sources to establish notability. Esw01407 (talk) 13:56, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:33, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

MediaCommons

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

Lacks SIGCOV. Google returns a single news article plus a couple of blog posts. NM 04:19, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academic journals and Websites. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:53, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:19, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This is a weird one. I'm not seeing the coverage to keep this, and I don't see any plausible redirect targets either despite the range of organizational collaborations here. Plausibly WP:TOOSOON, but as a publishing project it seems pretty dead, it's basically a blog these days. Suriname0 (talk) 01:28, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. I've read through all of the comments (naturallly) and the only consensus I see is that this article needs some attention from a knowledgeable and competent editor. There is enough support for Deletion that I can't close this as Keep and I doubt that relisting would help as this discussion has lost momentum. So, I'm closing this as No consensus as I believe that reflects the entirety of the discussion. Here's hoping this article draws the attention of an editor interested in the art of wood carving. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:32, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

History of wood carving

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

I am nominating it on behalf of User:Drmies and User:Uncle G (the former has redirected this a while back). I think it merits an AfD discussion, and I restored it, an action that has been criticized by them. Their criticism of the article can be seen here. I am not convinced this needs a WP:TNT myself (IMHO the topic seems notable, and the article needs a rewrite, since it has been noted it is significantly based on dated Britannica 1911 content, and contains some problematic statements), but clearly, we need more opinions, and I dislike redirecting things without even a PROD. So here we go. PS. Unreferenced content can be removed per WP:V. Perhaps someone interested could try to rewrite it, even into a referenced, neutral and up to date stub? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:18, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Arts and History. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:18, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete there is an article that could be written about the craft's history, but dated Brittanica copy isn't it, and it would be easier to start over than try to fix this, which folks have tried for a decade. Since the copy is accessible, there is no need to preserve the history as a redirect either. A redlink may also help encourage creation Star Mississippi 03:52, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Indeed this is an important artistic medium (not a "craft"), but nobody seems interested in doing it up on WP; it should be much more than a "stub" Piotyrus. In what ways (other than prose style) do think the "Brittanica copy" is "dated", User:Star Mississippi? Johnbod (talk) 05:35, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Read my comments and the 13 years of additional criticism on the article's talk page. We were having a further such talk page discussion, and no-one wanted deletion. I explicitly suggested a rewrite, and even started looking around for sources on the same, and this deletion nomination in my name is dishonest. Drmies did not advocate deletion, either. This is abuse of AFD, and a dishonest nomination. Uncle G (talk) 07:25, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That ~ 75% of the article is about Europe and barely touches on anything contemporary or outside of the West. Someone reading this would easily think it's a dead art (no offense meant by craft, bad phrasing on my end) or that it's exclusively western, neither of which is true. It is important, and this article doesn't come anywhere near our standards. So yes, TNT. Star Mississippi 13:33, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If the majority of the article is about europe, lets remove the parts that are not and rename it to The history of wood carving in Europe. 😎😎PaulGamerBoy360😎😎 (talk) 15:08, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as this 10,000 word article cites a whole one source, and admits that its in large parts lifted from Encyclopedia Britannica. The history of wood carving deserves an article, but not this piece of open plagiarism. Cortador (talk) 09:17, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It has always been tagged as using EB1911; most of Wikipedia on arts subjects started this way, this has just developed less than most. This vocab is inappropriate. Johnbod (talk) 03:03, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is an abuse of AFD, and far from this being on my behalf I pointed out beforehand that AFD isn't for this. AFD is not "votes for rewrites". Rewrites we just do, just like this text was just rewritten in 2005 once before when it was our wood carving article; with normal talk page discussion, which we were having. It doesn't need the administrator deletion tool, Drmies didn't use the administrator deletion tool, I simply started a discussion of a rewrite (a middle path between an editor who redirected this text back to the article that it came from and an editor who reinstated it in toto) and pointed to Wikipedia:WikiProject Encyclopaedia Britannica#The good, the bad and the ugly and didn't even edit the article (but simply asked whether we should rewrite it because it is really bad), and AFD is entirely wrong for this. This is dishonest. Uncle G (talk) 07:25, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Hang on a moment, no. The discussion appears to be whether there should be a TNT deletion based on the extent to which this article is derived from the Britannica material. Uncle G commented "I am strongly tempted to just kerrrzappp! this one."Special:Diff/1187674965 and kerrrzappping sounds like an admin tool deletion to me. For the record, I'm very much of the opinion that the appallingly lazy "One or more of the preceding sentences incorporates text from a publication now in the public domain" which is cropping up more and more in Wikipedia articles, is going to be the death of Wikipedia. It is an unreference, a comment that some (but what??) of the above text is probably, but not guaranteed to be, a cut-and-paste plagiarism. It's an excuse rather than a source, a get-out-clause that in this case it's okay to plagiarise. And if all we're going to do is partially-plagiarise stuff that's conveniently not a copyright violation, why would anyone come here rather than simply Google? Go to Wikipedia, the place where humans who haven't even got the brains of an AI application will indiscriminately show you stuff that they possibly didn't even read, let alone write! Not a great look. So yes, there's a case for TNTing, but basically Uncle G is also right: it'd be a darned sight better if someone simply trimmed out all the copied material and got on with writing a better article. It didn't need AfD, but it was valid to bring it here. Elemimele (talk) 11:42, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  - Not in my name it was not. And not when no-one wanted or said anything about deletion it was not. No-one did, and this is abuse of AFD. I even used the word "rewrites" twice in that very diff, alongside "editing, not deletion", so it's abundantly clear what I'm talking about even if one doesn't know the jargon. kerrrzappp! has been this sort of edit since 2005. This is not deletion, nor is it "TNT", coined years later by someone else for something else. It has been that way for approaching two decades, and I am mildly well known for this. Even to the point that someone made a WP:KERRRZAPPP shortcut after about 7 years of my doing this. Please catch up. Uncle G (talk) 13:13, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Then rewrite it. The article was ~~stealthily~~ boldly redirected. I reverted the redirect since I believe this merits a discussion (also given my experiences with proposed deletion - I do not believe deletion or redirect here would be uncontroversial). You objected to my actions, clealry implying you would prefer a redirect over the current article. Since I am not sure about that (this article is poor but it is not obvious to me it is so poor as to merit a WP:TNT treatment), we need to discuss it what to do (keep, delete, redirect, merge, rewrite, etc.). This is what AfD is for. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:12, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  - Piotrus, I hope your reply was to Uncle G. I don't have a problem with you bringing the article here for discussion. I agree with your assessment; I don't think it's poor enough to merit TNT. I personally would delete the blatant copying because I personally don't like blatant copies even if they're legal, but I haven't done so because I don't currently have anything better to substitute for what I'd be deleting, and I think deleting legally-included text might be controversial without some consensus. Elemimele (talk) 13:04, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    - You should have a problem. This is "Articles for deletion." It's not a hammer for rewrite discussions, which we were happily having. Uncle G (talk) 13:13, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      - ... on reflection, it might have been better had all concerned discussed this at Talk:History of wood carving instead of Piotrus' talk-page. Elemimele (talk) 13:22, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
        It might even have got there, although there's 13 years of discussion there already in the same vein, as well as some more discussion by Scope creep (e.g. "imperial bias") prior to that back on Talk:wood carving when it was that article. It was a perfectly fine discussion amongst the three of us, trying to find agreement on what to do (or at least I was) until this dishonest AFD nomination. Sometimes these happen on user talk pages. Sometimes they move into discussions on WikiProjects and article talk pages and RFCs. Sometimes they just get agreed and get done. Uncle G (talk) 13:40, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Elemimele It was (in reply to Uncle). I think you and me are on the same page. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:10, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  - No, it is not. It is for deletion. It's in the title "Articles for deletion". There was nothing unclear about asking "Should we start again?" and talking of rewriting rewrite this from scratch. Nor was it unclear that it was Drmies, not me who asked about starting again and said "rewrite" several times, who made the redirect. This is an outright abuse of AFD, and to do it falsely in my name when I explicitly said beforehand that it would be wrong is worse still. Uncle G (talk) 13:13, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    - Uncle G, I don't dispute for a moment that it was wrong of Piotrus to bring it here in your name. If you've got a problem with that, and Piotrus can't settle it with you, then ANI is the place to go, and it's certainly worth an enormous trout and an apology. The problem I have with the discussion that was supposed to be going on is that I can't find it. That might be my stupidity, but all I'm seeing at the article's talk-page is a few people complaining over a long period that it's a rubbish copy, with no suggestions what to do about it. Elemimele (talk) 13:31, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      - We have a whole WikiProject at Project:WikiProject Encyclopaedia Britannica#The good, the bad and the ugly with suggestions, the problems of 1911 Britannica text not being at all unknown to us for many years, and rewriting is one of the tools. "restructure and rewrite the whole article" is the very first item. You even just linked to one person making a suggestion — me! I quite clearly suggested starting again and rewriting from scratch. And on the other side I was at the same time talking to Drmies about sources that I had found. I have even linked to where this was already rewritten once, years ago, above. (I'm not seeking administrator tool use of that form, either, by the way.) It's wrong to seek administrator deletion tool use in my name here, but it's doubly-wrong to just throw editorial discussions at AFD at all. Articles for deletion is not a general discussion forum for cleanup, rewrites, and editing 18-year-old EB1911 dren. It is for deletion. AFD is not Project:cleanup is another long-standing piece of jargon. Uncle G (talk) 14:04, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
        @Uncle G: I'm sorry, I seem to have caused offence. I'm sorry, I was unaware that this Britannica project existed, nor that it was discussing the History of wood carving article. I linked to you only because I came across this discussion at AfD. I think it possible that there will be other editors who are interested in wood-carving but not in the Encyclopaedia Britannica, so the question is how to arouse their attention to do something about the article? Yes, AfD is not clean-up, but AfD is a reasonable place to bring things if TNT is a reasonable and justifiable outcome. Unfortunately it can be very difficult for those of us who are fairly recent editors to know about the multitude of projects. So far as this AfD is concerned, my !vote is Not bad enough for TNT, so carry on the discussion in an appropriate place. Elemimele (talk) 15:48, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Uncle G AfD is for deletion as well as for estabilishing when deletion is not appopriate. Since I objected to this being deleted without a discussion, we are here to judge the consensus for deletion or retaining the article. It's as simple as that. And yes, I brought it here for you because you said on my talk page that this article... should not exist on Wikipedia. If you were not asking for an AfD, think more carefully what you write next time. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:14, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Johnbod and the fact that Wikipedia uses the eleventh edition of Britannica as a valid source. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:57, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Is there really any doubt that ~20 minutes good searching will turn up good sources? Hyperbolick (talk) 00:35, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, we're now in a bit of a mess because we've got a rapidly-forming keep-consensus on an article that no one actually likes. There is a discussion about it on Piotrus's talk-page, User_talk:Piotrus#History of wood carving in which no one likes the article, Uncle G writing "This is biased, myopic, tripe from the British Imperial era; and shouldn't stand in Wikipedia", while Drmies writes "This article is a piece of crap and you know it". Uncle G has reasonably suggested starting again, but I think doesn't want a TNT deletion. The article's own talk-page has no concrete suggestions what to do (except changing AD to CE). If we close this as "keep" at the moment, all we end up with is a few discussions buried in places where no one will find them, and no actual change, and still an article that no one defends (I believe the keep-!votes are based on the subject being notable rather than the quality of the current article, but feel free to contradict me!). I will start a discussion on the article's talk-page asking for concrete suggestions about how we can proceed. Elemimele (talk) 14:12, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Elemimele The best outcome would be if someone were to boldl rewrite this. Or at least remove unreferenced/dated parts. But it is easier to vote than to (re)write, and sadly it is not a topic that motivates me. As for nobody liking the article, the related issue is whether we like not having that poor article more or less. I.e. is the current poor article better than the redirect would be? We don't need to like what we have to like not having anyting even less. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:29, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's not that bad - the topic has hardly moved on since 1911, & the text from then complains that there was little to report from the 19th century. None or very little of it is "unreferenced". The basic story is covered, & most concerns relate purely to ye olde prose style, although if you do know anything about the subject there are some odd omissions - where are Tilman Riemenschneider and Veit Stoss? The non-Euro coverage is very poor, sure. Imo the current poor article is still much better than the redirect would be. I agree a full rewrite is best, though some sections like Italian_Renaissance_sculpture#Wood can be slotted in. The article tries to cover wood as a material in sculpture and practical woodcarving for furniture, choirstalls etc together, which is probably a mistake. Most of the article really covers the latter. Some or all of this should probably be split off/left and a new Wood sculpture done. The furniture etc could be restricted to "in Europe", vastly reducing the extra work needed. But the Afd needs to close as keep first. Johnbod (talk) 08:10, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Clearly a notable topic based on the mammoth Britannica article, which is almost all history. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 05:14, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 11:13, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. There are inadequate sources for a BLP article and none have been brought into this discussion. This article can be restored to Draft space if additional sources can be located. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:17, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Naoto Hori

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

The article has issues with notability and sourcing. Single ref to a Japanese sports stats catalog that does not seem to confirm most of the information here. ~~No ja interwiki~~. The user who created this on en wiki has been banned for socking, and according to some related pl wiki discussion is responsible for cross wiki spam, mass creating articles on Japanese-related soccer players, many of whom do not meet NBIO. Someone on pl wiki suggested in the deletion discussion about this person (Naoto Hori) that the stats cited here suggest possible notability if sources ca be found (but said sources may not exist outside Japanese). My BEFORE yielded nothing, but perhaps someone with access to Japanese sources or a deeper knowledge of the sports field can find something to rescue this? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:12, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and Japan. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:12, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:14, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 16:11, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 16:13, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Numerous sources are listed at Japanese wiki. There's no reason to suppose they're falsified, even if they're hardly available offline outside Japan. Also even if no other sources are given, the only one listed in the article confirms he has played 5 matches in JLeague in 1993. Which was a professional league at that time. Therefore there is no valid reason for deletion, although, of course, improving the list of sources, preferably by someone from Japan, who could reach the books cited in the Japanese wiki, is more than welcome. Avtandil (talk) 21:13, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks, I did miss he has an entry at ja:堀直人. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:22, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:12, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Although there seem to be more sources on the Japanese version of the article, most of them are just sports databases with player statistics. Even the articles that are linked to include only a trivial mention of him, e.g. the SoccerKing source (I can't even link to it, it's blacklisted on enWiki). Perhaps most of the media coverage of Naoto Hori might be in print (pre-internet ?) given his age. I think an editor fluent in Japanese would need to take a look around. Zenomonoz (talk) 03:44, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, he's from the pre-internet era so a bit hard to find anything although photo archives do bring up images. Given his professional career, it strains credulity to suggest that he wouldn't have substantial coverage in Japanese newspapers from the time (imo, Japanese newspapers are far more prolific in detailing athlete's lives than US newspapers). DCsansei (talk) 14:11, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per DCdansei. Made almot 100 appearances in Japan top flight in pre internet era so deniftely has offline sources. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 22:23, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Das osmnezz WP:THEREMUSTBESOURCES is not a great arguments. Where you able to locate any sources, or is this just hope? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:13, 5 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!} 03:17, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Per above Svartner (talk) 16:56, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: BLP, fails GNG and NBIO. Single source in article is a database record, no sources above and BEFORE showed nothing that meets WP:IS WP:RS with WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth. BLPs require strong sourcing. // Timothy :: talk 17:49, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:59, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Brunello Rosa

AfDs for this article:

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

This article appears to fail WP:GNG and it was deleted a few years back for that reason. The Bloomberg article seems to be the only reliable source with significant coverage but the others quote him briefly or are non-reliable sources. I did a Google search but couldn't find anything additional to support notability. Delete. Citrivescence (talk) 03:04, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Businesspeople, Italy, and England. Citrivescence (talk) 03:06, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Economics. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:26, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. He has held some moderately high positions but seems barely to have been noted. Xxanthippe (talk) 05:26, 1 December 2023 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. fails NPROF as well as GNG from what I can see. Being quoted a few times is not enough for GNG. Also, nothing has changed since 2019 when this was last discussed. --hroest 20:47, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - almost all citations are mentions or profiles so there is no deep coverage. A couple are behind paywalls, so I could not read them, but even if these were good, they may not be enough. Royal88888 (talk) 06:18, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Except for the fact that the sources are now listed as footnotes, my deletion rationale from the first AfD still applies. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:28, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:57, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Maristania Mengana

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

The subject was named the 2017 Cuban women's footballer of the year, and received a couple of sentences worth of coverage for this (1, 2). Other than that, all I can find are passing mentions. Fails WP:GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT. JTtheOG (talk) 03:00, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and Cuba. JTtheOG (talk) 03:00, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 19:18, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 19:19, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. This was relisted for another week by Liz and no further input was achieved. Daniel (talk) 04:21, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No Pants Day

AfDs for this article:

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

I have reviewed the previous deletion discussions and it seems like the sources for this are few, and many seem to trace back to Wikipedia. The Knighthood of BUH itself seems to taken down it's website. I am sure the sources prove that events have occurred at the UofT at Austin, but not sure about anywhere else. It's honestly possible the knighthood themselves created the initial article. Since this is localized to one University as far as i can tell, it should either be merged with the University of Texas at Austin article or deleted.

Do not confuse this with the No Pants Subway Ride, a much more popular unrelated event that happens in January. — Preceding unsigned comment added by A reasonable voice (talk • contribs) 00:11, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 November 17. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 00:33, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Texas. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:50, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:50, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 01:39, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Soft keep BUT I think the best thing to do would be to delete the meat of the article related to UT Austin and have it be about the aforementioned No Pants (Subway Ride) Day itself, which is what I've seen the term refer to more often. Kazamzam (talk) 18:13, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kazamzam, what do you mean by "soft keep"? I've closed a lot of AFDs and I've never heard of a soft keep. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:44, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As pointed out over 2 AFD discussions and the article's talk page, the No Pants Subway Ride, which is how editors have repeatedly tried to rescue this, has its own article. We are at the point where we really have to determine whether some day invented by a comedy club in a university in Texas is actually properly and independently documented in depth and has escaped its creators. "By a comedy club?", you ask. That's how a university magazine characterized it, and really didn't say much in depth about this at all. It was less well documented by the university magazine article than the Knighthood of Buh (AfD discussion) itself was, which we deleted, and which the magazine article was mainly about. Ironically, there is more text in the rants on the talk page about students making up stuff than there is about this day in any source that I can find. One of the sources in the article is an interview with the inventors describing this. After all of other editors's searches on the talk page and and in prior AFD discussions, we collectively have managed the Houston Chronicle as 1 independent source and that's it, after 18 years. Uncle G (talk) 19:02, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to No Pants Subway Ride. LuGus DeclanBiba ElodieBarnaby 01:15, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- There is not a lot of RS coverage here, but there is enough between Austin and Berkeley to make this viable as a subject [86], [87]. The Chronicle article [88] on newspaper comics confirms my own (non-RS) recollection of that event. The article is in sad shape, but WP:DINC. If this were a new article, I'd probably suggest draftify, but it is referenced independently just enough to sustain an article. Cheers, Last1in (talk) 13:40, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Plenty of sources on Newspapers Extended. If anyone looks at the article now and thinks it's not WP:HEY enough, I can add a few more, but the Boise and Billings events (no subway involved) should be enough WP:SIGCOV. Cheers! BBQboffin^{grill me} 07:42, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I was going to close this as No Consensus as a bold NAC closure, however given the history of this subject I refrained and will simply provide an opinion that it seems no clear consensus has been achieved here. I am not myself entirely satisfied this is an article worthy of inclusion based on gut instinct. Coverage does not automatically warrant inclusion, we must consider whether on the totality, the subject itself needs coverage in a standalone article. However, there is no question that on its face, the article does appear to meet the general notability guideline. I do not think a clear-cut, unequiovcal argument for either Keep or Delete can be made. I believe that based on the discussion which has taken place, and considering the AFD history of this subject, no clear consensus has been reached, and never will be reached. — MaxnaCarta ( 💬 • 📝 ) 01:34, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The 'delete' arguments were that there's "1 independent source and that's it, after 18 years" and the nom thought the May events were localized to Austin. Clearly those arguments are refuted by the text and sources that have been added to the article since. We have more than WP:THREE strong sources, and WP:SIGCOV of non-subway events in Berkeley, Billings, and Boise. As for your "gut instinct", with all due respect, that is not a Wikipedia policy; WP:GNG is, and A topic is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list when it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. BBQboffin^{grill me} 03:02, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I'd like to see more assessment of sources.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:51, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Closed because this is actually Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Face the Nation with Margaret Brennan and Akdkdidm938493938!87 (talk · contribs) seems to be just messing around at this point. The rationale is copied and pasted from a recent edit summary by Wcquidditch. Uncle G (talk) 14:53, 1 December 2023 (UTC)‎[reply]

Howard River (disambiguation)

Make shorter (WP:CONCISE, WP:PRECISE): most references to the program outside of the opening title card still call it just "Face the Nation", as do most TV listings — and there's no real good reason to title this in a way that we would have to change it every time the moderator changes

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 December 1. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 02:01, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep‎. Nomination withdrawn. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:56, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Gaza Now News Network

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

Not seeing WP:SIGCOV of this news network that would establish notability. There's reporting in Arabic [89] about the head's family being killed in an airstrike during the 2023 Israel-Hamas war, and they got in trouble with Hamas in 2017 for livestreaming a public execution,[90] but not enough to establish notability. Longhornsg (talk) 01:43, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media, Companies, Websites, and Palestine. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:29, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are more sources about Gaza Now including Al Jazeera, NBC, Washington Post, TASS and many established news agency. Some of them are given on the article. So the agency becomes popular during the war. So there is no way to remove it. Showib Ahmmed (talk) 06:24, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep : I see no objective reason to delete this article which, moreover, is correctly sourced. Sg7438 (talk) 09:40, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Based on improvements to the article since the nomination, happy to withdraw as nom.

Longhornsg (talk) 15:55, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:56, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

First United Methodist Church (Peoria, Illinois)

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

Declined db-A7. This is an ordinary, non-notable church building / congregation. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NCHURCH for inclusion in wikipedia. Structure is not on the historical registry and is outside of the boundary of Downtown Peoria Historic District per IL HARGIS[91]. Refs are just routine local coverage and doesn't indicate notability. Dual Freq (talk) 01:39, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Religion and Illinois. Dual Freq (talk) 01:39, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP - Historic significance to Peoria: the church itself has its roots in the Methodist circuit riders. The first building was constructed in 1840. Prior to that, the Peoria Methodists met in individual homes. President Martin Van Buren visited the church in 1842 (source 4). — Maile (talk) 02:57, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Just to clarify, the 1840 structure that was built by Methodist Episcopal Church, a predecessor organization, no longer exists. A single visit from a president, after his presidency, to a building that no longer exists, is interesting trivia, but doesn't really demonstrate notability. --Dual Freq (talk) 22:06, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP - It's a historically important building in downtown Peoria. Wikitehedia (talk) 04:17, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- I would like to clarify that the current building is not listed in the state or national historical registers.[92] --Dual Freq (talk) 22:06, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:30, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as it does have a claim of significance as the oldest protestant church organisation in a city of 113,000 people. The church is also a historic structure built in 1916 that may be listed in future. There are sufficient references already in the article for WP:GNG which allows local references for a church as WP:CORPDEPTH does no apply to churches unless they pass it as well as GNG, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 22:13, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I may be biased because I added a lot of local sources (I'm interested in local history.) I agree with the reasons listed above. I believe the institution is notable even if it has changed buildings a few times. It is the oldest Protestant congregation in the city, has connections to the Methodist circuit riders, a presidential visit, started one of the main local hospitals, etc. There may be other sources available to improve the article and further demonstrate notability. 04:36, 6 December 2023 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by NatFee (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 speedy keep‎ per Fermiboson's apparent withdrawal. (non-admin closure) Schminnte ^{[talk to me]} 16:57, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Patsy O'Connor

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

Fails NACTOR. Previously deleted as expired BLPPROD. No secondary sources could be found. Fermiboson (talk) 01:35, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, and United States of America. Fermiboson (talk) 01:35, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, New Jersey, and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:30, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets WP:NACTOR based on roles in current article (eg. It Ain't Hay and You're a Lucky Fellow, Mr. Smith), and was verifiably a well-known vaudeville (stage) performer at a young age as well. While we'll definitely find more offline, there are sufficient secondary sources online to use the presumption of notability from NACTOR. Eg. [93][94][95][96][97][98][99][100] —siro χ o 05:40, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've begun working on the article, and I think with the sources I listed above we also have WP:BASIC —siro χ o 06:12, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Additions of multiple reliable sources by Siroxo demonstrates notability. --Grnrchst (talk) 08:11, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Sources are in place to demonstrate notability. She is also linked in numerous Wikipedia articles. Rublamb (talk) 17:32, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets WP:NACTOR guide Lightburst (talk) 00:46, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The page has been vastly improved by Siroxo and Rublamb, so that notability according to Wikipedia guidelines seems more than fairly established. Thank you.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 09:52, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:HEY. The sources on the page which have been kindly added show clear notability. DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 22:45, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fine with an admin speedily closing as keep, if they wish to do so. Fermiboson (talk) 22:54, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Fully sourced at this point, can't see any reason to delete. Thief-River-Faller (talk) 22:45, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:05, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Elsa Shala

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

YOUNGATH fail. Article has an unlinked draft which has been rejected twice at AfC. Fermiboson (talk) 01:04, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Basketball, and Kosovo. Fermiboson (talk) 01:04, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: This is a creation from the hoaxer behind Kosovo Air Force and they are an admitted sockpuppeteer (see here). Policy might even permit a speedy under these circumstances, as this is a BLP. ~ Pbritti (talk) 01:59, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- CSD per G5 given that Eron Lushaj is blocked. Kazamzam (talk) 21:19, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Kazamzam: Technically doesn't qualify as a G5 as it "applies to pages created by banned or blocked users in violation of their ban or block" (bolding original). The CU did not reveal any previously blocked socks and Eron Lushaj was blocked post-creation, so this was not created in violation of any block. But if an admin drove by and deleted the page, the SNOW standard would apply and the CSD would probably still stand. ~ Pbritti (talk) 22:51, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:31, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kosovo-related deletion discussions. I dream of horses ^{(Contribs) (Talk)} 00:15, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without commenting on the ban analysis above, I will agree with nom it fails WP:ATHLETE microbiologyMarcus ^{(petri dish·growths)} 18:46, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

[1] Lexington, Transylvania University 300 North Broadway; Fax: 859‐233‐8797, KY 40508 USA Phone: 859-233‐8300. "Creative Intelligence". Transylvania University | Calendar of Events. Retrieved 2023-11-17.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link)

[2] Conley, Julia (2020-11-13). "Trump campaign presents 238 pages of ridiculous GOP poll watcher affidavits". Salon. Retrieved 2023-11-17.

[3] Academy, NBCU (2023-10-11). "How Substack Journalists Are Growing Their Audiences". NBCU Academy. Retrieved 2023-11-17.

[:4-4] Avilucea, Isaac (August 2, 2023). "Tangle founder hosts high court chat in Philly". Axios.

[5] Waldmeir, Patti (2022-05-30). "Two Americans talk across the political divide". Financial Times. Retrieved 2023-11-17.

[6] "American Democracy Summit Speakers". American Democracy Summit. Retrieved 2023-11-24.

[7] "Isaac Saul - Official Member of The Progress Network". The Progress Network. Retrieved 2023-11-24.

[8] "Frank talks to Isaac Saul, Founder of Tangle News about the Israel-Hamas war. – 77 WABC". wabcradio.com. Retrieved 2023-11-24.

[9] Hibberd, James (2022-11-15). "'SNL' Ratings Hit Season High With Dave Chappelle Amid Uproar". The Hollywood Reporter. Retrieved 2023-11-24.

[10] Brother, Nate (2023-12-06). "Transylvania Hosts Journalist Isaac Saul in Creative Intelligence Series". The Rambler. Retrieved 2023-12-08.

[11] ttps://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2023/11/24/russia-crimea-tunnel-china/

[12] David Bukay (2008). From Muhammad to Bin Laden: Religious and Ideological Sources of the Homicide Bombers Phenomenon. Transaction Publishers. pp. 295–. ISBN 978-0-7658-0390-0. Retrieved August 19, 2012.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[1]

[1]

[1]

@@ Line 77: / Line 77: @@
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/International Language Academy of Canada}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MEHL Hockey}}
-{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SAFE Credit Union}}
+<!-- {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SAFE Credit Union}} -->
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arizona–Texas Tech football rivalry}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Endless-piston principle}}<!--Relisted-->