Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 December 10: Difference between revisions

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
No edit summary
No edit summary
Line 46: Line 46:
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dunneville, California}}
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dunneville, California}}
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alex Dyke}}
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alex Dyke}}
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paul Coia}}
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paul Coia (3rd nomination)}}}}

Revision as of 11:04, 10 December 2023

< December 09 December 11 >

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 no consensus‎. I'm closing this discussion as No Consensus with the knowledge that this article might make a return trip to AFD in the future (I'm talking weeks or months, not hours). Please do not renominate this article soon as I don't expect anything to dramatically change from the current discussion and that would likely result in a procedural close.

Also, those editors seeking to Merge all or part of this article can start a discussion about this possibility on the article talk page and also raise the question on the talk page of the target article. Liz Read! Talk! 23:49, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

All-woman Israeli tank crew fight (2023)

AfDs for this article:
All-woman Israeli tank crew fight (2023) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article currently does not satisfy any of the five Notability guidelines, namely the presence of significant, independent and secondary reliable sources reporting on it. Makeandtoss (talk) 10:08, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: as not only an entirely non event, but also merely a public relations talking point for one side of a conflict and an instance of extreme POV/whitewashing. Unencyclopedic nonsense. Iskandar323 (talk) 10:27, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: as also explained on talk page it is from one sided viewpoint without neutral sources. Shadow4dark (talk) 10:47, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The point that whoever attempted to commit acts of terror, failed and then didn't comment on it has nothing to do here. Almost none of the articles on terrorist attacks has opinion of whoever commit acts of terror. With regards, Oleg Y. (talk) 12:22, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This deletion proposal is unusually weak in policy-based reasoning and fails to perform even a minimal Google search to find significant, independent and secondary sources that establish notability before nominating this article for deletion. I found these in less than 2 minutes. Even 2 or 3 of these are enough to meet the notability requirements for news events.
  1. [1]
  2. [2]
  3. [3]
  4. [4]
  5. [5]
  6. [6]
  7. [7]
Furthermore, the event has enduring historical significance, as it was one of the first-ever female tank crews to engage in active combat, proving women's capability to match men in battle.
Marokwitz (talk) 12:21, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, there's some news coverage on the tank crew as part of the extremely localised news cycle in Israel, yes. It's unclear how that fragment of local news coverage suddenly makes a random skirmish by an individual tank crew a notable event. Fails WP:EVENTCRIT, particularly WP:EFFECT and WP:GEOSCOPE, as well as WP:NOTNEWS. Iskandar323 (talk) 12:37, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not true. Australia is not part of Israel. Belarus is not part of Israel. And etc. With regards, Oleg Y. (talk) 12:41, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Belarusian news is scraping the barrel a bit isn't it? But yeah, I'm sure there's some other coverage. But the question is of what? The Australian piece, as part of its analysis, notes that the spun story is part PR operation. But the topic here isn't shameless PR operations by the IDF, which certainly is a notable topic; it's the claim that some random firefight is individually notable. Iskandar323 (talk) 13:33, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I missed seeing "scraping the barrel" being mentioned in WP:GEOSCOPE and I also didn't see this about your argument regarding the Australian piece. However I do see sources that state that the event was notable as well as unique in history, that it's a first ever female tankers fight. Regarding WP:NOTNEWS it's clearly seen that the first information with analysis came up a few month after the actual event which at least means it was not an impulsive news. With regards, Oleg Y. (talk) 13:41, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I mean, the "first female tank crew" fight part is just bollocks in the first place. There were plenty of female tanks crews in Russia as far back as WWII, so the claim to fame is ahistorical nonsense. China also has such crews. Iskandar323 (talk) 14:38, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You are missing the point here. There were female tankers before. No one denied it. However. First, it's "all-women tank crew" and even your own source says it about Israel as well and not Russian or China. Second, such crew engaged in active fight and won. Third, if needed, in the Middle East. With regards, Oleg Y. (talk) 14:45, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
False: This article states, "Russia unveiled its first-ever female tank crew in the 2019 Army Games hosted for international armies." It does not mention that an "all-female tank crew" was ever deployed in battle. Did you even read this source? Marokwitz (talk) 14:47, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The point remains that female tank crews of various nationalities have existed for years, including in Syria's 800-strong female battalion (also promoted for propaganda reasons). Iskandar323 (talk) 17:03, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, we did mention before that such formations were present. But were they also the first ever female tank crews in the West to engage in active combat, lasting for 17 hours? With regards, Oleg Y. (talk)
I'm not sure when Israel became definitively "the West" ... They're in the Eurovision song contest, sure, but ... Iskandar323 (talk) 18:26, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A mix of feminism, a public relations war over the treatment of women, and Belarusian news sounds like great ingredients for a notable topic. Marokwitz (talk) 14:05, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Pseudo-feminism. If the IDF had real feminism, its senior commanders might have listened to the female observers who reported Palestinian militants training to breach the wall. But regardless, feminist PR whitewashing remains a separate topic from the actual battle that is ostensibly the topic here ... the main claim to fame of which is an ahistorical and false one. Iskandar323 (talk) 14:45, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like someone might have run out of arguments and is trying to add to this discussion a point that is entirely unrealed to current discussion as well as based on Wikipeda editor's own opinion which was not covered by a reliable sources in relationship to the topic of the discussed article. With regards, Oleg Y. (talk) 14:49, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
indeed. JM (talk) 11:47, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
WP:IDONTLIKEIT? Marokwitz (talk) 14:50, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
AGAIN، WP:EVENTCRIT, WP:NOTNEWS Iskandar323 (talk) 15:35, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Again. The event was covered a month and a half after it has happened. And all of the events with the current war can be deleted with the same argument of those two rules. But they are not deleted. With regards, Oleg Y. (talk) 15:40, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
One analysis piece a few weeks later ≠ WP:LASTING. Iskandar323 (talk) 16:47, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's not one analysis piece and it's not a few weeks later. And it's the same as other current war articles. With regards, Oleg Y. (talk) 16:52, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Belarusian news is scraping the barrel a bit isn't it?
What do you mean by this? Zanahary (talk) 03:16, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A google search proves what uou just referenced, five Israeli sources (not independent of the subject) and two mediocre sources. There is no significant coverage by RS for this topic. Makeandtoss (talk) 14:30, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Would you mind to clarify if The New York Sun is mediocre or Israeli source? With regards, Oleg Y. (talk)
Seems like both. The New York Sun is owned by Algemeiner, an Israel-related newspaper. It is also here categorized as a tabloid. [8]
Please sign at the end using ~~~~. And how does it fit to your original number of 5+2 and no more? I have easily shown that it's already 6+3 (if we count it as both). In addition, there are other sources mentioned in this discussion which increase the numbers. And other sources which were not yet mentioned. With regards, Oleg Y. (talk) 14:57, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
From the article on the New York Sun: On November 2, 2021, The New York Sun was acquired by Dovid Efune, former CEO and editor-in-chief of the Algemeiner Journal. From the article on the Algemeiner Journal: The Algemeiner Journal, known informally as The Algemeiner, is a newspaper based in New York City that covers American and international Jewish and Israel-related news. It is widely read by Hasidic Jews. I don't think "This newspaper is owned by a person who used to run a Jewish newspaper and Jews are related to Israel" is a valid reason for disqualifying a source. JM (talk) 11:52, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NEVENT requires enduring notability beyond the recent news cycle, which you've failed to demonstrate. Furthermore, we can make up thousands of "first" like this, it doesn't mean every single one of them has enduring historical significance. ChaotıċEnby(t · c) 02:03, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The subject is notable as this was the "first ever female tank crews in the West to engage in active combat, which lasted 17 hours" as well as "this was most likely the first time in history that a female armored unit participated in a war". It's obvious that The Australian Financial Review is not Israeli source, is reliable and is independent. Haarets is also reliable. As well as others. With regards, Oleg Y. (talk) 12:22, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Per above, no and no. Russia had female tank crews in WWII - so no, Israeli media has made up a claim to fame without having first googled the claim. Pretty pathetic journalism. Iskandar323 (talk) 14:52, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Russia did not have all-female tank crews in WWII , which is what this article is about. Marokwitz (talk) 15:00, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Uganda did seven years ago, and it graduated 27 female tank personnel and 5 commanders this year. Iskandar323 (talk) 16:30, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Quora.com?! C'mom... Facepalm Facepalm ... Once you make it a relable source like we can come back to it. Or when you make The Daily Mail the reliable source. And where in the second source it says that all-female tank crew was engaged in a battle? Have you read what was written? With regards, Oleg Y. (talk) 16:34, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
My response to that is below; this response was to Marokwitz's point, not yours. Iskandar323 (talk) 16:39, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You understood what I was talking about. All-female tank crews that participated in combat. Marokwitz (talk) 18:55, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You do not seem to read what was written. Sources state that it was a first all female tanker crew that was engaged in active fight in Middle East and won. You haven't shown the counter argument to it. With regards, Oleg Y. (talk) 15:01, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So it's three caveats now is it? Female tank crew, Middle East and claim of victory against infantry? ... that's getting mighty specific. But beyond the bluster, Syria also had female tank crews that beat back rebels in 2015. Iskandar323 (talk) 15:40, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No, not three. Just one straight point without any caveats. Please read what was written above. And please read what experts have mentioned on it. If needed I can read for you. And I already read. And even if there are 10 caveats if others in reliable sauces believe that it's unique then it's unique. Even if a Wikipedia editor doesn't like it. And please do not cite unreliable sources. The Daily Mail is not a reliable source. You may check it here: WP:DAILYMAIL . With regards, Oleg Y. (talk) 15:45, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You're quite welcome to Google your own examples of non-uniqueness, including those in Syria. Obviously the daily mail didn't make up a military entity, and you can certainly Google that yourself. Iskandar323 (talk) 16:17, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It seems you do not read what is written to you which makes the conversation harder, and now you send others to Google after you have failed to provide any data from there... With regards, Oleg Y. (talk) 16:19, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I can read just fine thank you, but if you'd like to keep asserting otherwise, we can solve this as hominem behavioural issue on your part at ANI. Iskandar323 (talk) 16:37, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Then we should be clear on the arguments which were mentioned. With regards, Oleg Y. (talk) 16:54, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Strong risk of WP:BOOMERANG JM (talk) 11:55, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure why now you are trying to limit pages to cover Israel events. Have you seen the size of the article? It makes sence to have a separate article since it has separate notability and sufficient size. With regards, Oleg Y. (talk) 14:33, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure what you mean. The first link is general; the second Israel-specific. On length: maybe the topic is just inflated and overwritten. The real art of editing is one of concision and brevity. Iskandar323 (talk) 14:48, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As an argument to try to delete this article you have mentioned "there are plenty of potential pages were a neutral and encyclopedic write up of something related to this could live". If it doesn't mean that you want to cover the current article on another page and use it as an excuse to delete this please explain what you have meant. Now you are trying to say that topic is allegedly inflated and I say that it's not. It's one wikipedia editor's opinion against another. All the content from the topic is from reliable sources. And even if the article was twice smaller we still have such article as independent from the other broader topics as it clearly shows separate notability. With regards, Oleg Y. (talk) 14:54, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The issue is that it fails WP:NEVENT. Iskandar323 (talk) 16:41, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No, it doesn't fail WP:NEVENT. With regards, Oleg Y. (talk) 16:55, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Iskandar323, perfect! And this is a fine WP:SPINOFF. Then all is set to keep as is. Thank you. The alternative would be to have an article about this tank crew and on other women combattants in this war, i.e. a rename and widening of scope. That falls outside the AfD debate yet can be debated on the talk page. gidonb (talk) 15:19, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What is not news and what is trivial? If you came here because of this and this and then clicked on my input please first check what was disused in this conversation above. TLDR: All of the articles about current war are not news, but they are not deleted; this topic had articles published more than 1.5 month after the event occurred so it was not just an immediate news; it covers the first ever all-female tankers fight after WW2 so not trivial. With regards, Oleg Y. (talk) 16:50, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Please see WP:BLUDGEON. You have made 32 edits to this page and are responsible for close to half its content. We know you want to keep the article. You can stop badgering people who disagree with you. nableezy - 17:32, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the link. What I am trying to understand is how my comments in your view are different from my colleague Iskandar323 other than my active participation in the creation of the article. And your count is not quite correct (we do not count fixing typos). I did 20 comments while Iskandar323 did 17 which is pretty similar. But now I'll step out and let others to comment as my point of view should be pretty clear now. With regards, Oleg Y. (talk) 17:45, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You have 32 edits (now 33) for about 10 kB of text, he has 17 for 5.5 kB of text. He should stop engaging as well though. nableezy - 17:50, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per @Marokwitz Homerethegreat (talk) 08:32, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Major points is notability as well as first-timeness as well as uniquness. Homerethegreat (talk) 08:40, 11 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 01:56, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as failing WP:NEVENT and being pretty one-sided propaganda. ChaotıċEnby(t · c) 02:01, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Just to clarify, women served as tankers in many armies, even though this is usually an exception. For example, Aleksandra Samusenko was the only female tanker in the Soviet 1st Guards Tank Army, as our page says. However, I do not know any other episodes with an all-women tank crew, which would be as highly publicized as that one. My very best wishes (talk) 20:24, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:SUSTAINED as I could find no evidence that this was picked up nationally. Also seems notable that major international news sources like the BBC and New York Times did not feature this event. Esolo5002 (talk) 07:19, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per various arguments above. JM (talk) 12:47, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: War propaganda, with nothing for notability. As other comments have explained, this is not the first group of this type, making this not terribly notable. Could be a brief sentence or two in an article about the war, nothing much else to be said. Oaktree b (talk) 13:21, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Meets GNG and therefore doesn't need to pass any SNG, however the sources clearly show this meets SNG as well (WP:GEOSCOPE and LASTING). Delete votes are just IDONTLIKEIT that ignores GNG. Source eval:
About the unit: [11], [12], []
About their role in the battle: [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19]
  • Stopped at listing 10 sources, but there are more. The only arguement for deleting this is IDONTLIKEIT.
  • The event has lasting historical significance, as it was one of the first-ever female tank crews to engage in active combat, the above sources indicate this clearly. The international level of coverage demonstrates this further.  // Timothy :: talk  18:21, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, I checked sources through Google, but found no any other notable (widely publicized) examples of all-female tank crews involved in active combat. My very best wishes (talk) 00:20, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per reasons given by Makeandtoss.Mr.User200 (talk) 01:12, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It seems that the fight has occur somewhere between Holit and Sufa, not just in Holit. The expression "Battle of Holit" does not appear often, but when it does [20], it refers to Holit massacre, which is a different event. My very best wishes (talk) 23:47, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
One journalist dug out, in connection to this fight, that there was only one all-women tank crew in Soviet forces during WWII (they were killed in combat in 1944), and surprisingly, at least one crew in Donetsk People's Republic. But very little is known about them. That was on YouTube, with photos [21]. I think each of these unique tank crews would deserve a separate page if they had a significant coverage in RS, but only this page under discussion has such coverage. My very best wishes (talk) 03:52, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So this article should say what—"despite IDF claims that it was the first instance, at least two others are known"? Or we have to spell out the heavy lifting done by "in the West" within the claim? How can we write an article where notability is based on a widely repeated claim that is dubious or requires significant contextualisation missing from almost all sources? — Bilorv (talk) 12:35, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Very simple - per WP:V. We have many RS on the subject of this page. Hence, we use them. And, as usual, we just ignore everything that was not published in RS. I doubt that the YouTube record I cited is a great RS; it might be used, but it just as easily can be ignored. My very best wishes (talk) 18:08, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Generally reliable publications can be unreliable for particular facts in context. Here the specific articles are perfectly reliable to claim that the IDF's propaganda during warfare stated X. They are not reliable for a very bold historical claim about something being the "first" (which you have cast significant doubt on), whereas a modern war historian may be. An article can't be built on just military propaganda (if we have independent reactions to that propaganda or, after the war, a historical source about the role and context of the propaganda then it's a bit different). — Bilorv (talk) 13:48, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The YouTube presentation above is consistent with claims currently on this page, it just adds a few details. The page (and the cited source) says: "The young women were the first ever female tank crews in the West to engage in active combat lasting for 17 hours". I do not know why the source classified them as "West/Western" (rather than "East"), but Russia and DNR are definitely not the "West". I agree this East-West thing is subjective, but again if there are other RS about all-women tank crews, one can bring them to this page, no one will object. This is how WP suppose to work. No RS - no content. Note that Haaretz and other sources used on the page are RS. My very best wishes (talk) 17:42, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So, I would certainly include the info about other all-women tank crews to this page, but I can not find it reliably sourced. The Youtube record probably is not good enough, although I have nothing against including it since it was produced by a well known independent journalist. My very best wishes (talk) 16:49, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above Abo Yemen✉ 12:57, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- insufficient reliable sources to establish notability & build an NPOV article. The article and its sources show that the story originates with the IDF ("according to the IDF", quotes from the IDF, etc) which is not sufficient for the encyclopedia. For example, the Haatetz source source says: "Composed of young women in their early 20s, the tank crews were the first Western women armored soldiers to go into active battle, according to the IDF." And so on. -- K.e.coffman (talk) 20:30, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: At the moment I'm not seeing a consensus here. It would be helpful to have additional input on whether the information here needs a standalone article (as opposed to being incorporated elsewhere) and whether the sources being presented are genuinely independent (several arguments state they are not).
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde (Talk) 13:10, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Not a very syrong case, merging might become consensual after things cool off, but for now notable enough for what it is, see Australian quite nuanced article (‘My Insta blew up’: Feminism and tank warfare in Israel, A. Patrick for The Australian Financial Review, Nov 27, 2023), quote: "It was probably the first time an all-female armoured sub-unit has fought in a war, according to Neil James, executive director of the Australia Defence Association, a pro-military lobby group." Not Israeli, not Jewish, not US, critical ("PR operation", other armies more integrated & less mysoginistic than IDF), but not denying the facts.

Last not least, 100% of the "delete" and "keep" supporters are of the involved I/P type; waiting for a cool-off seems the more so necessary. The war & its effects won't take a turn based on this. Arminden (talk) 00:07, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the Australia and Belarus articles above are two GNG sources, which is barely hitting GNG but it's hitting GNG, and they meet WP:GEOSCOPE and WP:INDEPTH. It's too soon to tell WP:LASTING; no prejudice to re-nom'ing some years down the road if LASTING isn't met. Merging to the Women in IDF article would overwhelm that article. Doesn't matter if they were actually the first at anything or if they're used for propaganda by their gov't or what they did in any battle... just matters that we have two independent international in depth sources covering them, and it's too soon to tell WP:LASTING. Levivich (talk) 19:04, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus‎. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 20:36, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Seventh Veil (1927 film)

The Seventh Veil (1927 film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No any single reliable source. Nexovia (talk) 03:30, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 03:00, 3 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! 08:40, 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 no consensus‎. No prejudice against merging. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 20:36, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Debate camp

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

The concept of a debate camp doesn't seem to be notable in-and-of itself, with this page basically being a collection of primary sources linking to different camps. WP:BEFORE was difficult due to the deluge of primary sources, but I was unable to find consistent + independent coverage. ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him)Talk to Me! 11:59, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business and Education. ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him)Talk to Me! 11:59, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- This is the edge of WP:DINC. This purports to be an article, but is effectively a list of debate camps which definitely does not belong in the encyclopaedia (WP:NOTDB and WP:NOTDIRECTORY). However, it could become an actual article. I am seeing solid, secondary and tertiary references including [22], [23], and [24] (p38-40, 112-118). There are hundreds more, but this will be a monster to research digitally with the challenging signal-to-noise ratio noted by nominator. As for GNG, I think that this is a pretty mainstream concept with lots of supporting RS. Debate camps are a big deal for certain educational tracks, mainly for secondary schoolers but also for some adult learners. I can't find it any longer, but there was an excellent piece of MBA coursework a decade or two ago comparing the net impact of debate camps to programmes such as Toastmasters; its bibliography would have made a wonderful launchpad to sources. Cheers, Last1in (talk) 20:29, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I am well aware of what debate camps are and the impact they can have on kids (My full-time job is as a speech and debate teacher). I am getting an "AccessDeniedAccess denied" error when I try to go to your first source and your third source is a self-published middle-grade textbook that definitely does not count for notability. The second source is solid, although it notes that research on debate camps is extremely limited. ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him)Talk to Me! 22:18, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I was able to find this from the Washington Post (EBSCOhost wapo.f73785f8-5f3d-11e6-8e45-477372e89d78) but mostly only found puff-piece and ROTM coverage of specific camps, not of camps as a category. ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him)Talk to Me! 22:23, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eternal Shadow Talk 04:26, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 03:00, 3 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! 08:40, 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 redirect‎ to Jiangnan. This is a difficult discussion to assess consensus in, but my reading is that there is a consensus below not to retain the article. On that basis, I have chosen the redirect as an ATD to preserve the history and as it was suggested within the discussion but not objected to by those !voting delete. Daniel (talk) 22:17, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jianghuai people

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

user:Newbamboo proposed to delete this article on the Chinese Wiki page, saying that it was "forcibly splicing irrelevant information together to conduct original research." And I did not see a direct introduction about Jianghuai People on Google Scholar, Google Books, and CNKI.The source given in the English article, the title seems to have little to do with Jianghuai People. 日期20220626 (talk) 04:39, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • This is not an encyclopaedic topic. This is kinda like if we had an article Yorkshiremen or Manitoban or Adelaidean that was positioning residents of those geographical areas as separate ethnic groups (all three of the above are redirects). Whoever said "splicing together unrelated information" nailed it. There's no sources discussing "江淮人" as an ethnic group.
    It's extra weird because it feels like some irredentist Jianghuai local pushing for the recognition of their natal area's people as some distinct and separable subset of Han Chinese, right? But the citations to Chinese sources are so bungled I can't believe anyone with a familiarity with the language could have done this.
    Redirect to Jiangnan or delete. Folly Mox (talk) 19:54, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Jianghuai is the area north of the Yangtze River in Jiangsu Province and does not belong to Jiangnan. Redirecting is inappropriate. 日期20220626 (talk) 01:43, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • As someone who edited similar pages in past IP adresses, strong disagree, nowhere in the page are the Jianghuai people stated as an "ethnic group", but as a regional subgroup of Han people, like the Sichuanese or Wuyue, speaking Jianghuai chinese and sharing some cultural aspects and history by simply being in the same region of China, so saying otherwise is disingenuous as this is not what the page says. Just because it has a problem of sources here for now, doesn't mean it doesn't warrant a page. It was good enough for Wikipedia in Mandarin so maybe we're missing something, nothing says there aren't any. My familiarity with such subjects indicate to me this is a quite recent and currently fringe phenomenon of national genesis, pioneered by a cultural theorist and historian named Liu Zhongjing, who had a master in history studies at Wuhan University. He is quite the active figure in chinese opposition spaces with his philosophy of auntology. Perhaps there are other figures who talked about this within this philosophy? Perhaps it could be reworked as a hub for siocultural particularities, culture specific to this region? Just food for thought --142.170.60.67 (talk) 00:28, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    However, no source can be found that fully introduces the concept of Jianghuai people, and Liu Zhongjing does not seem to have invented the concept of JACs, and his own teachings are marginal. Wikipedia should not create its own concept. 日期20220626 (talk) 11:22, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. There seems to be some merit to the idea that few if any sources treat "Jianghuai people" as a separate "ethnic group" compared to the clearly adequate coverage of Lower Yangtze Mandarin as a separate topolect, but the suggestion that Wikipedia shouldn't or doesn't, have articles on Han Chinese subgroups is just wrong. As many of the sources are in Chinese I don't feel confident balancing the different considerations myself, but wanted to clear up what seemed to be confusion above. Eluchil404 (talk) 06:01, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. While I'm open to the argument put forward in the nomination, I think this subject and article could use more discussion to arrive at a consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 08:37, 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 delete‎. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 20:35, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of resorts in the Maldives

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

SImple case of WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Any notable resorts or entries can be accommodated at List of hotels: Countries M. Ajf773 (talk) 08:35, 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 no consensus‎. While there has been a late shift in sentiment that points to 'keep' due to changes to the article during this debate, the changes to the article actually make it really hard for me to assess whether this should be closed as 'keep' or 'no consensus'. This is because some comments were made prior to changes, others after the changes, and the relevance of those made prior to the changes are hard to assess.

What I do know for sure is there is no consensus to delete here in this discussion. I've elected to come down on the side of no consensus for the simple reason that if this needs to be explored again (referencing the 'new' version of the article) in the new year, it can be done earlier than if I was to close as 'keep'. Daniel (talk) 04:57, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Go Getters

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

Fails GNG and does not appear to meet NBAND. The sources cited in the article are not RSes: DISCOGS, Beat offers paid native content, Worldkustom.com has no editorial standards and appears to be an SPS, and volt.fm is a website to track Spotify statistics. The Weekend Edition is the only RS, but that does not provide SIGCOV. I have been unable to find additional sources from searching Google and TWL databases. voorts (talk/contributions) 05:10, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Their Swedish article has zero sources and almost no biographical information, making it even less useful than this one. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 16:02, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - They've had a long career and probably a small regional following, but I can find no reliable and significant sources on the band in Swedish or English, nor have their albums received any pro reviews that I can find. They have a few of what appear to be magazine articles, already cited, but the nominator is correct on how they are unreliable and probably paid promotional services. All else to be found is from the band's social media and occasional fan blogs. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 16:08, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
(18 days later...) I am changing my vote to Undecided due to the improvements made to the article since the nomination. The folks below found some sources but I am not convinced that they add up to significant coverage for this band, though my stance has softened and Admins can judge the other votes below. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 16:56, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Just wanted to let you know @Doomsdayer520 that Julle has added additional sources; see below. voorts (talk/contributions) 20:16, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Voorts and Darling for chiming in while I was absent. @Wikirapguru severely over-reacted to my comment about the band's Swedish article. This person told us to look at the Swedish article as if that could inform this discussion, so I did. I said absolutely nothing about deleting or keeping the Swedish article. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:43, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't call it a severe over-reaction, just an inexperienced editor who wrote an article in good faith and doesn't quite understand how deletion decisions work across different language versions of Wikipedia. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:09, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above the sourcing issues outlined. even if it was notable for the Swedish Wikipedia (which it clearly seems to not be, given the article there has zero sources), the band has nothing reliable on them, just a small cult following and a few seemingly promotional articles. Darling ☔ (talk · contribs) 18:51, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I wouldn't read too much into the lack of sources on Swedish Wikipedia. We don't spend as much time cleaning up old articles if they seem plausibly notable, given the much smaller number of editors – whereas sources are required for new articles, it's easier for an old unsourced article to survive on Swedish Wikipedia than on English Wikipedia, which means that people spend less focus sourcing them even if sources could be found.
    (It's not unimportant! It's just that with one editor for every fifty editors on English Wikipedia, there are more articles to handle per editor. Sometimes lack of sources says more about Swedish Wikipedia than about the topic.)
    In this particular case, I'm hopeful but not certain there are good enough sources to save the article. I've started by adding a full-page article from a few years back as a reference. /Julle (talk) 02:34, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    fair enough, I'll keep here then; good work. Darling ☔ (talk · contribs) 00:03, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. There are a few hundred articles about them or mentioning them in the Swedish newspaper archive which covers most of the recent years (Retriever Mediearkivet). It's missing most from their early days. I've started adding something. /Julle (talk) 02:27, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Given that we don't have access to the article that you just added, and if you can find a few more sources providing significant coverage, would you mind providing a brief description of each source? Thanks, voorts (talk/contributions) 02:49, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. This article has experienced a lot of editing activity since this nomination. Can editors review the additions and see if they make a significant difference?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 08:34, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In terms of sourcing, Wide Open Country and Ameripolitan are lists of award winners, not SIGCOV. The Bettajive Review is SIGCOV, but the website itself is an SPS. However, the people who run it are formerly journalists, so it's kinda reliable but there's no indication that they have a fact-checker or editor on staff. "Västeråsband kan få pris på världsgala" has no link to it and it's in Swedish, so I can't evaluate. Hopefully by the end of this relisting period @Julle can add some more Swedish sources and do some kind of source analysis so that other editors can evaluate whether those sources establish notability. If that doesn't happen, given that Julle thinks that the band might plausibly be notable, I'd be okay with draftify-ing this. Best, voorts (talk/contributions) 17:20, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've not had time to dig further into this (too much to do given the upcoming holidays, unfortunately).
The article I've added is a one-page newspaper article from Vestmanlands Läns Tidning about the band when they were nominated to the award mentioned in the article. While I think the coverage is relevant for our assessment, I don't know much about the award itself.
In short, I hope it might be worth digging further if anyone with the right access has the time to do so, but as of writing this I think the sourcing is a bit weak in the article. /Julle (talk) 22:55, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks @Julle. Since you don't have time to dig through sources, unless someone else does, my !vote is draftify. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:20, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – Per improvements I think the article meets WP:GNG. Good work. also just because the original sources were in Swedish, it does not equal non notable or less important. English sources are good now.BabbaQ (talk) 09:05, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Just to note that I wasn't implying that Swedish sources couldn't be used. I was just stating that I couldn't evaluate that particular source since I don't speak Swedish and don't know how to find it. That said, I still don't think that the current sources provide SIGCOV per my analysis above. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:17, 15 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 01:58, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep on the basis of WP:AGF as an editor in good standing has added several reliable sources news articles dedicated to the band that are not accessible on the internet and states that there are many more, Atlantic306 (talk) 23:43, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Julle has only added one offline source, and said that there might be more, but that he hasn't had time to look through them: I hope it might be worth digging further if anyone with the right access has the time to do so, but as of writing this I think the sourcing is a bit weak in the article. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:53, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I will add that "there must be sources" is not an acceptable conclusion to an AfD discussion. With this AfD still sitting here for going on the three weeks, I'm assuming good faith but I'm also suspicious about whether those apparent sources will really come together. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 15:10, 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 merge‎ to Treaty of Hadiach. Daniel (talk) 00:39, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Polish–Lithuanian–Ruthenian Commonwealth

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

The article reproduces the Treaty of Hadiach. There is no information here that is not in that article, so I do not propose a merge. You should delete that article and create a redirect. Marcelus (talk) 19:00, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose The article is about a different topic from the treaty article and I think that an article about a possible commonwealth is worthwhile, considering that similar articles like Franco-British Union exist. Cukrakalnis (talk) 20:28, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Can you explain how is it different if it literally describe the same events? Marcelus (talk) 20:44, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Treaty =/= Commonwealth itself. The Maastricht Treaty is not the same as the European Union. Cukrakalnis (talk) 12:57, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:24, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Jungleman's claim that this was proposed in a treaty but nowhere else is objectively false; it was a somewhat notable idea throughout the 1650s and was of later historical significance during the January Uprising. This is clearly more tha just a one off idea. — Knightoftheswords 14:42, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 05:34, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Changed merge target per Renata3, Eluchil404 and nom. Owen× ☎ 12:55, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. There seems to be a rough consensus that some of the content in this article should be Merged but several options on what the target article should be.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 08:27, 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 delete‎. ✗plicit 07:00, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Gaynor Barnes

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

Exists, and did work for regional media mainly. Doesn't meet WP:BIO or WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 20:37, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Yes she was a regional broadcaster but she was a leading presenter on Yorkshire Television for three decades. This is more than enough to demonstrate notability. Also, the article has plenty of independent references. Rillington (talk) 10:01, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:22, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 05:34, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: BLP, fails GNG and NBIO. WP:BLP require strong sourcing, this has none with WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indpeth from WP:IS WP:RS. Source eval:
Comments Source
Fails WP:IS, primary, "Barnes is a patron of Yorkshire Air Ambulance", fails WP:SIGCOV, does not address the subject directly and indepth, name mentioned in list and caption 1. "Yorkshire Air Ambulance Annual Report 2017" (PDF). Yorkshire Air Ambulance Annual Report. March 2018. Archived from the original (PDF) on 4 July 2019. Retrieved 4 July 2019.
Fails WP:IS, primary, interview "The Prince of Wales Hospice welcomes three new Patrons, ITV Calendar presenters Gaynor, Christine and Du" 2. ^ "Calendar Presenters Become Patrons". The Prince of Wales Hospice. 14 August 2020. Retrieved 20 October 2021.
Interview, fails WP:IS 3. ^ "TV Presenter Gaynor Barnes talks to Yorkshire Life". Yorkshire Life. 11 January 2010. Retrieved 31 January 2019.
Fails WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth 4. ^ Berry, Chris (13 May 2005). "The Southern 'softie' with northern grit". The Yorkshire Post. Archived from the original on 1 February 2019. Retrieved 31 January 2019.
Primary, fails WP:IS, "Meet the team" promo 5. ^ "Meet the team". ITV Calendar. 31 January 2019.
Name mention, panelist, fails WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth. 6. ^ Zientek, Henryk (19 November 2008). "Help for entrepreneurs". Huddersfield Examiner. Retrieved 10 August 2010.
Interview, fails WP:IS 7. ^ TV Presenter Gaynor Barnes talks to Yorkshire Life Yorkshire Life, 11 January 2010
Routine news about programming change. Fails primary, fails WP:SIGCOV addressing subject directly and indepth 8. ^ "John Shires and Gaynor Barnes to leave ITV News Calendar". ITV News. Retrieved 19 March 2021.
Name listed, fails SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth. 9. ^ "RTS Yorkshire Programme Awards 2021". Royal Television Society. 15 January 2021. Retrieved 20 October 2021.
Above keep vote provides no sources or guidelines for eval. BLPs require strong sourcing.  // Timothy :: talk  11:20, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. It would help for those editors who want to Keep this article to respond to the source analysis or bring forward some additional sources that could help establish notability.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 08:21, 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 delete‎. ✗plicit 06:50, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bill Jackson (photographer)

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

Successful photographer, but I couldn't establish that he meets WP:N. Has been in CAT:NN for over 13 years. Boleyn (talk) 21:12, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previous WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:22, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 05:34, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Still ineligible for Soft Deletion. Some more participation here would be helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 08:19, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Fails WP:GNG. The PROD nom and contention were from 2008 and the article has remained poorly sourced since then (and since its creation), due to a dearth of available coverage that a search confirms. Uhai (talk) 06:21, 11 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 00:44, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Secretarias

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

Does not appear to be notable. Nothing found in a BEFORE. Tagged for notability since 2018.

PROD removed with links to 2 sites with nothing more than blurbs about it, no indepth coverage. DonaldD23 talk to me 15:12, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Already PROD'd so not eligible for Soft Deletion. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:58, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, links in the deprod are not sufficient.
JoelleJay (talk) 21:05, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 08:16, 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 delete‎. No one is arguing for retention, and no indication any input is forthcoming. Star Mississippi 19:42, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Amir Válá Meshkin

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

Declined prod. Only 1 article links to this. Could not significant coverage of this individual in news and google books searches. Fails WP:BIO. LibStar (talk) 11:21, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previous WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:22, 3 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! 08:14, 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. ✗plicit 00:45, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Vion Pharmaceuticals

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

WP:MULTSOURCES - one source for its bankruptcy alone is not notable, nor did the experimental drugs ever leave trial stage. Cannot find any other sources. Darcyisverycute (talk) 13:44, 3 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! 08:13, 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 redirect‎ to Eliminative materialism. History remains under the redirect for a merge, if desired Star Mississippi 18:52, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Revisionary materialism

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

Non significant coverage at [25] and [26] (they mention the term twice and once respectively. Cannot find any other verbatim usage. Suggest merging/redirecting to eliminative materialism if anything can be salvaged. Darcyisverycute (talk) 13:50, 3 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! 08:13, 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 redirect‎ to List of Guyana women's international footballers. Star Mississippi 18:50, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Chantal Lynch

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

Redirect to List of Guyana women's international footballers. I am unable to find sufficient coverage of the subject to meet WP:GNG. All I found in my searches were passing mentions (1, 2, 3, etc.) No indication of notability, either. JTtheOG (talk) 06:33, 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. ✗plicit 06:58, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Odaliana Gómez

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

The subject earned a couple of caps for the Dominican Republic women's national football team, but I am unable to find sufficient coverage of the subject to meet WP:GNG. The closest thing to WP:SIGCOV I found in my searches was this; everything else was passing mentions. JTtheOG (talk) 06:25, 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. ✗plicit 06:58, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sensorimotor psychotherapy

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

Classified as a complementary and alternative medicine [30], which sets a high bar for notability without undue weight. I cannot find reliable sources providing significant coverage independent of its main author, Pat Ogden. Note that Ogden frequently co-authors with Janina Fisher, ideally there would be review material or robust studies without either of them as listed authors. Sources need to meet WP:MEDRS also. The article history has had multiple attempted insertions of copyvio and advertising/promotional material since creation. Darcyisverycute (talk) 06:02, 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 redirect‎ to List of Santos FC seasons. ✗plicit 06:59, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

1921 Santos FC season

1921 Santos FC season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article contains one sentence and no references. 1keyhole (talk) 05:18, 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 no consensus‎ due to a lack of participation following three relists. No prejudice towards immediate re-nomination. Daniel (talk) 09:36, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Microbicide Trials Network

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

One source in article seems more about the vaginal gel than the organisation. [31] is arguably not significant coverage. [32] covers two sentences worth and is not significant coverage either. I cannot find any other sources mentioning the organisation. Darcyisverycute (talk) 05:16, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

International Network for Strategic Initiatives in Global HIV Trials (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
International Maternal Pediatric Adolescent AIDS Clinical Trials Group (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Because these two similarly turn up no independent scholar or news search results, and are both stubs.
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Medicine, United States of America, and Pennsylvania. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:42, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I notice you didn't search on Google Scholar or in paywalled academic journals. There is a decent amount of coverage of the organization and its activities, i.e. [33][34][35][36][37][38][39], which added together would be enough for GNG but probably not NORG.
    I didn't thoroughly research the others, but I would say some sort of merge to an article about HIV/AIDS research would be superior to deletion, since there is encyclopedic content that can be written about them. (t · c) buidhe 06:55, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I searched on google scholar, DDG and DDG news. I did not do a paywalled journal search. My concern is NORG, as I understand it, these organisations publish plenty of research, and the sources you provide could be used for vaginal microbicide for example. As far as a parent article to merge content, two options are Office of HIV/AIDS Network Coordination and/or Division of Acquired Immunodeficiency Syndrome. As can be seen at this image, the web of organisations is big, and these articles I nominated were just the ones in the cluster I couldn't find sources reporting about the organisation itself. Darcyisverycute (talk) 07:36, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    NORG coverage includes coverage of an organization's activities, such as organizing trials of vaginal microbicide (see Wikipedia:Notability_(organizations_and_companies)#Examples_of_substantial_coverage). The reason it may not count isn't because the content is irrelevant but it may not be in depth enough for NORG. While it's not necessarily trivial to find a merge target, WP:Alternatives to deletion should be considered before an AfD if there is encyclopedic content worth preserving. I would support merging any of these to a parent/sponsoring organization or to HIV/AIDS research (t · c) buidhe 07:45, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, that is what I meant, significant coverage for a topic unrelated to the org (the study objectives and the topic) and not enough coverage for the org and their specific research practices. On its own, I didn't think the three stubs have enough salvageable content to warrant a merge request since their sources are all either primary or not significant coverage, which is why I chose to nominate. But considering the sources you found, maybe the content is worth keeping through a merge when backed up by secondary sources, even if it's minor on its own. Darcyisverycute (talk) 11:27, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Studies run by the org are not "unrelated to the org" any more than reviews of a restaurant's food are unrelated to the notability of the restaurant. (t · c) buidhe 20:06, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    To meet NORG (i.e. WP:ORGCRIT), we need at least two independent, reliable secondary sources with significant coverage. To my understanding, the only difference between NORG and GNG is the condition that the sources are also secondary sources. Studies run by the org are not independent or secondary sources, so they cannot meet ORGCRIT. In any case, NORG generally overrides GNG as NORG is a subject specific notability guideline, although in both cases these are just guidelines and not policies.
    Some restaurant reviews might meet NORG and GNG criteria based on their contents and sources; I am not sure how far to entertain the hypothetical other to say that "it depends". I had a brief glance at the sources you linked, as far as I could tell none of them were both independent and significant coverage. If you still believe the articles warrant keeping, I would kindly appreciate if you could list the top three (or perhaps just one) sources which meet this criteria.
    The source Bluerasberry found is good, although it may not be secondary I am inclined to ignore that if we can find another source of similar quality. I would much rather keep these articles and expand them, and I concur with Bluerasberry that it is unfortunate these kind of orgs avoid media coverage. Darcyisverycute (talk) Darcyisverycute (talk) 06:15, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unsure I started this article years ago. The organization closed in 2021 so there are unlikely to be new sources about the org. The org itself wrote a summary of its history; my guess is that it could have spent and consumed about US$100 million from its existence in 2005-2021, doing about 40 medical research trials in many countries, including 12,000 participants. The best reliable source I found about the org is from small town radio, which is nice and counts, but I always regret that these grand multinational, multigovernmental community research projects avoid all media attention. There are lots of sources about the organization's individual clinical trials and their outcomes. It is common practice on Wikipedia that when an individual artist gets attention for their art but not as a person that we keep the biography. When we have stubby articles like this about organizations which could only be built out by describing their programs but not the org itself, we typically delete. Medical papers do not make for good Wikipedia narratives. This org merged into the HIV Prevention Trials Network, which is much bigger. I could support a deletion or redirect/merge of the wiki content here. Bluerasberry (talk) 18:15, 10 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 01:59, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 04:57, 26 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, Daniel (talk) 09:39, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus‎. There is no support for deletion, but the "keep" opinions are unconvincing in light of applicable policies and guidelines. There is therefore no consensus either way. Sandstein 11:43, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

HIV Prevention Trials Network

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

Seems completely promotional material and only primary source coverage - all in-article sources are either HPTN or clinicaltrials.gov links to studies ran by HPTN. According to XTools, Emillerfhi360 (talk · contribs) has 85% article ownership, an account with no edits outside the article over a five year period, who has potential undisclosed COI, and was cautioned on the article's talk page. Not to justify the AfD, but this has a huge amount of in-body external links and overlinking, I am surprised it was not picked up by an automated tool.

Searching for independent sources turned up:

- [40], non signficant coverage

- [41], not independent, as Eric Miller is the HPTN press contact ([42])

There are plenty of sources which cite HPTN studies, eg. [43], but I cannot find any independent reliable sources with significant coverage.

Courtesy ping: @Emillerfhi360 Darcyisverycute (talk) 05:13, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 07:02, 17 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! 08:37, 24 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 Te Unuhanga-a-Rangitoto / Mercer Bay. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 20:34, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mercer Bay

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

Per WP:ONEOTHER; this page should be deleted and redirected to Te Unuhanga-a-Rangitoto / Mercer Bay as the primary topic for this River.

The topic which this is competing with, a Mercer Bay in Cumberland West Bay, is an obscure location that doesn't even warrant an article. Further, a Google News search for the past year finds no results for the bay in Cumberland West Bay, but over a dozen for Unuhanga-a-Rangitoto / Mercer Bay. BilledMammal (talk) 04:55, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Disambiguations. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:43, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • A redirect does not require deleting an edit history first, and could have been done with 1⁄3 the number of edits that an AFD nomination takes. This is not an appropriate use of Articles for deletion. Uncle G (talk) 10:23, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • To clarify, I intended to propose a redirect; I agree that the edit history doesn't need to be deleted.

      However, AfD can be used to propose redirects; I expected that if I made this boldly it would be reverted or otherwise objected to and so I wanted to get consensus for it, and this is the appropriate venue for that. BilledMammal (talk) 11:11, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

      • No, that would be Talk:Mercer Bay. You are utterly wasting people's time, everyone who even looks at this, with a simple disambiguation fix that you could have just done. Uncle G (talk)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 20:25, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Steven Dean Memorial Trophy

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

Subject does not meet the WP:NRIVALRY due to a lack of independent WP:SIGCOV with which to meet the general notability guideline. Let'srun (talk) 04:01, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 20:30, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 12:28, 24 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 05:33, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Cheap Seats (American TV series)

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

Subject lacks the needed coverage from independent sources to meet the WP:GNG. Let'srun (talk) 04:00, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. The show is mentioned in the articles for Chris Rose, Brian Wilson, etc. This article doesn't really provide any additional information. Lack of reliable sources confirms it's not notable. Fnordware (talk) 16:27, 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 Moot‎. Deletion is not being contemplated. Moves can be handled editorially. Star Mississippi 18:49, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Shag River

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

Per WP:ONEOTHER; this page should be deleted and redirected to Waihemo / Shag River as the primary topic for this River.

Looking at pageviews, we see that Waihemo / Shag River receives over ten times the views of Shag River (Fiordland), demonstrating that it is primary by usage.

It also appears to be primary by long term significance; a search on Google News and Google Scholar shows that the vast majority of results are for the river in Otago. BilledMammal (talk) 03:53, 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 keep‎. Sourcing has been IDed that addresses both the nom and delete !votes. Star Mississippi 18:46, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A Bride of the Plains

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

Article has been unsourced since at least 2020. I have done a quick Google search and Google Scholar search but have been unable to find more reliable sources. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 02:38, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete lack of sourcing that meets WP:RS, aka also fails WP:SIGCOV
Cray04 (talk) 08:06, 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 keep‎. Despite difficulty, sources with sufficient coverage to meet WP:NBOOK were eventually identified. signed, Rosguill talk 02:02, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A Child of the Revolution

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

Article is reliant upon a single citation, which was added in September 2023 without adding additional content. I have done a quick Google search and Google Scholar search but have been unable to find more reliable sources. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 02:35, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature and United Kingdom. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:46, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm a little surprised how little I'm finding. Two things so far:
    • Accordng to the index, Baroness Orczy's The Scarlet Pimpernel: A Publishing History mentions A Child of the Revolution on p. 146 and p. 248; it's possible there is significant coverage there but I can't access it.
    • This article mentions "A Child of the Revolution, seul opus non traduit de la série" ["the only work not translated in the series", presumably meaning not translated into French] as an example of a Pimpernel novel with an important love story, there's no significant coverage.
I want to look for reviews from 1932 but haven't found a good database yet. It's an unfortunate gap where things are copyrighted but not widely popular/accessible. The one source in the article is so good it feels like a WP:NBOOK pass should be possible...! ~ L 🌸 (talk) 00:06, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
OK, checking ProQuest Historical Newspapers I found a surprising amount of "not much":
  • NYT "Book Notes" Dec 23, 1931, says only "Other works of fiction to be issued during February under the Doubleday, Doran imprint include ... "A Child of the Revolution" by Baroness Orczy." (fun historical coincidence, the first book in this list is A Brave New World!).
  • A half dozen lists of books available in China in the 30s, this one listed also
  • "Meet the Baronness Orczy", 1934 says only "I did ask what books she had written lately. 'Well, you see, so many of my readers wrote to me and implored me to write more about the same characters in The Scarlet Pimpernel series, so I wrote A Child of the Revolution to please them. You would not believe how many people write to me from all over the world.'"
  • The only actual review I can find traces off is one by Jerry Siegel (the creator of Superman) in his high school newspaper. I find this quite intriguing and it would certainly be sigcov but of course a high school paper is not an RS.
    • Men of Tomorrow: Geeks, Gangsters & the Birth of the Comic Book "He wrote occasional book reviews for The Torch, breathless advertisements for the most socially acceptable of the books he loved. “The Reign of Terror— the guillotine descending swiftly on innocent and guilty alike. The only hope lies in the aid of the ‘Scarlet Pimpernel,’ a mysterious Englishman who risks his life to save . . . the unjustly condemned.” Surely no one else on the wise-ass Torch staff would have gushed so over Baroness Orczy’s Child of the Revolution, but Jerry loved the Pimpernel and Zorro and all those secret heroes who masquerade as mild-mannered citizens." (65-6)
    • "Looking for Lois Lane": "It soon became clear Siegel was the mysterious author behind certain pieces that appeared in the Torch. One was a review of the Baroness Orczy's "A Child of the Revolution" (1932), the last in a series of novels about an English nobleman who dons mask and costume nights to fight for the oppressed . . . as the Scarlet Pimpernel."
I can't shake the feeling that this is the sort of book which ought to have gotten some reviews in 1931, but the evidence is really against me! ~ L 🌸 (talk) 03:00, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge. Okay, after having done a bunch of digging and checking out some of the other Pimpernel novel articles, I'd like to propose that actually an appropriate outcome here would be the creation of List of Scarlet Pimpernel novels, structured as a prose list (with headings) which provides brief plot summaries of each novel. The series overall certainly gets all kind of coverage! There can be links out to 'main' articles for the subset of these novels which have more substantial independent coverage. If the consensus is to create this list article, I volunteer to make it (please ping me). ~ L 🌸 (talk) 03:07, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I agree with @LEvalyn that there seems to surprisingly little coverage, especially compared to the other books in this series, but after a bit of digging, I was able to find three reviews in The Liverpool Daily Post, The Charleston Daily Mail and The New York Times (final page, under the header "Paris and the Terror"), which is sufficient to meet WP:NBOOK. ARandomName123 (talk)Ping me! 16:44, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for these finds!! I agree that this now an NBOOK keep, and frankly this raises my confidence that the other currently-unsourced Pimpernel novels will have enough coverage too. For my own personal improvement, would you mind sharing where/how you looked in order to find these? (Maybe on my talk page if it's too off topic here?) I tried the Wikipedia Library but I must not have been using the right queries or trying the right places, so I'd love to know what worked for you. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 21:19, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I've responded on your talk page. Thanks, ARandomName123 (talk)Ping me! 00:25, 18 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. Daniel (talk) 12:27, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A Choice of Magic

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

Article has been unsourced since November 2015. A quick search through Google and Google Scholar have not offered reliable sources. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 02:29, 10 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! 02:01, 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 redirect‎ to Miss Tennessee#Winners. Daniel (talk) 12:27, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Chandler Lawson

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

Subject does not meet the WP:GNG due to a lack of sustained significant sources. Let'srun (talk) 02:26, 10 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! 01:55, 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 keep‎. Nobody supports the very perfunctory deletion nomination. Sandstein 11:49, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

International Humic Substances Society

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

Subject does not meet the WP:NORG. Let'srun (talk) 01:41, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 03:12, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 12:27, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know much about participating in these, feel free to delete my comment if I am not meant to say anything.
I also don't know if humic acids being (allegedly) unfounded or under-evidenced as useful in gardening really undermines the scientific credentials or focus of the International Humic Substances Society. But from what I see of the research they support, I'll go ahead and mildly doubt it. It doesn't seem like they are restricted to supporting research into if whichever acid helps whatever garden crop, and instead include a wide range of topics about humic substances.
In general, I find even short records of professional societies to be very useful for a popular encyclopedia to cover. Even historically, paper book encyclopedias would keep track of these things because it's an incredibly useful resource for someone - especially a student or any young person - to run into. It records the landscape of a profession. Sometimes it helps underline the mere existence of an otherwise obscure profession or specialization. And this is an international society. It is not a 20 person club of friends with similar interests. It appears referenced directly in many academic articles. And it continues to have conferences (is not defunct). Not to be rude to people interested in other things, but I can think of a lot I would delete instead. Soil is what we depend on for life as much as water and air. Whatever is going on in the field is particularly notable to me.
The article should have more sources, for sure. It would also be good to have it better integrated into the larger Wiki and linked to from more soil science related articles. And should be re-written to be a little in the first paragraph to be less ad-copy-ish. I may just do that small part, then people can undo it if it is worse.
About potential other sources, here's some:
I might even be able to add this source, as it's less technical:
^^ Chin, YP., McKnight, D.M., D’Andrilli, J. et al. Identification of next-generation International Humic Substances Society reference materials for advancing the understanding of the role of natural organic matter in the Anthropocene. Aquat Sci 85, 32 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00027-022-00923-x
So, unsurprisingly, I vote Keep (if I get a vote) MariahKRogers (talk) 08:09, 31 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! 06:39, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Agent 47

Agent 47 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Video game character of dubious notability. Reception is limited to listicles and starts unimpressively with "In 2012, GamesRadar+ ranked Agent 47 as the 47th...". My BEFORE failed to find anything useful other than plot summaries; academic reception is limited to passing mentions in an undergraduate paper and one book (note: I could only access snippets which don't suggest SIGCOV is met). Per WP:ATD-R, a redirect to Hitman (franchise) will suffice. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 01:40, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • While I do feel there is some commentary in those first two articles Zx, they feel primarily about the games and related gameplay. Keep in mind this is me skimming through them after only being up a few hours, but arguing they're full articles on the character feels like a misnomer. And that ends up another problem with Agent 47: a lot of his commentary is hard to separate from commentary about how the game plays.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 10:29, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    He also got an article in The Ringer about his character too. Vox is considered a WP:RS, even though they also own Polygon, it's different enough to be a distinct site and source. The articles may be about Agent 47's gameplay, but they still make it obvious they are referring to him rather than just the game in general. I am convinced he is notable given these sources. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 10:38, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I can see your point. What do you think about the TNT argument though? I'm really convinced what's here isn't usable, and after this many years of being in this state (and until recently a much WORSE state), I don't see it viably being an article without being started over from zero with what's there. And yes, WP:NODEADLINE is a thing but at some point you have to question if it's better to let someone potentially wanting to work on the thing undo the redirect on their own.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 10:56, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    TNT doesn't make sense to me here, as no part of the article is technically "bad" besides the reception. The reception needs to be rewritten and current reception sources mostly or entirely discarded, but otherwise it can be kept. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 13:21, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Per KFM, I'd like to see someone do something with those sources, which seem to be rather freely written (blog / social media style rather than academic) before I'd consider withdrawing this nom. Nice job finding those sources, though. Maybe this can be rescued. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 12:50, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I have also found yet another SIGCOV here, in a book about villains in media. It talks about how players rationalize playing as a villain, giving Agent 47 as an example of a character who was created to be the perfect assassin, thus making it easier for players to "justify" what they are doing. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 13:34, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: It looks like a consensus to Merge but recent comments offer some new sources that should be evaluated.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 01:48, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, evaluating sources found by ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ. The Vader, Voldemort and Other Villains source is excellent secondary SIGCOV. That book, with PCGamesN and The Ringer are a solid three (Noting, The Ringer is an SBNation site with a proper masthead and the author is a professional journalist who has written for many RS). PC Gamer and Polygon are helpful as well—though Polygon seems to rely a bit on quotes from a creative director. This meets WP:GNG. —siroχo 04:24, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: significant coverage by reliable mainstream news such as the Telegraph swayed me away from my initial tendency to merge such articles. There is more than enough verifiable information here, and independent notability is well established. Once it hits mainstream news, it can no longer be dismissed as "cruft". Owen× ☎ 15:18, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per all above JM (talk) 16:42, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above, seems to have plenty of analysis discussing this character in specific.
PARAKANYAA (talk) 00:43, 18 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. It would be great if some of the sources brought up in this discussion could be added to this article. Liz Read! Talk! 01:43, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nael Eltoukhy

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

WP:BLP of a writer, not properly sourced as passing notability criteria for writers. As always, writers are not automatically notable enough for Wikipedia articles just because their work exists, and have to show notability markers such as notable literary awards and/or the reception of WP:GNG-worthy coverage about them and their work in real reliable sources -- but the only notability claim being attempted here is that his work exists, and the only source being cited is his "staff" profile on the self-published website of his own publisher, which is not a notability-building source.
As I can't read Arabic, I'm willing to withdraw this if somebody with the necessary language skills and resource access can find enough improved sourcing to salvage it -- but nothing in this version of the article is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to have better sourcing than this. Bearcat (talk) 14:35, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. This article needs additional review after article improvements.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:26, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well AfD isn’t for cleanup. If there are sources to demonstrate notability it’s not a requirement to fix the article right away to save it from deletion. Mccapra (talk) 00:03, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No one has performed an analysis of the sources added or presented. If I had to close right now, I would close as no consensus. But I'm relisting in hope for a more definitive answer.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 01:40, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment ok I will start on this and add as I find more.
1. Review of his work in a chapter of a book on contemporary Egyptian literature here. Mccapra (talk) 09:06, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
2. multiple references to his writing as a blogger in this scholarly work on contemporary Egyptian writers
3. independent in depth review of one of his novels in a major international newspaper
4. independent in depth review of another one of his novels in a major newspaper
5. another independent in depth review of the same novel
6. independent in depth review of a third novel
7. Independent in depth review of the same novel as no.6 above. I’ll stop here but if more is needed I’ll keep looking. Mccapra (talk) 09:41, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I’ve also managed to connect it to the ar.wiki article on wikidata. Mccapra (talk) 09:50, 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 delete‎. ✗plicit 00:45, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

TV Tonight Awards 2022

TV Tonight Awards 2022 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Like the 2020 and 2021 awards, the 2022 awards list is not notable, having no significant coverage outside of the TV Tonight website itself, failing WP:NTV and WP:GNG. At best, redirect to TV Tonight. Yours sincerely, TechGeek105 (his talk page) 01:13, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to see if there is more support for a Merge/Redirect to, I assume, TV Tonight.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 01:08, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: I don't believe that the award itself is notable to warrant its own article, so individual years shouldn't have articles either. I do not believe that merging is appropriate because then the bulk of the TV Tonight article would be two years' worth of awards tables (and more if others decided to continue adding on), which is undue. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:59, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for the same reasons discussed above. I don't see benefit of a merge for the same WP:UNDUE reasons already highlighted. Similarly, I don't feel a redirect would serve as a useful navigation aid for a reader, given the main article isn't offering information on specific years and the title is closely related to the main article's name anyway. Bungle (talk • contribs) 10:25, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above JM (talk) 16:43, 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. ✗plicit 00:46, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

TV Tonight Awards 2021

TV Tonight Awards 2021 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Like the 2020 and 2022 awards, it is not notable, having no significant coverage outside of TV Tonight itself, failing WP:NTV and WP:GNG. Yours sincerely, TechGeek105 (his talk page) 01:09, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to see if there is support for Merge/Redirect, I assume, to TV Tonight.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 01:07, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above JM (talk) 16:44, 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 keep‎. UtherSRG (talk) 17:02, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dunneville, California

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

Contested PROD. This is an interesting one: The site is actually a restaurant-bar: [48]; it was once a rural saloon that became informally known as Dunneville because of a local rancher, James Dunne, who was a regular there ([49]). Later a Dunneville Estates housing development was built nearby (Ref. 2 in the article). So we have a stub article because GNIS somehow picked up an in-joke about an alcoholic farmer who spent his days at a local tavern. Neither restaurants nor housing developments are inherently notable per WP:GEOLAND, and therefore WP:GNG applies. I would argue this article does not reach that bar, as the few references I can find are about the restaurant and not the "community". This is just a rural intersection with an old bar, a new housing development just to the north, and what looks like a wood chip yard (see satellite image of the coordinates). Not notable. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 00:48, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dunne ranch from Rancho Ausaymas y San Felipe

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 01:05, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 00:18, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. It's hard to see any consensus right now.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:00, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - There has been a great deal of improvements since this article was nominated. It's been turned into a fairly substantive sourced article now. Nothing like it was when this nomination started. Looks really good now. — Maile (talk) 03:36, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 20:37, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Dyke

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

Non-notable. Links and references are generic Funky Snack (Talk | Contribs) 10:59, 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 keep‎. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 20:37, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Coia

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

Third attempt as page doesn't really give anything. Possible self-promotion Funky Snack (Talk | Contribs) 11:03, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, per the overwhelming view regarding the previous nomination. This clearly fulfils WP:BASIC, as it did before. Nothing has changed in that regard. Rationale "doesn't really give anything" vague and evidently baseless and if there is an indication of self-promotion, please elaborate. Mutt Lunker (talk) 00:48, 11 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.

}}

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2023_December_10&oldid=1189203313"