Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2021 December 20

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion | Log

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Gabwp (talk | contribs) at 19:32, 20 December 2021 (Adding Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Summit Nutritionals International.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

< December 19 December 21 >

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 20:00, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Summit Nutritionals International

Summit Nutritionals International (edit | talk | history | 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 independent sources establishing the notoriety of the company. Perfektsionist (talk) 19:32, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sandstein 21:06, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kissing the Coronavirus

Kissing the Coronavirus (edit | talk | history | 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 notoriety of the work is not established in the sources. Perfektsionist (talk) 19:25, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WP:JUSTA: Why does the article meet WP: NBOOK? All its sources are not reliable. Perfektsionist (talk) 21:30, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
News18 is owned by CNN, Fox 10 Phoenix is a local station in Arizona. Both of these are reliable sources. Aasim (talk) 21:55, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
What about the rest of the sources? Perfektsionist (talk) 22:22, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Digital image. Can be merged from history, but only if sourced in the process (the content is currently unsourced). Sandstein 21:05, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Color image

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

Unsourced and ambiguous title. Color image also refers to color photographs. I do not think this title is at all encyclopedic, and since Wikipedia is not a dumping ground for information, I'd suggest this be deleted or redirected to Color photography. Aasim (talk) 19:14, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 20:03, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Digital image. It is a type of digital image, but the article is old and very outdated. It is only about color images on a computer screen, so wouldn't fit anywhere else. Dream Focus 23:38, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Maybe rename or merge, but not sure to what.
    It was orginally meant to be about "digital color image" -- as opposed to, for instance, grayscale images. Namely, an array of small integers or tuples (pixels) that encode color information for a 2D set of points, usually an orthogonal plane grid. So maybe it could be renamed digital color image or color digital image.
    I don't think that merging into color photography is a good idea, since that name is even more ambigous (it comprises chemical color photography as well as digital), but also not broad enough (it does not cover digital video, which overlaps a lot with color still images).
    There is a lot more that could be said about color digital images specifically, that are not pertinent to other kinds of digital images, such as grayscale images, bitmaps, height maps, heat maps, etc. Such specific topics would include color spaces, bits per pixel needed for visually accurate rendition of color, color gamuts, storage schemes, gamma-law encoding, color image compression and file encodings, colorizing grayscale images, false color images, ... Thus, to be sincere, my vote would be to leave it there. If someone one day cares to add that information, that stub would save them quite a bit of time and work; if not, what harm does it do?
    I disagree that it it is only about "color images on a computer screen". Color images are created in many ways, such as in digital cameras, scanners, frame grabbers for analog video; are stored and transmitted in many ways; and are used in many ways besides displaying on a screen, such as printing, computer vision and technical image analysis, image processing, texturing 3D models, ...
    By the way, that article was one of my first contributions to Wikipedia, but I totally forgot about it. In its defense, let me note that it has been sitting there for 17 years, and none of the 10-12 editors who edited it seem to have been bothered by its existence...
    All the best,--Jorge Stolfi (talk) 01:01, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    2,895 views in the past 90 days. 104,010 since 2015, that as far back as can be searched. So someone is using this. Are there any textbooks that list this information? Dream Focus 01:27, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Besides the lack of sources I don't understand the point of the article and what it adds to the content at Digital image and Image file format. It contains a rather random assortment of facts and is not comprehensive or focused. Caleb Stanford (talk) 05:24, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Digital image, as per Dream Focus. MrsSnoozyTurtle 22:46, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into Digital image. WikiLinuz🍁(talk) 06:45, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Geschichte (talk) 08:33, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Patricio Luna

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:CREATIVE. Created by two SPAs who have been trying to get this into mainspace for a while... a draft was started at Draft:Patricio Luna, then abandoned and the article created directly in mainspace. Regarding the acting career, the only source is a link to iMDb (an unreliable source) which states that the subject only played a bit part in one episode of a telenovela, and wasn't even credited for it. The last source doesn't mention the subject at all – I assume he took the photo in the article, but there's no photo credit, and that wouldn't make him notable. All the remaining sources are in sources which are at first glance reliable, but on further investigation are just the same identical press release/promotional material spammed over various websites, complete with the subject's contact details at the bottom advertising for work. I cannot find any reliable sources at all for this subject. Richard3120 (talk) 18:26, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 21:03, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:56, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Chumpih. (talk) 22:03, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

German submarine U-2321 and 62 others

German submarine U-2321 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Looking at the impressive List of German Type XXIII submarines, each of these 63 submarines has its own page. And while the content on each page is perfectly fine and looks well-written, the pages appear mostly identical. Only a few specific details differ between the pages, with perhaps a few containing a little more detail in the service history. Pretty much all this content is already there over at the list page. Perhaps we should have separate pages just for those submarines which were especially noteworthy, i.e. satisfy WP:GNG Chumpih. (talk) 17:37, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy delete per G7 FASTILY 04:00, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Steelray

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

All sources I found are PR, passing mentions, non reliable, blogs, etc. MarioGom (talk) 15:59, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. The "keep" arguments were largely hollow and, as noted by the "delete" arguments, these individual events specifically do not live up to the requirements laid out by relevant notability guidelines due to the lack of necessary significant third-party coverage to justify separate articles. ✗plicit 01:21, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Alpine skiing at the 2012 Arctic Winter Games

Alpine skiing at the 2012 Arctic Winter Games (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

There doesn't seem to be the necessary notability to have individual articles for specific sports at these small, regional, junior games. I checked alpine skiing, dene, and table tennis, and it looks as if these have not been the subject of the necessary independent coverage, with even many gold medal winners not getting real attention.

Also nominated are

Fram (talk) 15:41, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong keep as the page creator of all of those as well as the pages from 2014, 2016 and 2018. The AWG are by no means small, attracting more athletes than some multi-sport events such as the Asian Winter Games, and about the same amount as other winter games such as European Youth Olympic Festival. It is not solely junior games, not that it's really an argument against. The fact that they are regional is a fair argument, however. That said, the games do cover three continents and include some of the largest countries on the planet (Russia, USA, Canada, Greenland), and is the largest of its kind in Arctic. It is the largest multi-sport event for indigenous Inuit sports too. I have taken several looks at WP:NSPORT and WP:EVENT while making these pages the past few months, and have found little indicating that these games are not notable. With no specific notability guidelines for multi-sport events, the multi-sport WP has one. Event articles are considered notable for articles in all notable games, according to that guideline. I very much see the AWG games as notable and don't see any reason to delete these pages. Kaffe42 (talk) 16:20, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That "guideline" you link to has no consensus (it isn't vetted for consensus, and not tagged as a policy or guideline); the guideline for these is WP:GNG (or WP:NEVENT, but in the end those need to meet WP:GNG anyway). The non-guideline you use is failing WP:NOTINHERITED badly: that the overarching event is notable (which I don't dispute) doesn't indicate that all sports within that event are notable as well. Fram (talk) 16:34, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree with Fram: while the games overall are most likely notable, the individual events appear to lack sufficient sourcing per WP:GNG to justify their own pages, that is to say significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Chumpih. (talk) 17:19, 20 December 2021 (UTC) + 2022-01-01[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Most "keep" opinions above aren't very substantive, as they provide little in the way of arguments or sources. Needs more discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 21:13, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete all Don't see any evidence that there was independent coverage of these events. The official website has full results pages like [10] and [11] but I don't see the notability that they should be copied into Wikipedia, especially since it appears all events were in the "Junior" or "Juvenile" classes. Even 2012 Arctic Winter Games is sourced to the official website only. That's quite the red herring to say the events "include some of the largest countries on the planet" when it's actually just some of the lowest-population parts that send participants. Reywas92Talk 18:31, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all, I see nothing that indicates the event was more than trivial. The competitors are completely unknown sportspeople, not warranting this level of detail. Geschichte (talk) 09:14, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all, while the games overall are likely notable, the individual events and participants are not (notability is not inherited et. al.). Instead, this looks like an unnecessary level of detail with (as Reywas pointed out) some serious sourcing issues. --SilverTiger12 (talk) 19:50, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 the hoax concerns appear to have been addressed, there is not a clear consensus that there's reliable source material at the moment. At the same time, there isn't a clear consensus to delete the article, and conversations about a rename, or redirect should continue editorially. Star Mississippi 16:38, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jangladesh

AfDs for this article:
Jangladesh (edit | talk | history | 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 topic—if not a hoax—is not notable. Not a single reliable source has bothered to document the existence of any such region. TrangaBellam (talk) 15:25, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

PS: the nearest thing that comes to it is a region known as "Janglu" - and also some titles for some local chiefs - see this Shyamal (talk) 15:23, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Rename as Jangaldesh as there is no reliable source for the spelling that rhymes with Bangladesh... Shyamal (talk) 05:07, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
PS: Struck out 'Delete' vote, as per discussion below. Sajaypal007 (talk) 13:22, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Kothiyal, Tanuja (2016). Nomadic Narratives: A History of Mobility and Identity in the Great Indian Desert. Cambridge University Press. pp. 28, 77, 78. ISBN 978-1-107-08031-7.
quotation

p. 28
A part of this desert was also addressed as ‘Jangal’, ‘Jangal Des’ or ‘Jangalu’ referring to the arid wilderness of the region. Contrasted with the neighbouring fertile plains of the Punjab rivers and the Indus, rich loamy lands of Gujarat and the thickly forested plateau of Malwa, its aridity renders a singularity to its character, that of a desert.
pp. 77–78
The kingdom of Bikaner was established in 1465, in the area that was traditionally known as Janglu.48 The fort-city of Bikaner was founded in 1488, in a place that was strategically located on a route that connected Punjab, Multan, Marwar, Delhi and Sindh. The control of this area seemed to have passed from one group to another and at the time of establishment of Bikaner. Johyas, Chauhans, Sankhlas, Parmars, Bhatis, Bhattis, Khichis, Chayals, Kyamkhanis and Jats were dominant groups and controlled large portions of this arid region.49 Several of these groups had accepted Islam but still seemed to maintain old associations, even continuing to enter into matrimonial alliances with their Hindu counterparts. In the 15th century, towards north and west of Janglu, Bhatis were still very strong and controlled all major forts including Pugal and Bhatner.50 Jats in this region saw Bika as a possible buffer between them and the Bhatis. Bika is believed to have intervened in ongoing disputes between Saran, Godara and Punia Jats, and eventually subjugated all of them. Nainsi describes Bika’s role in a dispute between Godaras and Sarans as follows,
The Saharans said, we will not be able to win, as Bikaji backs the Godaras. The Jats of Bhadang went to Narsinghdas Jatu, who brought his forces. When one hundred and forty Godaras were killed, they approached Bikaji, and told him that your Jats are being killed by Narsinghdas. At midnight half of the Jats of Bhadang approached Bikaji and told him that we will help you kill Narsinghdas. They took him to where Narsinghdas was asleep and Bikaji killed him. The Jat forces, fled, and Bikaji took all their cattle. Bikaji also killed Sonhar Jat at Harani Kheda.51

Its page nos. 57 and 76 also contain some relevant details about it, but I am not quoting them due to copyright issues. Note that I have just glanced through some pages of the above source, rather than reading them. And I am only posting here to show that this is not a hoax. So this needs a second look. But I guess we do need some coverage in other scholarly sources for meeting WP:GNG. - NitinMlk (talk) 20:47, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Partially agree with NitinMlk. As I already mentioned Jangladesh was real name of the region and it is no hoax. Rathores of Bikaner did subdue Jats of the area and took control of this region. The Bikaner Kingdom even in later times was called Jangal desh. As pointed out by @NitinMlk, there is problem of different spellings, in my opinion more common spelling is Jangal desh or Jangaldesh and not Jangladesh. Quick google book search for Jangal desh and Jangaldesh not Jangladesh gives quite a number of books mentioning it in relation with historical region. If I remember correctly, the rulers of Bikaner till later times were called Jangal dhar Badshah i.e. Lord of Jangaldesh. Sajaypal007 (talk) 12:49, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
My bad, it is not a hoax: was too confident to bother rechecking Kothiyal. That being said, GNG is not met: there is nothing to write apart from that in bardic chronicles, Rajasthan (or rather, a part of it) is frequently mentioned as Jangaldesh. TrangaBellam (talk) 20:53, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No, only a particular north-western region of Rajasthan (rather than the whole of it) is historically known by this name. A quick search at Google Books shows that this academic source also has some details about it. But I don't have access to it. Anyway, you are way better than me at searching sources. So please do have a look at them if you get some time. Thanks. - NitinMlk (talk) 21:07, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't get time to look at the Google books search results, but I have just looked at the other sources cited in the article. One of them contains a chapter authored by Dr. Jibraeil, who was an assistant professor of history at Aligarh Muslim University (AMU): [12]. His research was focused on Rajasthan and the revised version of his thesis was published by Routledge in 2018: [13]. So I guess his cited chapter seems fine with in-text attribution. I will check its content in a day or two. Note that he was one of the multiple AMU faculty members who died this year due to COVID-19: see [14], [15], [16], etc.
Sajaypal007, the article's title is not an issue, as the page can be moved to Jangal desh if that's its WP:COMMONNAME. This region is mentioned in many Rajasthan-related articles. So a short and well-sourced article would be helpful. But at the same time, we need inputs from someone who is well-versed in Rajasthan's history of that era. - NitinMlk (talk) 23:44, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
NitinMlk, I consider myself as having good grasp on Rajasthan History, did my graduation and PG in it. As I looked at more and more sources, I kind of think that my vote for deletion was made in haste, although I did mention that the region is mentioned as such in history books. Can I change my vote from delete to merely a comment, with more inputs I can make better decision. Although I am little busy for next couple of weeks, I will atleast list as many sources I can find on this below. Sajaypal007 (talk) 05:42, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Added 3-4 sources on Jangladesh page alongwith quotes, copy pasting those here, Jangal Desh[1][2][3][4] Dr Dasharatha Sharma was a famous historian from Rajasthan. Rima Hooja is also archaeologist turned Historian. Karni Singh was former Maharaja of Bikaner i.e. the same region which was called Jangal desh and he also studied history from Delhi University. K.R. Qanungo was also a historian and wrote many books. Here 1 another famous historian of Rajasthan G.N.Sharma mentioned Jangaldesh in his map. Another historian Ram Vallabh Somani 2 in his book Prithvi raj and his times mention the region of Jangal desh. If time permits, I will add more sources that mention the region. Sajaypal007 (talk) 06:30, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Just remembered, the famous Chirwa inscription of Guhilot prince Samarsimha, states that Jaitrasimha's (his grandfather) pride could not be curbed by rulers of Malwa, Gujarat, Maru and Jangala. Sajaypal007 (talk) 06:42, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sajaypal007, the WP:!VOTE can be changed whenever you want, and the AfD can be relisted if you need some more time. But I am not familiar with Rajasthan's history of that era. BTW, Jibraeil's chapter does have relevant details, which I will hopefully quote here tomorrow. - NitinMlk (talk) 19:42, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As the title indicates, Jibraeil's chapter is about the Churu region, rather than Jangaldesh, although Churu was part of Jangaldesh. Anyway, here's a relevant quote from the book:
quotation

After Chauhans, Jats completely established their supremacy and hold over administration in their own traditional fashion, which continued till the conquest of the region by the Rathors.23 The Jats claimed their right over the land which was under their possession before the Rathors occupied it and this claim was inherited by their descedants, who used to divide the land among themselves for cultivation. It appears probable that in the early period of their conquest the Rathors could not exercise any definite claim on the land as landlords. However, it was possible only in the 17th century,24 due to internal rivalries among the Jats, primarily Godaras surrendered, later on all the Jat clans accepted Rathor's suzerainty.25 After this, the rulers had strengthened their position and tightened their grip over the area.26
When Rathors led an expedition into the region of dry land also known as Jangal Pradesh, which was occupied by the Jats and various tribes, the Bhatis and Jats of the region wanted to secure their position, they measured sworded with him and fought bravely against them, but finally defeated and accepted Rathor suzerainty.27

- NitinMlk (talk) 20:28, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Churu and Bikaner were both part of Kingdom of Bikaner, Rathores since Rao Bika ruled over this part. So historically Churu is also considered as part of Jangal Pradesh. Sajaypal007 (talk) 13:27, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Long story short, Jangaldesh used to be the old name of a particular region in Rajasthan which was ruled by Jats, before felling to Bika. We know nothing except this. So, why not merge to History of Rajasthan? TrangaBellam (talk) 06:44, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with TrangaBellam. The term is very sparsely cited and, at best, deserves a mention somewhere. Not an article of its own. --RegentsPark (comment) 15:21, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Qanungo, Kalika Ranjan; Kānūnago, Kālikā Rañjana (1960). Studies in Rajput History. S. Chand. p. 60. whereas the Jats lived in the Jangal-desh (a portion of ancient Kuru-Jangal region), which covers Bikanir and some portion of the Jodhpur State.
  2. ^ Singh, Karni (1974). The Relations of the House of Bikaner with the Central Powers, 1465-1949. Munshiram Manoharlal Publishers. p. 12. ISBN 978-0-8364-0457-9. "The old name of the territories which went to constitute the Rathore principality of Bikaner, had been 'Jangal Desh'.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: date and year (link)
  3. ^ Hooja, Rima (2006). A History of Rajasthan. Rupa & Company. p. 6. ISBN 978-81-291-0890-6. In a different context, a part of the desert land now part of the administrative division of Bikaner was apparently known as 'Jangal' (also 'Jangal-desh).{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: date and year (link)
  4. ^ Sharma, Dasharatha (1966). Rajasthan Through the Ages: From the earliest times to 1316 A.D. Bikaner. pp. 287–288. There is good reason to believe that parts of the present north-eastern and north-western Rajasthan were inhabited by Jat clans ruled by their own chiefs and largely governed by their own customary law.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: date and year (link) CS1 maint: location missing publisher (link)
  • Comment -- I believe that "desh" means something like province. I do not know the distinction between it and pradesh (also province). However differences of name according to whether these words are added to the name Jangla and variations in the vowels (due to differences in transliteration and not significant. The footnotes seem to have quotations using the name, so that it seems to be real. On the otehtr hand I would caution against the expansion of this article beyond its current length. Peterkingiron (talk) 00:24, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 21:02, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:27, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sandstein 21:02, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Arnold (entrepreneur)

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

WP:SPIP Flagging this page for deletion on the grounds that person is not notable - all citations do not mention person (eg source 8,,9,14,15), most appear to be companies ran by person (e.g. source 1,6,9,11,12,13) or are just deadlinks (source 2). Mushroomroulette (talk) 15:01, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 23:58, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The SecDev Group

The SecDev Group (edit | talk | history | 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 references don’t suggest notability, it fails WP:CORP most of the contributors have been WP:SPA. Devokewater (talk) 15:11, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 21:01, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sandstein 21:01, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Rajesh Devraj

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

I found no significant coverage for this screenwriter/author. SL93 (talk) 02:15, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 04:59, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to generate consensus if the subject meets WP:CREATIVE through work on notable projects
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwaiiplayer (talk) 15:10, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sandstein 21:00, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Rafal Rohozinski

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

Have gone through all the references + have googled him can’t find thing that suggests notability, fails WP:GNG, the article is a CV, it has been mainly edited by numerous WP:SPA. Devokewater (talk) 15:03, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak delete The wiki-notability case is not very good. For example, once you dig under the initially-decent-seeming numbers at Google Scholar, there are misclassifications that bring the figures down (e.g., somehow he gets credit for a review that someone else wrote of a book he co-edited). He was involved with multiple books that appear to have attracted moderately substantial numbers of citations, but as a co-editor, not an author. So, it's hard to argue for a pass of WP:AUTHOR or WP:PROF on those grounds. The LinkedIn-quality writing is a good reason either to cut nearly all the text or to blow up the whole thing. XOR'easter (talk) 17:38, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 16:00, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sallent, Coll de Nargó

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

Locality fails WP:GEOLAND due to lack of legal recognition or significant coverage. Sourcing consists of maps and tables which are specifically excluded from establishing notability per WP:NGEO. –dlthewave ☎ 17:51, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

SportingFlyer How do those tables show that it meets GEOLAND? As I mentioned in the nom, tables do not establish notability. –dlthewave ☎ 13:19, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Those are the census population tables, demonstrating legal recognition; if you'd like something which discusses the place, you may want to check out this beautiful website: [20] SportingFlyer T·C 13:27, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I have added content with references and there is more that can be added. There is no way that any real BEFORE can have been carried out here - apparently a POINT-y nomination. Ingratis (talk) 01:43, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to evaluate article improvements
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwaiiplayer (talk) 14:55, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 18:48, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Vocality International

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

PRODded with the reason enough to avoid an A7, but a BEFORE identifies only churnalism and PR about this company's acquisition, nothing to establish ORG notability but correctly declined (courtesy @Salvidrim!:) as I missed a 2006 prod in the deleted history. My reasons for deletion remain the same, I just don't think this hits the notability bar. Star Mississippi 14:33, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 15:58, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. (discussion is Leaning keep given the links in the comment). It’d be helpful if someone integrated some of the references into the text of the article. Chaser (talk) 23:26, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Global Leadership Foundation

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

No significant coverage. The article is currently unreferenced and has external links to two interviews and a YouTube video. SL93 (talk) 20:47, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:47, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwaiiplayer (talk) 14:19, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Chaser (talk) 00:48, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

TwiGIS

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

I don't see what makes this software notable, I don't see significant coverage. Mvqr (talk) 13:51, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Geschichte (talk) 10:41, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Homer Nearing

Homer Nearing (edit | talk | history | 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 itself has no sources. I was able to the listing of him getting his Ph.D. here [29], and I found a few citations to hius work in google scholar, but not nearly enough to pass the number 1 prong in academic notability. I was able to find that his listed work does exist from worldcat, although you have to be careful because his father with the same name was also a published writer, but in the field of music. I was able to find no secondary sources that actually discussed Nearing, just primary sources that showed that he existed, or that someone with this name existed who seems to maybe be the same person. John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:49, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I updated the article with more info and citations to show his notability as a SF author, including his obituary in Locus Magazine and reviews of his work. Also worth noting this subject has an entry in The Encyclopedia of Science Fiction, which is an excellent indicator of notability.--SouthernNights (talk) 15:26, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 00:36, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep. Academic notability is not there (the distinguished professorship doesn't count; it was a bequest from his estate, not an honor given to him). But I think there is a case for author notability through major publisher attention, reviews, and inclusion in reference works. And the improvement from the stubby unsourced state of the article to its current version with considerable sourced detail about both his fiction and his life makes this worth keeping. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:56, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, for the reasons given above. But also merely for encyclopaedic interest of our readers: although I agree with David Eppstein's comment about the distinguished professorship, presumably future holders of the Homer C. Nearing, Jr. Distinguished Professorship will be eligible for Wikipedia articles themselves, and to be described as such in their own articles, in which case some of our readers are going to wonder who Homer C. Nearing, Jr., actually was. We owe it to them to tell them. (to clarify: endowing a chair shouldn't automatically confer notability, but if someone's half-way notable and teetering on the brink, to my mind endowing a chair could tip the balance based on the needs of our readers' curiosity). Elemimele (talk) 12:32, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:NAUTHOR and WP:HEY. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 17:22, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Outline of Jammu and Kashmir. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 07:58, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of Jammu and Kashmir–related articles

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

Redundant list article. It can be redirected to Outline of Jammu and Kashmir. DTM (talk) 13:39, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. What a mess. First off, this AfD is a good indication that when a set of things in a category may reasonably be expected to have differing levels of notability, a mass AfD is a bad idea. Further, there's a lot of poor argument here. WP:GEOLAND exists because legally recognized places will generally have received substantive coverage in reliable secondary sources, but that coverage may often be inaccessible. This is particularly true outside the anglosphere. This doesn't necessarily mean every legally recognized place needs to have an article, but at the least an exhaustive search is needed to determine a lack of notability. Several !votes here obviously were not backed by such a search. Conversely, referring to a previous AfD isn't helpful when the topics are obviously different, and as such I am disregarding entirely any comments that did so. Further, even notable topics do not necessarily required a standalone article, per WP:NOPAGE. As such there's not as much engagement with the substance of this issue as I'd like, but nonetheless there's consensus here that at least Akuşağı, Baskil requires a standalone page; that the other titles meet WP:GEOLAND; and that the other titles require a case-by-case discussion at the very least if mergers are considered. Vanamonde (Talk) 01:14, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Aladikme, Baskil

Aladikme, Baskil (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Alangören, Baskil (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Altunuşağı, Baskil (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Aşağıkuluşağı, Baskil (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Beşbölük, Baskil (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Bilaluşağı, Baskil (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Bozoğlak, Baskil (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Deliktaş, Baskil (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Demirlibahçe, Baskil (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Doğancık, Baskil (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Düğüntepe, Baskil (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Işıklar, Baskil (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Kadıköy, Baskil (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Karaali, Baskil (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I redirected these geostubs sourced to Koyumuz per these discussions [30][31][32], but was reverted because they have a second source which adds the phrase "The village is populated by Kurds." I propose that these articles be redirected to Baskil district as well, since the additional information is extremely trivial and is already found in a table at the target article. As always I have no objection to keeping any of these if reliable sources and non-trivial content are added. –dlthewave ☎ 12:51, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lugnuts, you've only pinged the participants who !voted Keep. This looks a lot like canvassing. –dlthewave ☎ 13:13, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Stop pinging me and posting on my talkpage. I've never met a more disingenuous user than you. Thanks. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 13:15, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Pinging additional participants @Darth Mike and FOARP:. I disagree that participants in a different AfD should be notified, but if we're going to do it then we need to notify all of them. –dlthewave ☎ 13:22, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"Keep per previous outcome" is only valid is these articles are similarly expanded; without such expansion, this !vote has no legs. wjematherplease leave a message... 14:58, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all per Lugnuts. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:03, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect All per the previous, very well-attended AFD and ANI discussions on this exact topic. FOARP (talk) 13:37, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Okay I'm gonna be quite honest about this, it's starting to piss me off. I can already tell this is going to end up as a trainwreck. People here seem to think that all Turkish mahalles/villages get about the same coverage, which is false. If you take a look at the Düzce District template, you can see that while going from top to bottom, I've converted Akyazı into an article, but Altınpınar and Asar are still a redirect, and then Aydınpınar is converted as well. This notability shit differs from village to village (I though people knew this but oh well). So you can't take the consensus of an AfD about Mahalles in Aziziye and apply them to every fucking Turkish geostub in existence and proceed to hope for the best and you can never, ever see an AfD and immediately !vote "Redirect all" without even an hour passing of the nomination. I doubt a WP:BEFORE was done and also doubt anyone else made a search. This is should probably be closed as a procedural keep before we turn this into a clusterfuck of a situation. ~StyyxTalk? ^-^ 14:29, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect all So you're concerned about a quick "redirect all" !vote but not that all of these were made within minutes of each other themselves? Where was the BEFORE when these were created to have better sources than a weather site and a list of names in a footnote? The clusterfuck is that users mass-create thousands of pages at once without prior approval of sources and methods – in violation of Wikipedia:Bot_policy#Mass_page_creation – but then the rest of us are expected to do the work of finding sources or discussing them one at a time. Reywas92Talk 14:52, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect all to the parent district (no merge required), per WP:MERGEREASON, where all content can be better presented for our readers. Irrespective of any notability and sourcing issues, there is entirely insufficient content to justify standalone articles here. No prejudice to restoring as standalone articles on a case-by-case basis as and when such content can be created from adequate reliable sources. Perhaps a wider-audience RFC is needed to establish a community consensus solution to dealing with these minimally sourced "this place exists" geo-stubs rather than circling round the redirect-revert-AFD tree for each one (or batch), with almost identical comments being made every time by the same contributors? wjematherplease leave a message... 14:58, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment from a neutral outsider. There seems to be a huge discrepancy between policy on locations in the US and policy on locations everywhere else at AfD. When yet another railway siding with a grain silo in Illinois gets nominated for deletion, there's a good-natured hunt in ancient newspapers, and if someone finds a reference that a genuine human once called this home, the article is kept, even if the reference is merely a newspaper clipping that a little old lady gave Nowhereville as her address when reporting a lost dog. Nothing needs to have happened there; just it has to have been, once, an inhabited place, even if only inhabited by one person who never did anything notable. Meanwhile whole villages and towns elsewhere are deleted even though it's blatantly obvious they're inhabited places (and it's utterly hopeless trying to retain an article on a very substantial new town in the middle east). I have no idea what our policy on locations actually is, (and nor apparently does anyone else), because it seems to vary with the nationality of the location. It would be great if things were more consistent, and a consistent policy might save a lot of ill-feeling. For my part, I agree with Wjemather Elemimele (talk) 15:13, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect all to the parent district (no merge required), per WP:MERGEREASON, as Wjemather states. Should anyone care to put the work into turning any of these sub-stubs into actual articles, they can do so. Since neither the article creator nor anyone else seems to be motivated to do so, a district article is a perfectly proper place for these redirects. That being said, the keep argument presented so far is utterly specious: Wikipedia is run by consensus, not by precedent in a single AfD. It remains, per relevant guidelines and policies, not the responsibility of editors to prove that significant coverage does not exist, but the responsibility of editors who seek to keep the articles to prove that it does.

    Further, User:Lugnuts would be well advised to tone down the canvassing and the hostility -- far from it being objectionable to write to his talk page, as he seems to feel it is [33], it was the nom's duty to do so. Nor is it objectionable for a nominator to withdraw the nom if during the course of the AfD the articles are improved enough to pass notability standards; wouldn't we all wish that editors were motivated to properly source articles, and for nominators to graciously acknowledge that when it happened? Ravenswing 15:20, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

When the nom has been asked multiple times not to post on my talkpage, it's probably wise not to do so. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 15:22, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
... so if you'd happen to find, down the road, that these articles were deleted and/or redirected without your knowledge or input, you'd be fine with that? Ravenswing 15:27, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
But they wouldn't be without my knowledge. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 17:11, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ravenswing Just going to cut you off for "Since neither the article creator nor anyone else seems to be motivated to do". I've done this a week ago for geostubs of Düzce, I'm currently doing this for the above and even have done it for Akuşağı and Aladikme. It doesn't take more than 30 minutes per article, that's why I'm finding these immediate "Redirect all"s unconstructive... ~StyyxTalk? ^-^ 15:30, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Splendid. Feel free to ping me when you're done, I'll take a look at the articles, and if satisfied that the sources you find contribute significant coverage to the subjects (as opposed to the refbombing that all too often crown such efforts), I'll change my vote. As far as you finding this unconstructive, well: had you done any work improving these articles before this AfD? (That being said, the nomination was scarcely more knee-jerk than the speed with which Lugnuts created these sub-stubs, something for which he's been admonished at ANI already [34]. Ravenswing 15:38, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I obviously don't know every Turkish village out of the top of my head, so I see this stuff only when they land on WP:DSTURKEY. ~StyyxTalk? ^-^ 15:41, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Here comes the mass ping: Dlthewave, FOARP, Reywas92, Wjemather, Elemimele, Ravenswing, GoodDay and Nigej! All have been expanded, some obviously less than others (as I expected). Akuşağı, Aladikme, Altunuşağı, Beşbölük, Doğancık, Kadıköy and Karaali have clear legal recognition (expanded with text showing government projects). Bilaluşağı is also reasonably expanded with the university source and 2000 census of the governement (though I was told you can't use a census to establish legal recognition, which I find stupid, but policy is policy). All of the articles now have at least 3 sources. ~StyyxTalk? ^-^ 08:49, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Personally I'd still rather see them as redirects to the parent district. Per WP:N, even if a topic passes GNG (which is still not 100% clear to me) "This is not a guarantee that a topic will necessarily be handled as a separate, stand-alone page. Editors may use their discretion to merge or group two or more related topics into a single article." and I'm of that view, that many of these stub-type articles would be more useful to users if they were covered at Baskil, which is still, itself, very bare, with the villages as redirects there. Not everything needs an article and such articles with little prospect of useful expansion are good examples IMO. Nigej (talk) 09:34, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sorry, but I agree with Nigej; the encyclopedic info can be better presented in the district article. In addition, much of the expansion is filler content/trivia which creates some undue recentism issues. As such, there is not enough for me to change my !vote. wjematherplease leave a message... 12:53, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm nowhere close to agreeing with the above. At least 7 of these meet GEOLAND. ~StyyxTalk? ^-^ 12:56, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
To be clear, passing the ultra low-bar of GEOLAND in and of itself is not sufficient justification for having a standalone article. If the available (non-trivia) information can be better presented in an article on a wider topic or a list article, then we should do that. wjematherplease leave a message... 13:09, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, WP:GEOLAND says that "Populated, legally recognized places are typically presumed to be notable" but one of the purposes of AfDs such as this is to decide whether the "typically presumed" applies and, as I noted above, it's quite clear from WP:N that, even if a "populated, legally recognized place" is notable, then editors can use "their discretion to merge or group two or more related topics into a single article", which I'm assuming we're deciding by consensus here. Nigej (talk) 14:47, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The articles on the villages I mention above include pretty reliable sources and have reasonably been expanded. All of them have a population in three digits, and I see no reason for them to not have their own article. ~StyyxTalk? ^-^ 17:12, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. Apart from the fact that I'm not at all convinced that these articles pass GNG, my view is that our readers will find it much more useful to have a good article at Baskil rather than 50 of these stubs with little or no in-depth content. The tribe information is already there, the population can readily be added, and the rest of the content is largely trivia, but some could be added to the Baskil article, with individual villages having a short section. The whole article would still not be overly long. Nigej (talk) 17:30, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
So you're saying that there's little to no content, and to fix that, more content should be cut and merged, and that would make it have more content? I don't understand your logic. One article being bigger size-wise does not mean there is more content. Dege31 (talk) 20:38, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Styyx: Make that two reliable sources for most of them, since they still cite Koyumuz which is the reason they were redirected in the first place. –dlthewave ☎ 16:47, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
To be honest I think the info on Koyumuz is pretty accurate. I've swapped the 2012 population on Koyumuz with the official census of 2000 in many articles since you asked me to on my talk page, and I'm not seeing unbelievable things/changes related. The only time it was off by some margin was here, which still doesn't seem unbelievable to me since I've seen the exact thing happen in my hometown (5000+ to 3000). ~StyyxTalk? ^-^ 17:12, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be okay with keeping ones with substantive information and sources addressing the place, but they can also be covered within the main article. Those articles made in bulk should be redirected in bulk – anyone can recreate with further content without an AFD driving it. Reywas92Talk 19:19, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm gritting my teeth saying it, @Styyx:, because it's plain you put some effort into finding sources and to save the articles. But I'm just not looking at WP:SIGCOV, IMHO; I'm looking at trivia. That a village has a primary school, that snowfalls make winter travel hard, that elliptical eggplants are grown near one, that a building in honor of a local policeman was halted through lack of funds, that there are old graves near one (heck, I live in an area that's been settled a twentieth as long as Turkey has, and you can hardly take a stroll without tripping over an old cemetery) ... these are all bits of trivia that would be deleted out of the average town article. I'd want to see more substantial information before independent articles could be sustained, and at least a redirect preserves the article in the event that happens. Ravenswing 19:51, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I never aimed for SIGCOV, the objective has always been GEOLAND#1. Having a schoo regulated by the ministry is supposed to mean it's legally recognized. ~StyyxTalk? ^-^ 16:30, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect all, then any articles that actually have substantial coverage can be recreated from there. I agree with Ravenswing et al that coverage for some exists, but if it's not encyclopedic then how can it genuinely count towards notability? JoelleJay (talk)
  • Merge Styyx's information, where encyclopaedic, into the district article, and then redirect to the district. It's not okay simply to redirect without merging. Although I sympathise with Ravenswing's position, I wouldn't go so far. Yup, snow in winter is trivial, but the ancient graves are definitely relevant to readers, who may legitimately be interested in the region's prehistory. Even the primary school counts, if the other villages don't have primary schools. The district has an area of 516 square miles, which means in my country it would expect to have about 170 primary schools. If, in fact, it has only one, this says quite a lot about the distances travelled by kids to get to school, the social challenges of education, and the social situation of the area, and is therefore of encyclopaedic interest. If there are 30 other primary schools in the district, less so... Styyx, what's the situation? Is this school especially unusual? I still believe there's a huge discrepancy between how we're treating settlements in the US, and how we treat them elsewhere, which is extremely unhelpful. Elemimele (talk) 13:40, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The total number of schools in the whole district according to the ministry is 4 high, 6 middle and 7 primary schools. The school in Aladikme was "Kerik", but now is closed. The current one is "Mustafa Bilbay", but I don't feel the need to specifically mention the name. Also made a mistake as it's both a primary and a middle school. Also Kadıköy appearently has a high school I didn't notice. ~StyyxTalk? ^-^ 16:30, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I certainly share Styyx’s sentiment about this. We’ve had over a decade of experience working on Turkish geostubs over on Turkish Wikipedia. I’ll be happy to share some of those insights and look at these articles individually if it actually helps, but I find it very telling that people who don’t speak a word of Turkish think it’s a good idea to mass nominate these articles, regardless of how they were created, or make broad comments about content not being encyclopaedic, with the said content including details about the geographical area surrounding the village or the village having a school (which anyone with an inkling of insight on Turkish countryside would agree constitutes encyclopaedic knowledge). This speaks volumes about the level of systemic bias at play here and is frankly very disheartening. —GGT (talk) 00:14, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Ugh, no. That's a card played all too often by people on Wikipedia unhappy at seeing their pet projects disturbed. There are, in fact, no separate set of notability guidelines pertaining to the Turkish countryside (other than what may prevail on the Turkish WP, which has zero bearing on practices and standards on any other national WP, this one included), nor are participants in a particular Wikiproject granted vetoes over their "own" articles. Villages have schools and cemeteries all over the world, and the mere existence of the same does not confer notability. Ravenswing 03:20, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    This comment is so full of straw men. What pet project? Where am I claiming that editors should have a veto over “their own” articles? WP:NOTINHERITED bears literally no relation to what we’re talking about (no one is claiming that notability is inherited by being associated with… what, a non-notable school?), peppering comments with random links does not make them stronger. Part of the crux of the argument to delete rests upon the presumption that even if there is content about these villages, it’s not encyclopaedic (I’ll address the whole GEOLAND/MERGEREASONS issue in another comment). That’s simply untrue. I don’t care that lots of villages around the world have schools, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a valid argument to delete. The topic here is whether there’s any encyclopaedic value to mentioning the fact that villages in Turkey have schools, and the answer is yes because many villages in Turkey don’t have schools and this is actually a major issue there. The village with the cemetery has one that is dated to the Seljuk times, that means it’s at least from the 13th century. Lots of villages in Turkey have Ottoman cemeteries, such that a national newspaper wouldn’t usually care about reporting on them, yet Seljuk cemeteries are rare (and encyclopaedic) and thus this village made it to national news. People here are making broad statements based on their own experiences (such as the fact that their area has lots of cemeteries!). Well, I’m sorry but the all-seeing eye of the Anglophone editor doesn’t suffice here, context matters and you will miss the nuances unless you have the cultural literacy to comment on this in context or take the time to do the necessary reading around these issues. —GGT (talk) 06:57, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    All we are really interested in is whether there is sufficient significant coverage with which to build a standalone article; if not there is a more than adequate parent article to list basic details. Name-drops of villages in news stories because something happens to occur in, or be located in, the vicinity (and sometimes that could be a dozens of miles/kms away, so not actually anywhere near the place) do nothing more than confirm existence; adding those stories to the articles tells us nothing about the villages themselves and in some cases is undue. Some of this stuff may be encyclopedic, but it's often not actually about the village concerned, so would actually be better covered within the district article. wjematherplease leave a message... 10:39, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Wjemather: That’s a very reasonable concern. I’m planning to choose one of these articles to work on and then address this point in my !vote. Regards. —GGT (talk) 14:02, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Where am you claiming that editors should have a veto over “their own” articles? When you state outright that you think speaking the Turkish language should be a prerequisite for both nominating Turkish-related articles for deletion (which, by the bye, has not actually happened here) or commenting on the same. And never mind the absurdity of your inference that Anatolia lacks cemeteries in profusion -- what, are you alleging that neither Turks nor Greeks bury their dead? Own your own statements. Ravenswing 13:36, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all per Lugnuts. --Victor Trevor (talk) 10:43, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Lugnuts didn't actually make any argument to keep these articles. He merely referenced an AFD discussion where sufficient sourcing had been found to keep the specific article that was nominated, which is a very common outcome at AFD. Regardless of whether he put an "(!)" into his comment, this means nothing for the present discussion. FOARP (talk) 14:06, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all. All current and historical villages (i.e. all places that are currently or have historically been recognised as a köy) in Turkey should be regarded as notable as per WP:GEOLAND, for reasons I'll explain below. If there is no consensus on this, in the light of my work on Akuşağı, that article should be kept and the rest should be procedurally kept without prejudice to any future nomination. This will be a long post so I apologise, but it is a nuanced subject and we are potentially setting a precedent for thousands of villages.
  • As far as I can see, the arguments for redirection/merging have two bases in guidelines:
    • WP:MERGEREASON per the #3 "shortness" criterion. Note that this isn't actually a guideline and thus holds less weight. Despite what has been argued above, this criterion cannot be applied regardless of notability. As stated right underneath this in WP:NOTMERGE, merging should be avoided for three reasons, and all three are met in this case. These topics can be expanded into longer stand-alone articles, as demonstrated by Akuşağı (#2); the topics may well warrant their own articles per the GNG/SNGs (#3). Concerns have been raised that content about sites that are not located in the village itself but in the area may be undue in village articles and may be better handled in district articles. I disagree with this line of argument on two grounds: 1) Merging all encyclopaedic information from the village articles (irrespective of the subjective, culturally insensitive comments about the material) would render the Baskil district article too clunky (see NOTMERGE #1) and give undue weight to the villages rather than the actual town. 2) Historical sites found within the bounds of a settlement are often handled in that settlement's article regardless of a lack of continuity (see History of Milton Keynes for a good example) and can be well-integrated into these articles with due editorial care, as I have done in the case of Akuşağı.
    • Overturning the presumption of notability provided by WP:GEOLAND as these villages are argued to fail WP:GNG. This is a puzzling argument; the language used in GEOLAND#1 ("Populated, legally recognized places are typically presumed to be notable, even if their population is very low."), which covers these articles, is the same as the language used on GNG (i.e. presumption but no guarantee of notability). There is nothing to indicate that one essentially overrides the other.
    • At any rate, the guideline presumes the notability of these places and thus places the burden of proof to presume otherwise on the delete/redirect/merge !voters. I would be inclined to accept this line of argument if all practicable steps to investigate an article's notability were taken and failed. That simply isn't the case here. It's clear that WP:BEFORE hasn't been met for any of these articles, indeed, I doubt any of the merge/redirect !voters have bothered to run a Google search on them. Many of the sources I found for Akuşağı are national Turkish newspapers, I would expect any decent Google News search to identify these sources. This is the bare minimum, but in order to overturn a presumption of notability, I would expect more. Turkish village geostubs are a perennial issue on tr.wiki, and in our experience it is almost always possible for the dedicated editor to find sources on them (I'll refer to this article as an example), but allow me to detail some of the issues:
      • There are few Turkish villages that haven't had changes to their names in the past century, and this has to be accounted for in the search strategy.
      • A lot of Turkish villages are covered in sources that are not written in Turkish but in other languages (I haven't carried out a Kurdish-language seach for Akuşağı, which is a Kurdish village). These languages often use different alphabets, e.g. Armenian, Georgian (see the example I provided), Greek, Russian or Arabic.
      • Even if you are purely looking at Turkish-language sources, Turkey had an alphabet reform in the 1920s so you have to account for that.
      • Turkish newspapers are crap at digitising their historical archives. There are only two national newspapers with fully digitised archives. Local papers? Don't even think about them, some of the currently published ones aren't online anyway, and there are a lot of historical, short-lived ones.
      • There are a lot of offline sources that discuss these villages (e.g. village reports of the Interior Ministry in the 1960s, Ottoman publications, ethnographic works, local history books - see the example article above) that haven't been digitised at all - you wouldn't be able to see even snippets on Google Books.
    • So a sufficiently detailed search to establish non-notability would require a detailed search using various names/languages and probably a visit to a Turkish library. You don't have the resources to do that? Then presume that it's notable per GEOLAND#1 and please mind your bias.
  • If there is no consensus on the points above, it's clear based on my work on Akuşağı that 1) that article meets GNG, 2) WP:BEFORE hasn't been met and 3) all the other articles need to be individually scrutinised as it's clearly impossible to do a proper GNG check on 12 articles at the same time.
  • --GGT (talk) 22:06, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Just a note that I've now nominated Akuşağı, Baskil for DYK. --GGT (talk) 00:50, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all based on superb work by User:Styx and a definitive analysis by User:GGT. I'm hoping this may see the end of these futile / point-y nominations. Ingratis (talk) 19:25, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all per pretty much all of my above comments and per GGT. ~StyyxTalk? ^-^ 19:59, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • As much as I'd love to simply close this as "keep all", I'm not going to cause a row. But I will remove the AfD template from Akuşağı, Baskil, which obviously passes the GNG and is on its way to the front page, thanks to GGT. Drmies (talk) 01:00, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, Drmies. I must note that Cyberbot seems to be very insistent on reinstating that AfD template. :) --GGT (talk) 13:47, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Despite the work, I'm still of the view that readers would be better served by having a good article at the Baskil level. As I noted above, even if some of the villages might pass GNG we can still decide to have one good article rather than a lot of bad ones. Demirlibahçe, Baskil still says nothing. Even Akuşağı, Baskil is largely full of padding, there's little real content. Sadly the much more important article about Baskil, the town and the district, is still just a list of the villages. Effort has gone into all the wrong articles. Better 1 good article than 50 poor ones. Nigej (talk) 21:00, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Why is it not possible to expand information on the district article without removing additional information? Dege31 (talk) 21:07, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The total useful content in all the village articles would easily fit into the district article. I'm not talking about removing it. I'm talking about consolidating it into one article which would be much more useful for our readers. This obsession with creating large numbers of articles with little or no content is not what an encyclopedia is about. Nigej (talk) 21:16, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    What rationale, guideline or policy are you using to determine what's useful content here? I can't tell why you consider eg. Akuşağı, Baskil "largely full of padding". Dege31 (talk) 21:41, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The very highest, ie WP:N. As I noted above "Per WP:N, even if a topic passes GNG (which is still not 100% clear to me) "This is not a guarantee that a topic will necessarily be handled as a separate, stand-alone page. Editors may use their discretion to merge or group two or more related topics into a single article." and I'm of that view". Per padding eg "Some inhabitants attempted to sell their apricot orchards to no success" This is simply not encyclopedic content. Read the local paper if you want this sort of stuff. Nigej (talk) 21:47, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all: Per Lugnuts. In addition, I think that Kadıköy, Baskil especially needs to be kept given that it has a substantial amount of sources and citations. All these articles, at least, have a little useful information in them that qualifies them as notable. Sincerely, Dunutubble (talk) 19:05, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Nigej:: 'Per padding eg "Some inhabitants attempted to sell their apricot orchards to no success" This is simply not encyclopedic content. Read the local paper if you want this sort of stuff.' That's funny. It's actually from a national newspaper... Do you have any policy justification at all for this type of comment? --GGT (talk) 01:14, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
A point of reference for the "ideal" village article might help, and yes, I know WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is a thing, but surely there must be an established way in which articles on villages are written. Navenby is an English village with FA status. The article talks about a local baker with his Lincolnshire plum pudding, a butchers' shop, the local Stagecoach service only running once on a Sunday, the village primary school, a phone box, the local juniors' football team... It also happens to contain fewer references to national press than Akuşağı. Don't get me wrong, I actually quite like that area of England and enjoyed reading that article. The only problem is, equivalent material cannot be FA material in England and "padding" in Turkey. What people here call "padding", "not encyclopaedic" is just how articles on villages are and should be written on Wikipedia. Sorry for badgering on, that's my final comment. --GGT (talk) 01:41, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Many UK inhabited places (and uninhabited ones too) should be consolidated, removing much of the non-encyclopedic content. What some of us find unsavoury is that the only reason there's been any editing of these articles is that they've been nominated for deletion, in some desperate attempt to keep them. The plain truth is that if these articles had been anything like Navenby they'd never have been nominated for deletion. Let's consolidate them into the parent for now and if someone in the future creates so much content on a specific village that the parent article becomes unwealdy then that content can be moved into a separate article. IMO that is a better approach for our readers than creating meaningless stubs for every village in the world. Nigej (talk) 07:32, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The point of AfD isn't to just delete everything nominated. Articles improving instead of being deleted is positive. Dege31 (talk) 14:24, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Geschichte (talk) 07:52, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jennie Eisenhower

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

Fails WP:GNG. Had a few minor roles, was cited in WaPo, but her main claim to fame (and the reason she has multiple puff pieces) is that she's related to two presidents. That does not add up to notability. Kleuske (talk) 12:39, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

.....and many, many more.
Suffice to say, it's clear she passes WP:GNG. Missvain (talk) 02:38, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for all these links! I know it's Christmas, but if anyone has time, it would be great to add information from these articles to Eisenhower's entry. Only two of them are already cited. Happy editing! -- Ssilvers (talk) 04:28, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
User:Ssilvers - I'll drop them on the talk page. Missvain (talk) 17:58, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oops, looks like you already did! Missvain (talk) 17:59, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 07:57, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Popspoken

Popspoken (edit | talk | history | 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 unreferenced and shows no evidence of meeting GNG JonnyDKeen (talk) 11:59, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. ✗plicit 12:04, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Liberia–Spain relations

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

These relations don't seem to be notable. Philosophy2 (talk) 03:45, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 04:17, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:38, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per sources of Pilaz. Also found these from when Spain controlled Bioko and was involved with slave trade with Liberia. Definitely a relationship of encyclopedic importance!

References

  1. ^ Sundiata, I. K. (1974). "Prelude to Scandal: Liberia and Fernando Po, 1880-1930". The Journal of African History. 15 (1): 97–112. ISSN 0021-8537.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. The consensus seems to be that there is insufficient independent coverage by reliable sources. 28bytes (talk) 08:07, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Matrixport

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

WP:PROMO. Hence, calling for an AfD discussion. - Hatchens (talk) 07:53, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:36, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:03, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete WP:NCORP requires multiple sources (at least two) of deep or significant coverage with in-depth information *on the company* and (this bit is important!) containing "Independent Content". "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. That means, nothing that relies on company information or announcements or interviews, etc. None of the references in the article meet the criteria. They are either standard business listings or short articles based on an "announcement" by the company - all of the articles I can find are within the company's echo chamber and I have been unable to find any "Independent Content" as per ORGIND. Topic fails WP:NCORP. HighKing++ 17:04, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: let's try once more now that we're clear of the holidays
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 21:23, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per HighKing's accurate analysis. Cullen328 (talk) 23:38, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, Meets WP:NCORP Matrixport is mentioned, discussed or featured in a number of RS sources (including Forbes, Fortune, Bloomberg News and Crowdfund insider) - these articles do not appear to me to be simply republishing press releases. Deathlibrarian (talk) 08:49, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hi Deathlibrarian, you've mentioned a number of publications - for example Forbes, written by a staff member, which you say is more than a republished press release. Perhaps you could point to the part of that article which meets the WP:ORGIND section of WP:CORPDEPTH, in particular, the part I quoted above about "Independent Content"? Much obliged, thank you. HighKing++ 18:17, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well, there's quite a few - In this Swissinfo article, the second part of the article is some commentary on the company This article - discusses Matrixport's fund raising, and how its the company is valued at more than $1 billion This Bloomberg article discusses Matrixport being spun off Bitmain, and goes into the financial details - This Nikkei Asia article discusses cryptocurrency in Singapore, and Matrixport is discussed as part of that, this article, the first half relates to a press release, but the second part discusses the origins of Matrixport. There's others. These aren't just simple re-releases of press releases, or straight interviews, they are staff written commentary discussing Matrixport (sometimes mixed with information from a press release, which there is of course nothing wrong with). In addition, the first part of this Forbes article appears to be related to a press release, but the second part appears to be staff written commentary about the company. Overall, the commentary here in this RS for this company clearly goes beyond "Trivial or incidental coverage" and so easily meets WP:CORPDEPTH Deathlibrarian (talk) 22:25, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • There's no "Independent Content" in any of those articles. The "commentary" is simply rewording whatever announcement they're "reporting" on. If there wasn't an announcement then we wouldn't see several other articles in different publications all publishing and regurgitating the same "news". That isn't "Independent Content". Looking at the references you've listed:
          • The Swissinfo article is clearly based on a company announcement - for example here is one article dated the day before and here are a couple of other articles with the same date covering the same announcement. I cannot identify much by way of "Independent Content" in any one of there and therefore they fail WP:ORGIND.
          • Same observation on the "Deal Street Asia" article covering the topic company's raising of $100m and reaching "unicorn" status - same date, covering the same detail, no "Independent Content and also fails ORGIND.
          • The Bloomberg reference is also covering the same announcement. You say it "goes into the financial details" - all of the articles do but the Bloomberg article is also relying on information from the CEO Ge Yuesheng. Also fails ORGIND.
          • The Nikkei Asia article does not discuss anything about Matrixport (based on the link you included). They're mentioned in the tag line but the "article" is a single sentence. Is that the correct link to the article you're referring to?
          • The livemint article is actually based on this Bloomberg story (cos it says it right under the "2 min read" tagline) which in turn is based entirely on an interview with the new CEO Ge Yuesheng. So which it may not be based on a press release, neither does it contain "Independent Content" as per ORGIND, therefore fails ORGIND. In addition, same details with the same dates appear in other publications as we've seen before.
          • Finally, you reference a "Forbes" article but you link to a "Fortune" article. This article consists of a summary of the previous raising of capital (see the "unicorn" articles above) followed by a recounting of the details provided by the CEO Ge Yuesheng in an interview. That is not "Independent Content", fails ORGIND.
        You say that although an article may be "sometimes mixed with information from a press release", you haven't highlighted anything (paragraph number?) from those articles which meets *both* CORPDEPTH and ORGIND at the same time. Sure, there might be a single throwaway comment in an article that can't be tracked back to an announcement but that's a long way from the standard requires of references that may be used to establish notability. You highlight that the publications are RS and contain more that trivial or incidental coverage but you're ignoring ORGIND, especially the "Independent Content" aspect. As per WP:SIRS, each reference much meet all the criteria, so even if an article (as you say) meets RS and CORPDEPTH, if the in-depth parts aren't "Independent Content", the article fails ORGIND and therefore WP:NCORP. HighKing++ 14:23, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
HighKing I've gone to quite a bit of trouble to individually reference the articles here, discuss them and point out how they include RS and meet CORPDEPTH.. and I can see you have basically disagreed with all these - at this stage, I'm not sure there's much point in continuing, so at this point I think it best that I just agree to dissagree, so others can contribute. Thanks very much for the discussion, cheers. Deathlibrarian (talk) 02:29, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Cheers Deathlibrarian, I can agree with you that the sources meet RS and CORPDEPTH but not ORGIND which is what I've been saying. Happy to leave it, thanks for engaging. HighKing++ 12:32, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗plicit 12:02, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Aditi Rai

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

Does not meet WP:NACTOR because there are no significant roles in multiple notable productions. Barring a source from The Hindu, the subject also lacks significant coverage. Apparently a finalist of Bigg Boss which is alone not sufficient for notability per WP:BIGBROTHER. Ab207 (talk) 07:53, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:35, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:03, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. RL0919 (talk) 14:48, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Carla DiBello

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

article about a consultant with no specific accomplishments except having "worked with" the Khardisians and having "had a hand" in an important football deal. Also a film-maker with 2 non-notable films. The refs are mostly promotional interviews. DGG ( talk ) 09:09, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:34, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Missvain (talk) 03:09, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: For analysis of the references provided above.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:02, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus. ✗plicit 12:00, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Last Run

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

Fails WP:SIGCOV, WP:NFO and WP:NFSOURCES; found nothing in a WP:BEFORE search and no reviews on Rotten Tomatoes. The Film Creator (talk) 15:22, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Perhaps I should be more clear in the future. When I mean "nothing", I mean it as in nothing significant or reliable. If there are reviews from such sources/websites that have Wikipedia articles written about them (e.g. Entertainment Weekly, The A.V. Club, IGN), I would withdraw the nomination. Sorry, but I'm not convinced. The Film Creator (talk) 01:39, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:24, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:34, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 07:57, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sanjaysinh Sukhdevsinh Gohil

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

Local politician and social worker. Does not meet WP:NPOL, and has no significant coverage in independent sources per WP:BASIC. Has been moved from draftspace by new SPA accounts twice; the first time it was re-draftified, but it was not improved before it was moved to mainspace again. bonadea contributions talk 10:49, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 07:57, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Malaysia national under-19 football team former squads

Malaysia national under-19 football team former squads (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Consensus at this recent AfD was that exhaustive lists of national team squads were unnecessary, even at the senior level. It stands to reason, then, that exhaustive U-19 squads would be even less likely to be required. Squad lists are retained at the tournament pages, such as 2016 AFF U-19 Youth Championship squads and 2018 AFC U-19 Championship squads and I see no reason to keep any of the other information presented in the article. Wikipedia is not an exhaustive stats database, I see no way that this would pass WP:LISTN or any other guideline and it's a WP:NOTSTATS violation as the Sudan one was last month. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 10:45, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 07:57, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Barnsley and District Junior Football League

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

I have run a few searches and I couldn't find any significant news coverage of this league, so it seems unlikely to pass WP:GNG (or WP:NORG if we are treating it as an organisation). Local children's football leagues are almost never notable and Central Warwickshire Youth Football League, Norfolk Combined Youth Football League, Loch Lomond Youth Soccer Festival and Taichung World Youth Football Festival were all deleted recently so there is enough consensus within the community that this isn't notable. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 10:27, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 07:56, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

MTV Pilipinas for Favorite Indie Video

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

Currently unreferenced. No significant coverage in independent, reliable sources found in my WP:BEFORE. No corresponding article on Tagalog Wiki. Not a surprise because MTV Pilipinas was basically a flop and ended up relaunching as MTV Philippines, which also flopped. FOARP (talk) 09:15, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 11:59, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Muamet Asanovski

Muamet Asanovski (edit | talk | history | 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 the spirit of NFOOTBALL, his professional play being limited to 2 games of 23 and 21 minutes. Geschichte (talk) 09:03, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 00:53, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Boyd Company

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

Fails WP:NCORP, particularly the references in the article are 404 links, and even if they weren't would be WP:AUD fails as they are either only local coverage (i.e., they are purely city newspapers like the Trentonian) or apparent PR farms like Forward Florida. Searching news articles brings up a lot of interviews with John Boyd and small-town papers publishing PR-like stories about them, but nothing that is an AUD pass. Searching book sources bring up some hits for other companies called The Boyd Company, including those involved in real-estate, but not the one founded in 1975 FOARP (talk) 08:40, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previously nominated via WP:PROD, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:58, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 04:49, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pollard, Washington

Pollard, Washington (edit | talk | history | 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 topos indicate this is a former rail location about which I can find nothing, as there is just way too much searching noise. In the last forty years or so there has been a lot of development along the lake, including a RV park and a group of vacation cabins about which I can also find nothing out. The oldest aerial I could find shows what looks like some sort of manufacturing facility next to where the tracks used to be, but again, I can't find out more than that. If someone can find something indicating there was a town here, please, tell us, but I find nothing to that effect. Mangoe (talk) 04:22, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It takes no great expertise to read the maps as the GNIS compilers did and find some egregious errors in labelling spots as "populated places". But beyond that, going from a name on a map to a notable settlement took several acts of interpretation, and the notion that GNIS conveys some sort of legal recognition is belied by its own statement of purpose. You can read all about it at WP:GNIS, including some of the more ridiculous misinterpretations they made. Mangoe (talk) 06:49, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The GNIS is merely a database of every name that has ever appeared on US maps, with quite a few mistakes to boot, so it's unclear why we would be required to defer to them and can't use our own judgement on what needs a stand-alone article. I don't see what would make this a notable community, but Curlew Lake (Washington) could mention the homes and resorts around it. Reywas92Talk 21:49, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ♠PMC♠ (talk) 07:51, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. A good case was made that the lab meets WP:GNG, and that merging to University of Toronto would not be a better outcome. Concerns about promotional editing definitely should be addressed, but deletion is not required to achieve that. RL0919 (talk) 17:20, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Citizen Lab

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

This is a laboratory, within a school/department, within a university. With this article we are going down a granularity router that is, at best, unusual. There needs to be a very good WP:GNG reason for even a school/department to exist as a separate article from the university.

The Munk School of Global Affairs is up for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Munk School of Global Affairs with a potential outcome of merge to University of Toronto and I propose that this article be treated in the same manner. It is far to late to add it to that deletion discussion, and, because of that discussion, AfD but suggesting a merge as the outcome is appropriate, though perhaps a little WP:IAR.

Note that the article subject of this discussion suffers from one major example of WP:CITEKILL, and that its research being featured on the front page (etc) or media does not mean that there is necessarily independent coverage about it FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 07:45, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I nowadays never say "rewrite" in an afd unless I am prepared to do it. Otherwise, it's putting the burden on other people. DGG ( talk ) 07:13, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or rewrite same arguments as DGG Yleventa2 (talk) 16:30, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or rewrite In agreement with DGG and Yleventa2.-Hatchens (talk) 05:15, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep In agreement with Mindmatrix. I'd like to point out that the MIT Media Lab is similarly a laboratory, within a school/department, within a university. I think the Citizen Lab qualifies for a standalone article under WP:GNG for the same reason as the Media Lab does - it has many, many articles about it independent of the University of Toronto. I also agree with Patar knight that some editing could be done to remove PR-heavy parts, but it doesn't constitute a full rewrite (most of the article has a good tone and is well-sourced). 204.239.251.6 (talk) 23:27, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Widespread sustained international coverage: Ooni (Zambia) EFF 2015 EFF 2014 NYT 2013 NYT 2019 Al Jazeera BBC Jakarta Post CBC Brown University Seattle Times Toronto Star. The current state of the article does tend to mostly source to Citizen Lab's own reports, and there is quite a bit of advocacy (including the jargon quoted by DGG), but the sources are clearly available for doing a rewrite that would establish a reasonable secondary-to-primary source ratio and remove the advocacy. Notability of individual sections and reports could be sorted out either directly with edits/edit summaries or on the talk page when/if it's unclear or controversial. Boud (talk) 00:01, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hacksaw. I'm going to !vote this because I don't want to see everything deleted and there's too much good stuff for stubbifying. Nor do I want to put the burden of rewriting on anyone. But I would like to see an editor (such as myself) go at this article with a proverbial hacksaw and just delete entire sections that are badly sourced. No rewriting or trying to find sources (although of someone wants to do that they can). Just a massive section blanking of all the crap sourced only to Citizen Lab. I'll also note I was the original nom of the Munk School for deletion. WP:INHERITORG is somewhat clear. Parent organizations don't inherit notability from child organizations and vice versa. Just because Citizen Lab is notable doesn't mean the Munk School is. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 09:34, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 00:37, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep and Rewrite Because of the sources presented by MindMatrix, this is obviously notable enough per WP:GNG... but it needs a lot of editing. Not stubifying it, just a rewrite. Lectrician2 (talk) 20:06, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I started cleaning up this article, which I wish more people voting to delete or rewrite did, as it doesn't relate to the core question of notable or not. Happy editing and improving! ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 14:14, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The comparison with MIT is inaccurate. The MIT lab is universally acknowledged as the leading laboratory in its field in the world, and qualifies as famous,; this lab is important, but not remotely to the same extent. DGG ( talk ) 01:02, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. NFOOTY only presumes and does not establish notability, which means that if notability is substantially questioned, GNG must be shown to be met - which nobody here argues is the case. The "keep" opinions must therefore be given less weight. Sandstein 21:15, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Raphael Noway

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

Footballer who fails GNG and NFOOTY. No appearances in matches that satisfy NFOOTY - Micronesia isn't a FIFA or OFC member, and South Pacific Games aren't FIFA A-level matches. See also: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Peter Igesumai. -- BlameRuiner (talk) 06:22, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - There’s Noway you can delete this article (haha). But in all seriousness, the football tournament at the 2003 Pacific Games was an official OFC tournament.(www.rsssf.com/tabless/southpac03.html) I was under the impression that federation tournaments counted towards WP:NFOOTY. News headlines from Micronesia are hard to come by, but surely this would be enough for presumed notability? Davidlofgren1996 (talk) 11:32, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 07:10, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Phillip Kingston

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

Paid contribution by banned sockpuppet of banned editor. The subject has been engaged in a number of enterprises, none noable, and written a book, published by one of his firms DGG ( talk ) 03:42, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 06:04, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. ✗plicit 11:56, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sania Saleh

Sania Saleh (edit | talk | history | 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 a "before" test. I dream of horses (Contribs) (Talk) 05:57, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. A decision to rename the article, as suggested below, can take place at the article's talk page. (non-admin closure) ASTIG😎 (ICE T • ICE CUBE) 14:20, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Homosexual Trials of Frankfurt

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

This article is a machine translation from the German Wikipedia - word for word, down to the wikilinks (which for this reason do not work, even for things that we do already have articles for). Is the topic notable? Sure. But WP:MACHINE holds that machine-translated articles are "worse than nothing".

I put a PROD on this, and it was de-PRODded, on the grounds that it should be sent to draftspace for incubation. There is no purpose in incubating this: anyone can translate this page as it has been done here in a few seconds. Retaining this does not save anyone any work, and draftifying it will just add extra work for the AfC reviewers who will have to check it over again. Moreover, draftifying and fixing this article sends the message that it's perfectly okay to make fully machine-translated articles, because someone else will come along and do the work of properly translating them. I have no objection to a competent translator taking on this page - but please, let that translator be the one to create the article. Let's not encourage this. asilvering (talk) 05:26, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Discrimination-related deletion discussions. asilvering (talk) 05:26, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. asilvering (talk) 05:26, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. asilvering (talk) 05:26, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Noting that this passed AFC so isn’t irredeemably bad, and the topic is certainly notable. I might have a go at improving it in the next few days. Mccapra (talk) 08:29, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the article doesn't look that bad to me, it's legible at least. I'm going to try editing it a bit to improve the article, since having the machine-translated version is a good place to start. I don't think deleting it just to "send a message" is really helpful either. If someone else decides to machine-translate an article, what are the odds that they'll even see this AfD? BuySomeApples (talk) 02:07, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've edited the article a lot and I think it's already pretty serviceable. It'll probably need some additional information and historical sources added, but it's a solid jumping off point now. After the AfD is closed, should the page be renamed Frankfurt Homosexual Trials? I think it might be the more common English name. BuySomeApples (talk) 02:48, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @BuySomeApples What you're doing if you try to "fix up" this translation is telling the original editor that this is fine - they can keep on doing this, just randomly machine-translating articles, and someone will just come along and fix it up for them, no big deal. Are you going to check the references? The original editor didn't. (They couldn't read them!) Checking the references is a vital part of translating articles. At a glance, these look particularly hard to check - German journals, a German edited collection. There are nearly seven thousand articles awaiting translation, or post-translation checking and cleanup, from German alone. I assure you there are many, many more worth your time, created by an editor in good faith who was doing their best, instead of as a ten-second copy-paste dump. -- asilvering (talk) 05:25, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    First of all, when I edit an article to improve it I'm not trying to make a point to whoever created the article. I'm trying to make a more useful article for everyone who reads it in the future. Secondly, there are a lot of articles written by English speakers that use sources in other languages, I WP:AGF on these. Besides I'm already looking for English sources to supplement the article, and I'm sure other editors will do the same. A lot of machine-translated articles will probably have to be deleted because of their poor quality, but this AFD seems to have drawn in a lot of editors who want to fix it up and that's a good thing (in this case). BuySomeApples (talk) 19:53, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    "You shouldn't improve this article because I want to make a point to someone who did something maybe inadvisable but not malicious" does not seem to me like the best place to insist on standing on principle. There are usually far more worthy articles to improve than whatever we happen to be have found at the moment, most editors aren't performing triage. If you want to make the point, warn the original author (which I have now done). Rusalkii (talk) 06:11, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    "Someone will just come along and fix it up for them". Yes, it's called collaboration, which is encouraged here. Phil Bridger (talk) 10:36, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is a noteworthy topic that may have had a bumpy genesis onto the English wiki, but that happens from time to time and doesn't impact the notability of an article. No big deal, it just needs work. Other editors have also expressed interest in fixing the article so any messiness will be resolved soon, which is great. I was also going to suggest that if the primary concern is sending the wrong message to an editor by allowing this to stay, then leaving a message on their talk page noting the pitfalls of machine translation is a good solution (seems another editor has beat me to this mid-writing my vote). Usually this is done in good faith and it seems to have been the case here so it's not a problem. It's good to remember that sometimes ignoring the rules is the best path to take, as has been done here. --Tautomers(T C) 06:26, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you guys for the support! Especially @BuySomeAppels did a great job! @Asilvering I see your point, the translation was week, but I have no experience of writing in English. No worries, as a native German I checked all the sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mitumial (talk • contribs) 11:27, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    In the light of this confirmation that the creator has read the sources I think that we need an explanation from asilvering of the sentences, "The original editor didn't. (They couldn't read them!)". What makes you think that? Why should German journals and edited collections be any harder for a native German-speaker to check than any others? Phil Bridger (talk) 11:43, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Phil Bridger They wouldn't be. I'm not sure why you are assuming that I knew the original editor was a fluent German speaker?
    @Mitumial It's good that you say you've checked the sources. Are you confident that you'll be able to tell if someone has accidentally misrepresented what the sources were saying, when they clean up the machine translation? -- asilvering (talk) 16:59, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    If you didn't know whether the original editor could read German (by the way, reading is a different skill from speaking) then why did you claim to know that he hadn't read and couldn't read the sources? Phil Bridger (talk) 17:16, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm well aware reading is different from speaking. You're the one who called the other editor "a native German-speaker" in the first place. Is there some reason you're being so condescending? To answer your question, I would assume in all cases that someone who is machine-translating an article wholesale - making no changes, and submitting that article through AfC as a "finished" piece - is not someone with ability in the article's language of origin. -- asilvering (talk) 17:34, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment This is starting to go beyond the scope of the AfD proposal and veering into bickering. It seems like this AfD is resolved, so it might be better if it is taken to usertalk pages if there is more to say on it. --Tautomers(T C) 21:34, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I do not think that calling out a lie in this very discussion is beyond scope. It is perfectly relevant. And to think that the bare-faced liar teaches university students. You should be worrying about that, not so-called "bickering". Phil Bridger (talk) 21:40, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    If the lie you meant is claiming that the original author didn't read German that was almost certainly asilvering making an incorrect and overconfident assumption, but not deliberately lying. Seconding Tautomers, this no longer seems relevant to the question of whether the article should be deleted and is dissolving into personal insults. Rusalkii (talk) 21:53, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @asilvering Yes I am confident that I will be able to tell if someone has accidently misrepresented what the sources were saying. No problem. I am able to read and understand English so far. I am obviously just not able to write in English properly. mitumial (talk)
    @Mitumial: Honestly, I think you're being harsh on yourself. The errors you've made on this page, for example, are pretty standard native-speaker stuff: "week" for "weak", "accidently" for "accidentally". Try translating your next article "by hand", just checking troublesome words with leo.org or whatever, and you might be surprised by how much you can do on your own. Good luck! -- asilvering (talk) 04:27, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @asilvering Thanks for your advice! I will try my best! mitumial (talk)
  • Keep coming back to this after a week and not having done any work on it… I can’t see any grounds for deletion. There are a few quirky bits of language and I’m not sure what exactly “illuminating gas” is but that’s minor. I also agree with the change of title suggested by @ BuySomeApples. Mccapra (talk) 09:56, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 12:00, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Prashant Walde

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

There's a lot of citations, but not a lot of coverage between them, and I don't think WP:GNG is met. Coverage is limited to promotional and/or routine announcements about the subject's debut film, and softball interviews that all appear to have been given in the context of recent controversies involving the ultra-famous Shah Rukh Khan. Possibly WP:TOOSOON. signed, Rosguill talk 03:09, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:55, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. RL0919 (talk) 04:27, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jose Ortiz El Samaritano

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

In my search online, I mainly found social media sources of information and user-generated sites, not newspaper articles and nothing indepth. We don't have a notability standard for astrologers and psychics but I'm surprised this article has been around for 7 years because there is really nothing here. Liz Read! Talk! 02:57, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Daniel (talk) 02:37, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Rodney Scott (author)

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

Does not meet WP:GNG, there doesn't appear to be any independent coverage of the subject. Without a named chair position or the equivalent, and a GScholar h-index under 20, I don't see a compelling case for WP:NACADEMIC. signed, Rosguill talk 02:57, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not notable as an NZ public servant, does not seem notable as an academic.--IdiotSavant (talk) 01:19, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Daniel (talk) 02:36, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ABCDE

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

I found nothing that shows this software is notable. SL93 (talk) 02:49, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy deleted per G12 by Jimfbleak. (non-admin closure) – The Grid (talk) 13:55, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Orbisculate

Orbisculate (edit | talk | history | 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 topic/WP:NOTDICT. Would consider a wiktionary redirect, but the wiktionary entry was deleted last year as a "Creative invention or protologism: please see WT:CFI" (CFI refers to Wiktionary's criteria for inclusion). (t · c) buidhe 02:40, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Travel Channel original programming. ✗plicit 12:44, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Alaska Triangle

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

not my field, but there appear to be no reliable 3rd party sources--just program listings. DGG ( talk ) 02:06, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 02:36, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 05:52, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 01:46, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

John Kennedy McCray

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

This biography is for a person that does not have the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources to establish notability. The lead claims he is an actor, but provides no role; he is a screenwriter but provides no screenplays; he is a director, but provides no films he has directed; he is a film/stage producer but provides no films or plays he has produced. The article also asserted he was an author, but I removed that as it was a couple of self-publishing a couple of books that attracted no notice. Whpq (talk) 01:40, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 comments about keeping or deleting the article (just meta-comment about how to classify the topic) after multiple relists. RL0919 (talk) 06:36, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ISKCON Temple, Patna

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

Fails WP:NORG WP:NBUILD no independent coverage in reliable media. Only press statement coverage about inauguration that keeps getting postponed. Venkat TL (talk) 18:06, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:48, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 01:32, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Missvain, Nomadicghumakkad, ok. I stand corrected. --Venkat TL (talk) 06:40, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
All good. The ISKCON stuff is often troublesome and they're surely fond of promotion on Wikipedia. THanks for updating your nomination! Missvain (talk) 06:41, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with your observation about the cult. Venkat TL (talk) 07:09, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Bold third relist, don't want to soft-delete due to other input.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 02:36, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 04:50, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Red Serpent

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

Fails WP:NFSOURCES, WP:NFO and WP:SIGCOV; found nothing in a WP:BEFORE search and no reviews on Rotten Tomatoes. The Film Creator (talk) 17:20, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:49, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 01:31, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 11:56, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jawahar High School

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

Non-notable school. Fails WP:NSCHOOL, WP:SIGCOV and WP:ORG. Peter Ormond 💬 15:57, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Related discussions: 2021-09 Tilak Public School (closed as a trainwreck)
--Cewbot (talk) 00:02, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:48, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 01:46, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 00:54, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sri Sai Vidya Niketan High School

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

Non-notable school. Fails WP:NSCHOOL, WP:SIGCOV and WP:ORG. Peter Ormond 💬 15:59, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Related discussions: 2021-09 Tilak Public School (closed as a trainwreck)
--Cewbot (talk) 00:02, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:44, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No significant coverage found, just listings and social media. The Banner talk 11:25, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 01:46, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 00:55, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Aravinda High School

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

Non-notable school. Fails WP:NSCHOOL, WP:SIGCOV and WP:ORG. Peter Ormond 💬 16:01, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Related discussions: 2021-09 Tilak Public School (closed as a trainwreck)
--Cewbot (talk) 00:03, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:44, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No significant coverage to be found. Just listings and social media. The Banner talk 11:23, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 01:46, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Geschichte (talk) 08:51, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ratnam Concept School

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

Non-notable school. Fails WP:NSCHOOL, WP:SIGCOV and WP:ORG. Peter Ormond 💬 16:04, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Logs: 2011-10 ✗ A1
--Cewbot (talk) 00:03, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:38, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No significant coverage found, just listings and social media. The Banner talk 11:27, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 01:45, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 00:57, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sri Balaji Vidyalayam School

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

Non-notable school. Fails WP:NSCHOOL, WP:SIGCOV and WP:ORG. Peter Ormond 💬 16:04, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

--Cewbot (talk) 00:03, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:37, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 01:45, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Ed the Sock. Daniel (talk) 02:35, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Liana Kerzner

Liana Kerzner (edit | talk | history | 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 notable journalistic interviews or sources. She does not stand on her own without her husband's work to give her "notability". Fails GNG. 1675309stevie (talk) 14:31, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:28, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Daniel (talk) 02:34, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Catarina Pereira

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

I am unable to find evidence that she meets music or entertainment guidelines. She's been in a number of talent shows, but has not won. It's unclear that the awards are notable ones and a BEFORE identifies no GNG level sourcing. Star Mississippi 20:36, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:25, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Geschichte (talk) 08:50, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Guru Nanak Public Senior Secondary School

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

Non-notable school. Fails WP:NSCHOOL, WP:SIGCOV and WP:ORG. Peter Ormond 💬 22:03, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

--Cewbot (talk) 00:03, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:13, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I couldn't find anything about this except for an article about a couple of students that played on a basketball championship team. Which has nothing to do with the school. There isn't any references in the article either. So from what I can tell this clearly fails WP:NORG and other relevant guidelines. --Adamant1 (talk) 12:44, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 01:44, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 01:44, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Meghan Walsh

Meghan Walsh (edit | talk | history | 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 music-related bio without much in the way of WP:SIGCOV only links to Google search results which do little to indicate notability. The item appears to have been created in mainspace possibly by an editor with a WP:COI, moved to draftspace and almost immediately re-created in main by way of copy and paste. Eagleash (talk) 00:13, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 11:57, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pathankot Public School

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

Non-notable school. Fails WP:NSCHOOL, WP:SIGCOV and WP:ORG. Peter Ormond 💬 22:04, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

--Cewbot (talk) 00:04, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:11, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No significant coverage found, just listings and social media. The Banner talk 11:28, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 01:43, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Article creator has consented to deletion and there are no keep !votes or other signficicant contributors to the article. Not calling this a speedy/G7 as the discussion has been open nearly a month but rather a semi PROD/soft deletion due to minimal participation. Star Mississippi 22:22, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Adinath Digambar Jain Temple, Adambakkam

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

No indication of notability of this temple. Fails WP:GNG. Such temples are in every street in India. Venkat TL (talk) 10:24, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  1. Daily Bhaskar
  2. Daily Bhaskar
  3. Times of India
  4. Times of India

VincentGod11 (talk) 20:39, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@VincentGod11, The subject is a temple in Adambakkam neighborhood of Chennai city. All four links are about other cities like Jaipur and Bhopal. None of them are about "Adinath Digambar Jain Temple, Adambakkam" Venkat TL (talk) 05:59, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 10:52, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 06:25, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 00:09, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

— Note to closing admin: Rasnaboy (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this AfD.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Barclay James Harvest. ✗plicit 01:43, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

John Lees (musician)

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

Previously kept but after removing references to progarchives.com, we are left with only one reference. Most of the arguments in the previous deletion discussion seemed to amount to WP:NOTINHERITED. So this article seems to fail WP:N/WP:GNG. Sikonmina (talk) 05:38, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have no problem with redirection if this helps to preserve the article's history. Sikonmina (talk) 07:19, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Prior keep needs more input for consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 00:08, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - That "prior keep" was from 2005, when musical notability guidelines were embryonic and far more lenient than they are now. Also note that two people voted in the 2005 discussion and both said the article needed to be improved, which was not exactly a ringing endorsement even then. Those ancient events should not cause this AfD to fall into "no consensus" purgatory in 2021, for little reason other than WP:BUREAUCRACY. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 16:23, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Subject passes WP:AUTHOR, per discussion. (non-admin closure) Enos733 (talk) 00:34, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Guy Pearse

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

Lack of notability Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 05:32, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've now taken a look at the sources by Goldsztajn. The reviews of his two books do appear to be independent and should count towards WP:AUTHOR, which calls for 'multiple independent periodical articles or reviews'. I have no problem changing my original !vote. Modussiccandi (talk) 17:07, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Canniford, Robin (June 2013). "Book Review: Greenwash: Big Brands and Carbon Scams". Journal of Macromarketing. 33 (2): 172–173. doi:10.1177/0276146713476039.
  2. ^ Readfearn, Graham (8 October 2012). "Greenwash: tackling banks, brewers on their clean green spin". Crikey.
  3. ^ Charles, Willian (November 2012). "Review: Greenwash". Adelaide Review. Archived from the original on 2013-05-01.
  4. ^ Flannery, Tim (11 August 2007). "High and Dry". The Sydney Morning Herald. Archived from the original on 3 March 2021.
  5. ^ Brown, Matt (October 2007). "After 11 years, is there anyone who hasn't been a 'senior Liberal advisor'?" (PDF). Institute of Public Affairs Review.
  6. ^ Button, John (July 2007). "Guy Pearse's High and Dry [Book Review]". The Monthly. Archived from the original on 15 July 2007.
Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 11:02, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Lots of comments, not much consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 00:07, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep The subject's books get reviewed, and discussed by major reliable organisations, and are held by major libraries. There are bios by major/reliable organisations with editorial overview, eg [41], and [42]. Aoziwe (talk) 10:10, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I must say that these two links do not change my judgement of the subject. They are both bios from websites he has contributed to and cannot, therefore, be considered independent. They are not the kind of coverage called for by WP:GNG. Modussiccandi (talk) 16:15, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That is not completely correct. The ABC is a state broadcaster, akin to the CBC or the BBC; its basis of independence is legally constituted. I would agree that in itself, the bio is not an indicator of notability, but the source can be considered reliable and the contents can form *part* of considerations as to whether the subject is notable. The point is, the ABC source itself should not be rejected out of hand, just used appropriately. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 21:22, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I now realise that I may have misunderstood Aoziwe's point. Yes, of course, the content of the sources may point towards the subject meeting some aspect of an SNG. I felt that Aoziwe was arguing that these bios help the subject reach GNG (perhaps this is what they are arguing?). Modussiccandi (talk) 22:08, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Correct - not by themselves but they do contribute. (I did not claim WP:ANYBIO.) Aoziwe (talk) 09:15, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 01:41, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Eastwood International School

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

Non-notable school. Fails WP:NSCHOOL, WP:SIGCOV and WP:ORG. Peter Ormond 💬 22:07, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:07, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A WP:BEFORE mainly showed listing and social media, no significant coverage. The recently added trivia only proves that the school exists, it does not show anything towards notability. The Banner talk 11:34, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 04:52, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Green Grove Public School

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

Non-notable school. Fails WP:NSCHOOL, WP:SIGCOV and WP:ORG. Peter Ormond 💬 22:08, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previously nominated via WP:PROD, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:06, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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/2021_December_20&oldid=1061277913"