Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 November 11

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Explicit (talk | contribs) at 23:46, 11 November 2023 (Relisting Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mllat Mohammed (XFDcloser)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

< November 10 November 12 >

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. ✗plicit 14:28, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mllat Mohammed

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

Declined at AFC three times but moved to main space by creator, fails WP:GNG and WP:NWRITER poorly sourced with blogs and primary sources. Theroadislong (talk) 18:26, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:46, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 11:18, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

James Villa Holidays

James Villa Holidays (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 notability; brief one sentence mentions of managed properties in top listings and changes in management/hiring/layoffs does not qualify; see WP:SERIESA and WP:CORPDEPTH lizthegrey (talk) 18:57, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previous WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:45, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:28, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus‎. No new comments after 2 relistings so I'm closing this as No consensus. Liz Read! Talk! 22:34, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

National Club Football Association

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

Subject does not meet the WP:GNG or WP:ORG. Let'srun (talk) 23:42, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:30, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:40, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus‎. Liz Read! Talk! 23:45, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ebrahimabad-e Bala Joveyn

Ebrahimabad-e Bala Joveyn (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 and WP:PLACEOUTCOMES, same xls source as the other Iran AfDs. Hongsy (talk) 14:36, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: Reference #2 is the official Census of Iran. If a town is listed on their spreadsheet for this region (#09), then it's officially recognized per WP:GEOLAND and therefore notable. @Hongsy, is Ebrahimabad-e Bala Joveyn listed? Checking references is part of WP:BEFORE.
Thanks,
--A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 17:27, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@A. B. - this is an abadi (similar to a census tract), and therefore does not get a GEOLAND pass indeed it is explicitly excluded from GEOLAND. FOARP (talk) 11:01, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weakest possible keep - The location given in the article points to what appears to be a village called simply Ebrahim Abad (or Ibrahimabad I suppose in another romanisation). FOARP (talk) 11:18, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 20:35, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:41, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:30, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. There seems to be consensus that a redirect would not work due to other films by the same name, and nor would a DAB as those are also non notable therefore, no ATD available. Should that change down the road, happy to restore the history under a redirect. Star Mississippi 14:06, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Chodhyam

Chodhyam (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:NFF and WP:NFSOURCES as non-notable, incomplete, unreleased film, lacking significant coverage to establish notability. The Doom Patrol (talk) 09:24, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:12, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:39, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:31, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: Per WP:NFF the production itself would have to be notable because the film was never released – this doesn't appear to be the case. I agree that there's really nothing to merge because there's nothing sourced to demonstrate that this film was a remake of Tarka. Not sure how this could be replaced with a disambiguation page; we would need articles to disambiguate first. Tollens (talk) 10:03, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Hello, the 2 films to be disambiguated are the ones mentioned above, one being a redirect to Tanka (with the source mentioned above, that is perfectly all right), the other a so far a red link. I’ve only changed to Disambiguate to find a compromise, merge being challenged. This would help the reader as at least 2 films have this title. Best -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 19:14, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oh! I somehow didn't see that source in the discussion above, thanks for pointing it out. I'd support a merge then – the production doesn't have to be notable for it to be included in another article about a notable topic. @Mushy Yank: Is there an existing article you're aware of that mentions the other film? To convert the page to a disambiguation we need more than one bluelink – see WP:DABMENTION – otherwise the current page should be redirected. Tollens (talk) 03:16, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not as far as I can see but The Doom Patrol might know. Thanks. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 09:37, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Courtesy ping: The Doom Patrol Tollens (talk) 06:48, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No. Cannot be redirected. I have mentioned the reason above.--The Doom Patrol (talk) 17:48, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you .....But that was not the question! Quite the opposite. A disambiguate page would include the 2 films, do you have an idea where to redirect the second? I still think the redirect/merge you oppose is quite appropriate (it can include a note and source about that other film) and do not find your argument against it compelling; but if others do, then, again, as a compromise, a disambiguate page can be considered, in my view, but in that case it would certainly need something to redirect to, for the second film. (the first has a target, most evidently) -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 07:21, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. I see a rough consensus to Keep this article. Editors interested in a Merge or Redirect can start a discussion about that possibility on the article talk page. Liz Read! Talk! 23:34, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Challaghatta metro station

Challaghatta metro station (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 as no SIGCOV can be found. Sources only provide general information about the metro line. Except for some original research on the station layout and exits, no useful information is provided. Timothytyy (talk) 05:29, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Pls let me know what more useful information is needed for this metro station as well as the Benniganahalli metro station. Cause the information which is required for the audience is given. I don't seem to perform the task of adding more information that are not needed for the audience to know more about the above mentioned stations. Sameer2905 (talk) 02:21, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
WP:SIGCOV is about individual coverage. No sources in the article provide reliable, independent and significant coverage about the station. Timothytyy (talk) 07:49, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting given expansion of the article. Source assessment would be helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:24, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:13, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, we seem to be going in circles. Another similar discussion has been just closed as no consensus, there are sufficient sources in this article, and it would be odd if some of the articles in the line get redirected and some not given the same coverage. Ymblanter (talk) 18:53, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
OTHERSTUFF. Timothytyy (talk) 22:42, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Timothytyy, I don't think you need to remind an administrator who has been editing for 12 years about this essay. Liz Read! Talk! 05:05, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
But do you think "some... and some..." is a constructive comment? Timothytyy (talk) 10:48, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Just found out this metro station was part of a recent bundled AfD nomination Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andheri West metro station and kept seemingly on the proviso to check the individual metro stations for sources and expand the article, if possible. It depends on sourcing as to whether the article can be progressed from a stub. If it can't, then yes a redirect/merge solution to a list of metro stations is appropriate. If it can, and I believe that's been demonstrated here, then the page should be kept. I don't see why there shouldn't be a mix of some stations being kept and others redirected/merged. Rupples (talk) 02:16, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. Still waiting on an assessment of the expansion of this article by User:Rupples rather than general statements on metro stations.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:36, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Rupples' expansion work has turned up a good number of sources, and even the ones that are mainly about the Purple Line expansion still discuss the station as a matter of necessity, since it's the new terminus of the line. It's already longer than what I'd consider a stub, and it looks like there's still potential for expansion. TheCatalyst31 Reaction•Creation 19:07, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. Liz Read! Talk! 07:58, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Chester Aaron

Chester Aaron (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:BASIC, lacks significant coverage other than the single Penn State biography DirtyHarry991 (talk) 23:28, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors and Pennsylvania. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 00:09, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The problem here is this author's works were mainly published before the internet so there's less info available online. Add in that the article needs a lot of work and I understand why questions on this author's notability were raised. However, a search in the Wikipedia Library turned up a ton of reviews and coverage of his work in places like North American Review, School Library Journal, Horn Book Magazine, Publishers Weekly, Publishing Research Quarterly, and other places. The WP even has a Newsweek article about his work as a garlic farmer and I also found this NYT review of one of his books from 1972. Aaron doesn't seems like he was a great writer of children's books -- many of the reviews are negative -- but he was widely published and reviewed and meets our WP:Author notability guidelines.--SouthernNights (talk) 13:10, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:34, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:38, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. This was a tough one; my hat is off to @Liz: for keeping it running this long. Views expressed here are passionate, and seem evenly divided. But upon closer inspection, almost all the "Keep" !votes rely on irrelevant reasons. Yes, the guy certainly exists, as is supported by a plethora of reliable sources, and I'm sure he is very popular. But none of that counters the basic problem of WP:1E. At this point, the man has not achieved notability that is independent from that one event. Owen× ☎ 23:15, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Arshad Khan (Chaiwala)

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

A non-notable tea seller, looks like the creator is just advertising about the new Cafe started by the subject. I think, one person is getting viral everyday but this does not help them to be Notable. Hence, fails WP:GNG. Syed A. Hussain Quadri (talk) 14:28, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:21, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:18, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong Keep: He is not among people notable for only one event. He went viral by chance then he became a professional model for brands, he did music videos as a model, and now he opens a cafe. On his every achievement, he has good media coverage. So, WP:IE does not apply here. Pakistani and international media cover him. Even Indian news sources which are RS, cover him.--Ameen Akbar (talk) 06:04, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. Let's table the issue of how this subject became notable and focus on sources that establish notability. Right now, this is looking like a No consensus closure.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:29, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Liz: Most of the Keeps are votes without substantial reasoning.
  • 1 listed by Oaktree is just a story on WP:1E event. The famous chaiwala might be from Afghanistan. (Bold is 1E, Italics is the coverage).
  • While there may have been significant coverage on the subject, but it is still WP:SIGCOV of WP:1E
  • is a very popular person is WP:STRAWMAN argument.
  • If he is a professional model (and went viral by chance), the WP:RS should mention as such, instead of building story on the WP:1E event (as shown above).
Therefore, there is no substantial keep. Thanks, User4edits (talk) 04:00, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete: When every source goes, "Hey, remember that guy whose photo went viral? Here's what he's doing now!" it's overwhelmingly WP:1E. Modeling and owning cafes aren't typically notable and the few media stories that cover his activities only exist because of the single event. Agree with the editor above that the keep votes are mostly non-arguments; see WP:POPULARITY and WP:FAME. Uhai (talk) 21:31, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. 13 reliable publications from 5 different countries are there to meet Basic. I am pretty sure that 13 reliable publications from 5 different countries are not in Arshad's pocket to promote him or get him a Wikipedia article! Clear case of Sigcov. Okoslavia (talk) 15:47, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    In the light of WP:PRIMARYNEWS, what, if any, of those 13 sources are secondary sources? From WP:BASIC: Primary sources may be used to support content in an article, but they do not contribute toward proving the notability of a subject. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 19:26, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    No one here is alleging this is promotion and your argument doesn't address the concern of WP:1E. There can exist many reliable sources and it can still be 1E. Uhai (talk) 23:01, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete- It is not that this person cannot be notable. Models can be notable, and notability might be achieved for other reasons too. The problem here is it is WP:TOOSOON to say whether this person will be notable or just a 1E footnote. There are 13 sources in the article, which the better keep arguments have addressed. One of them is the BBC. However, no attention has been given to the fact that these are primary sources (see WP:PRIMARYNEWS) They are news reports about someone becoming a model because of a photograph. Whether you class that as events or human interest stories, these are primary. These do not count towards notability. There have been a string of keep votes that are not based in policy, but the policy reasons for keep have argued notability. Sourcing does not back up those arguments. Fails WP:GNG. Again, this may just be TOOSOON. Deletion now should be without prejudice to re-creation of the article in the future if secondary sources clearly establish notability. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 19:38, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Essentially, the final (and earlier) views to delete the article were not sufficiently challenged. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:16, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Steveless

Steveless (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:NBAND from what I can tell, while there is some coverage it's just mentions of them being one of John Peel's favorite bands. Funny name and concept though. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 21:17, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

When calling to draftify, you have consider who would improve the article in that system. Nobody has actively worked on the Steveless article since 2009, and even then those folks seemed to be involved in basic cleanup. Who would rise to the task after draftifying? The article would probably just take up space in the Draft system and get deleted from there anyway. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 15:17, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:15, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:20, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: The Quietus [5] is listed as a RS per Project Album [6]. The Skinny is also listed as a RS there, [7] Oaktree b (talk) 02:02, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    This brief note on a BBC site [8] and [9]. Oaktree b (talk) 02:07, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The mention in The Skinny is passing. This is it:

    Cherryade Records was founded in Lancaster in 2005 by Rachel Neiman, then a student radio DJ on Bailrigg FM. Inspired by a trip to the Norwich Pop Underground Convention and her love of the eclectic tastes of John Peel, and driven by a desire to make her favourite unsigned bands heard, the label's first release was Popular Music in Theory, by Bristol-based DIY outfit (and Peel favourites) Steveless.

    The mention in Quietus is 2 paragraphs on something else, and this first paragraph is pertinent:

    Steveless was mostly a guy called Dan Newman, his baby really. He sent in some solo things to John Peel, who championed him right up till he died. It was just four-track improv things of him playing guitar and kick drum and yelling, I think.

    This also looks like passing mention to me and shows that, outside of John Peel championing them, Steveless was not really notable.
    We are looking at NBAND criterion 1:

    1. Has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent of the musician or ensemble itself.

    The BBC link is trivial coverage too. We do not have multiple, non-trivial published works. What we appear to have is a band whose only claim to notability is that they were promoted by John Peel. I cannot see how this is a keep, but I would still prefer an ATD over straight delete. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:23, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:26, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - This probably doesn't help with consensus, but I don't think this band rose above trivial coverage (the opposite of WP:SIGCOV) even with the John Peel connection. The voters above valiantly dug up some sources, and while they might be from reliable publications like BBC and Quietus, they still only mention this band briefly and they also tend to be about the wider career of the lead non-Steve guy. Also, if this article happens to survive this process, it needs to be cleaned up severely. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 15:06, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per my comments above. I looked at the John Peel page as a possible WP:ATD but I don't think this will work. I cannot see where this could go, and it is not notable. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 16:36, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 23:32, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

SPORTS for Exceptional Athletes

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

Per detailed post on talk page, fails WP:NORG. It was also nominated as part of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Foundation for Enterprise Development and it looks like there may have been consensus to delete but there wasn't, so I'm bringing this here. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 21:30, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:36, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already listed in an AFD, so not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:23, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:25, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep‎. Liz Read! Talk! 23:43, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Alaska Historical Society

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

Fails WP:NCORP 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 22:40, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 23:44, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sovereign House of Nicaea

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

I'm not sure that this House exists outside the imagination of a few people. In particular, Google has never heard of the "Sovereign House of Nicaea" and the article contains no references to sources discussing the house. The refs, if we can call them refs, are excerpts of various documents that support the idea that the House of Nicea collects the inheritance of the Empire of Nicaea but don't provide anything like third-party significant coverage of the house. Pichpich (talk) 22:30, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the revision @Pichpich! I apologize for being new to WP, therefore I didn't know how to properly sustain the article with sources that DO NOT raise doubts on the existence of the House. I really need your support and guidance to avoid deletion, as the aim of this page is to respect the purpose first and foremost, and to provide people knowledge about this institution.
My question is: would an article (in English), a document, written by the "Consiglio Araldico Italiano" (Italian Heraldic Council, you'll find many references on Google) be deemed as a reliablie source, since it is a subject matter expert third party on the claim? The Council has edited books in the past, too ([18]). Moreover, how much time do I have before you really need to complete deletion? Marchio Ephesi (talk) 08:01, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Articles for deletion debates are open for at least a week. If there's no clear consensus on what to do with the article or there hasn't been sufficient participation in the discussion, the debates can be extended. If there's still no consensus to delete, the articles are kept by default, although they can be resubmitted for deletion after some time has elapsed. Pichpich (talk) 23:33, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 23:45, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Marquess of Ephesus

Marquess of Ephesus (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)
Count of Prousa (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Marchioness of Laodicea (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Countess of Philadelphia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Baroness of Pergamon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Meaningless titles bestowed by someone with no claim of authority over the corresponding cities and territories. Unsurprisingly, Google has never heard of these nobility titles. Pichpich (talk) 22:14, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. RL0919 (talk) 21:47, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Khul Ke

Khul Ke (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)

Press releases and paid for articles (TOI) do not make the subject notable. Sohom (talk) 21:20, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

North Louisiana Football Alliance

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

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:45, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please explain? Your claim reads more like your personal opinion and lacks facts. You stated that each source was taken from the league website when it clearly came from independent news sources. Also, take note that any and all non-creditable news sources were removed from the article months ago. So if regional newspapers and the local news aren't creditable news sources, nearly half the articles on Wikipedia should be removed. If it reads that bad, help improve it rather than delete it. 152.132.9.72 (talk) 21:04, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Good evening, @Let'srun
I'm just getting a chance to look at my notifications and I noticed that you tagged my article for deletion. I'm curious to know why you felt the need to randomly nominate an article I've worked almost 2 years on to maintain (along with the help of other creditable editors might I add) for deletion.
If the "subject lacked the needed independent coverage" as you claim, why didn't you make the necessary additions to it like everyone else who came across the article?
Did you even do any research to support your claim? Or do you just like picking random articles to nominate for deletion because you don't agree with the subject material or how it's written?
Since I've been a wiki editor I've always researched and provided citations for the material included, and if the source goes against wiki guidelines there has been no issues with wiki BOTS making the proper changes.
So I'd appreciate it if you'd remove your tag and leave my articles alone please. Thank you in advance. DLabS3 (talk) 02:05, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I understand that it can be upsetting for a article of yours to be nominated at AfD, but I always look to see if there is coverage for a subject via a WP:BEFORE check, and unfortunately here I couldn't find much WP:SIGCOV with which to add. Here is the source analysis I have for this article based off of the sources listed here. #2 is a profile about the founder and has independence concerns. #3 is the same as the first source reposted, #4 is not WP:SIGCOV, #5 is not WP:SIGCOV as a single paragraph that appears to be directly reposted from the league website, #6, #7, #9, #10, #11, #12, and #14 are all league press releases and are not independent of the source. The only source that may possibly qualify for WP:GNG is #13, but I am not certain about the reliability of the source.
I also never said "that each source was taken from the league website". I only said that most of them are, which I maintain is accurate. Let'srun (talk) 20:17, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedied as evasion (Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Flex Liberia)‎ DMacks (talk) 21:25, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

DDP DJ Dominic Pewe€ DJ D P

DDP DJ Dominic Pewe€ DJ D P (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)

Escapes WP:A7 due to several claims of being 'well known' and a celebrity and winning awards at the national level. Despite this, I can't find even one decent WP:RS about him and WP:NMUSICIAN doesn't look to be met. If kept, then the article should be moved to DDP DJ Dominic Pewee, which appears to be the common name. I can't move it myself as that title is protected against creation. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 20:15, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Nomination withdrawn‎. Star Mississippi 00:58, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yan Ai-Lin

Yan Ai-Lin (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)

Promo piece with no good indication of notability. English language sources about this person are almost nonexistent, the few ones that I found don't have enough SIGCOV. Taiwanese sources also don't seem to talk much about this person, though reading them is difficult for me since I don't speak the language.

This article was created at User:JJJoyyy/sandbox as part of this university education program. It was recently moved to mainspace by User:Ytlin77 (who, judging by their name, may be Ai-Lin herself), who said in the talk page of this article that this page was written by her classmates. SparklyNights (t) 19:51, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: There's no evidence for a conflict of interest. Per your link, the university course is instructed by Yen-Ting Megan Lin, who looks like a better fit for a username including Ytlin. The "Lin" in Yan's name is 琳 and the instructor's name is likely 林, not the same word. CohenTheBohemian (talk) 00:27, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, these seem to be two different people. In that case there doesn't seem to be any coi here. SparklyNights (t) 01:33, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the comments. I moved the article back to Draft status due to the quality concern and work on the revision later. Ytlin77 (talk) 04:44, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the article itself. Point 1 of WP:ANYBIO says "The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor"; the Awards section lists several prizes, some are national and at least one international, which seem to fit the bill. The statement that one of her books was "the first collection of erotic poems written by a female poet in Taiwan" implies that the spirit, if not the letter, of WP:POET 2 applies, and there's cites to criticism of her work, so it looks like point 3 also applies.
I don't see why the nomination describes this page as a "promo piece", nor the "no good indication of notability". This, added to the nominator's incorrect claims about conflict of interest editing here and on the article's talk page, makes me wonder if the page is a candidate for speedy keep under WP:CSK point 3 "No accurate deletion rationale has been provided." CohenTheBohemian (talk) 15:02, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw. This page wasn't what I thought, it looks like it passes ANYBIO. SparklyNights (t) 17:48, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. RL0919 (talk) 21:48, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Playermaker

Playermaker (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)

Appears to fail WP:NCORP, reads more like a promotional piece rather than an encyclopedia article, lack of reliable sources, and the involved editors' behavior is suspicious, user:Playermakerwiki is banned for COI, user:Matteom.pm disclosed he is a part of the company while uploading the logo, and the same day he blanked his sandbox another editor who is likely paid, user:Maltuguom came across the article and updated it with similar content to Matteom.pm's sandbox.-- Bosecovey (talk) 19:49, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy delete‎. CSD A7 Liz Read! Talk! 07:09, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Neutralyze

Neutralyze (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 Notability tests. All references are purely advertisement 'articles'. Q T C 19:05, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect‎ to Riyaz Khan#Early and personal life. Discounted the two IP keeps that geolocate to the same area as sockpuppet IPs of the checkuser-blocked article creator. Most of the other participants converged on redirect as the appropriate solution for now. RL0919 (talk) 14:02, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Shariq Hassan

AfDs for this article:
Shariq Hassan (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:NACTOR. Is the main antagonist of Pencil and has no other notability. He was the winner of the reality show BB Jodigal but that doesn't add much. WP:TOOEARLY, please redirect to Pencil (film). He also played the lead in the 5 episode YouTube series Kaalam Neram Kadhal. Is that notable? I smell COI because the article said his unreleased film "received an average reception from critics". [25].

Has a similar notability to Draft:Tharshan Thiyagarajah. This source talks about his lack of roles since Bigg Boss [26]. DareshMohan (talk) 19:00, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 21:49, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:46, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 00:12, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect, ToF counts as one source so no matter how in-depth and substantial any of those pieces are they still do not amount to GNG. This is even ignoring the tabloid quality of the ToF articles.
JoelleJay (talk) 20:28, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry but what is "ToF"?-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 00:04, 4 December 2023 (UTC)? (did you mean The Times of India? if so, only one 2 articles from this periodical are cited on the page, one addressing directly and in-depth the career of Shariq Hassan, the second clearly there only for verification of his presence in the cast of a future film.)[reply]
This was addressing the claim above that Coverage by the Times of India, on multiple occasions, is more than enough to establish notability per WP:NACTOR. JoelleJay (talk) 06:24, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
OK, thanks, it's generally abbreviated as TOI rather than ToF, though. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 11:02, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Mushy Yank: @DJ InstaMalik: @JoelleJay: Would you support a redirect to his father Riyaz Khan#Early and personal life with a sentence about him? Clearly Wikipedia:TOOSOON. DareshMohan (talk) 03:31, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that works for me! (but not strongly opposed to keep) -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 08:30, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 04:49, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Glenn Fleishman

AfDs for this article:
Glenn Fleishman (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)

Despite all the subjects achievement there seems to be little written about him by reliable sources. His books get him close to WP:AUTHOR but there is still a significant gap. So many of the sources are by him or are interviews of him and these do not count for notability. Before searches here in Europe have failed to find anything which really stacks up. As it stands it fails WP:GNG  Velella  Velella Talk   18:58, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Journalism, and Technology. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:01, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This was undeleted for some obscure reason and, not noticing it was an undeleted older article, I sent it to draft because it was sitting on the review queue as new - and so clearly not ready for mainspace and offered such scanty notability. Although that draft was subsequently denied on submission by another editor (confirming my view that it wasn't good enough for mainspace), the move to draft was, correctly, undone by Liz noticing it was too old to draftify. It has since led a charmed life as a BLP of someone clearly non-notable. Not a great deal has changed, the subject still doesn't qualify as notable per WP:GNG as a journalist, author, historian or podcaster. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 10:02, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 21:50, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. Daniel (talk) 05:29, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of Penthouse Pets

List of Penthouse Pets (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 strikes me as inherently problematic. There are numerous magazines in this genre which use a monthly featured model as a marketing gimmick, and it is really nothing more than that. Sourcing is not great for showing that the list itself is notable. The vast majority of names on this list are non-notable people. If anything, the existence of the designation should be discussed in the Penthouse (magazine) article, and an abbreviated list should be presented there, limited to notable individuals who happen to have been so-named. BD2412 T 18:20, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people and Popular culture. BD2412 T 18:20, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • COMMENT - FYI as far as article creator User:MutterErde: "This user has been banned from editing the English Wikipedia by Jimbo Wales". Don't know the issue(s) involved - maybe BLP or the like - just surprised it was Jimbo. — Maile (talk) 21:17, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • COMMENT I don't think this can be compared to regular periodicals as it's an integral part of the identity, just like Playboy centrefolds. It's something people will be interested in. I also don't think the notability of any people should weigh in here as it's about the notability of the list. Obviously such a list should be complete. I think any decision should be based on the quality and sustainability of the list. So unless there's obvious problems in that regard I'm leaning towards keep as I haven't seen any valid criticism against the list itself. Biofase flame| stalk  00:41, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • We don't (and shouldn't) have a freestanding List of Hustler Honeys or List of Gallery Girls Next Door or List of Genesis centerfold models, or any of the other magazines in the genre outside of the List of Playboy Playmates of the Month, which contains a substantially higher caliber of notability of its membership (despite also having a dearth of sources). The obvious problem is that the list is unencyclopedic in the first place. BD2412 T 02:42, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      I'm not sure why you're singling out one list to the exclusion of others. It sounds more like you're applying notability as a competitive criteria and not a value criteria. So I'm sticking with my criteria unless the article itself is problematic there's no reason not to keep it. Also I hope you're not referring to the old "wikipedia is not..." argument which has been put to death already as false. Wikipedia is whatever an encyclopedia is and encyclopedias do include how-tos and lists when they are relevant to the time. Biofase flame| stalk  20:53, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      According to deletion policy, reasons for deletion include articles that are not encyclopedic according to WP:NOT policy, and in this instance, there does not appear to be support in independent and reliable sources for the notability of this group. I found this article while working on another, because of vague mentions in low-quality tabloid-style sources about the subject having been a Penthouse Pet. And from a general AfD view, this also does not appear to be a notable honor, because of the lack of independent, reliable, and secondary support for the encyclopedic significance - without support in such sources, it appears reasonable to exclude what also appears to be a mostly unverified list of people who are not well-known. Beccaynr (talk) 21:20, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      If the list itself is unverifiable it's one thing but this seems to be a made up reason not in the policy as a list is an encyclopedic tool and does not need to be supported or even exist in sources. That's why I said if there are problems with the content of the list then mention it but there are no obvious problems with such a list itself.
      Actually just did a quick google search and "penthouse magazine" returns about 30m results while "penthouse pets" return about 20m with many sites dedicated to lists and archives of pets so the topic itself seems pretty notable to me. Biofase flame| stalk  21:47, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Yes, I shouldn't have mentioned verification when this discussion is otherwise about encyclopedic notability of the group, and sufficiently independent and reliable sources to support notability. So on that topic, the use of a Google test does not help identify specific sources to support notability. If this is a notable distinction in a modeling career, then let's establish that with sources; otherwise, this list appears to lack encyclopedic significance. Beccaynr (talk) 22:58, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - including per WP:NOTPROMO and WP:NOTDIRECTORY, because WP:NLIST notability of the group does not appear supported by independent and reliable sources. WP:NLIST also does not appear to support inclusion of a list of the notable subjects in the Penthouse (magazine) article because of the lack of support for the notability of the group. Beccaynr (talk) 06:16, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep penthouse pets are mentioned many times in media and independent sources like 1 2 3 4 etc. This topic seems pretty notable to me.
    Polarbear678 (talk) 18:21, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The WP:NYPOST and WP:DAILYMAIL (the second and third sources linked in the comment above) are not suitable for supporting notability. The first source is a Youtube video of a "The Penthouse Pet of the year, 1977" interview by the CBC, posted in 2010 and described as "In this clip from 1977, the Penthouse Pet of the year - Vicki Johnson - talks about why she posed for the magazine at a time when Penthouse was considered more controversial than it is today" on the website, which does not appear to support the notability of the Penthouse Pets group. Beccaynr (talk) 18:30, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Those aren't the only sources. Penthouse group is often in the news. There are so many reputable sources that have mentioned it. They have been mentioned in news sources of all political spectrum. I don't see why it is not notable. Polarbear678 (talk) 18:59, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The New York Post article isn't even about someone who was a Penthouse Pet! It's about a girl literally living in a penthouse suite (a top-floor apartment). BD2412 T 19:28, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    That was a mistake. I just updated it. Polarbear678 (talk) 19:41, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Guidelines and policy indicate the notability of Penthouse magazine does not contribute to notability for Penthouse Pets as a group - the organizations and companies notability guideline, which has a focus on some of the common issues with abusing Wikipedia for advertising and promotion and a need for quality sourcing, has a section about no inherited notability, e.g. An organization may be notable, but individual members (or groups of members) do not "inherit" notability due to their membership. For this article, we theoretically could verify group membership with the Penthouse website, but this would seem to be WP:PROMO if independent and reliable sources do not support the notability of the Penthouse Pets group. Beccaynr (talk) 19:47, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Literature, and Sexuality and gender. • Gene93k (talk) 10:20, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:21, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 18:35, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the above discussion. Looks like fancruft with an extra flavour of female objectification. -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 07:51, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There is exactly one other such publication that is as notable as Penthouse, as Biofase correctly points out, and indeed we have a List of Playmates of the Month article for that one. References to Pets of the Month are numerous, including in reliable secondary sources. I don't accept the nom's slippery slope argument. The Hustler Honeys or the Genesis centerfolds have nowhere near the notability of those who appeared in Playboy or Penthouse. Owen× ☎ 18:32, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Can you (or anyone) provide examples of reliable secondary sources to support the notability of the group? Beccaynr (talk) 18:49, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 07:38, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep‎. Liz Read! Talk! 18:34, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

December 2022 Twitter suspensions

December 2022 Twitter suspensions (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)

Previous nomination: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/December 15, 2022 Twitter suspensions

I believe it's time to revisit this AfD which was very contentious the last time due to the issue being red hot. Now that things have cooled down, it is easy to see how this was a flash-in-the-pan with no lasting or global significance, with all coverage of it happening around the time of the incident. It has no independent notability separate from Acquisition of Twitter by Elon Musk.

Delete per WP:10YT, WP:PAGEDECIDE and WP:NEVENT. TryKid [dubious – discuss] 18:15, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Internet. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:18, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: falls into WP:NOTNEWS territory. No long term significance, can certainly be sufficiently covered in other places. Esolo5002 (talk) 18:38, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:39, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Nothing has changed to affect the notability of this event since the last AFD. Notability is not temporary; if it was temporary then, it was temporary now, and the notability of this article is established because it meets the notability standards of significant coverage in reliable, verifiable, secondary sources (New York Times, NBC News, The Washington Post, Reuters, Fox News, and many, many others). That is the standard by which we judge notability, not an editor's subjective opinion that it was a "flash-in-the-pan" event. (If anything, I'd argue this event is more significant now than it was before, given that the free speech issues surrounding Twitter have only continued to persist.) Incidentally, this incident has continued to generate coverage in sources since the actual incident occurred, including in books like this, this, and this, and that's after only a very cursory search.) Furthermore, despite some editors' wish to re-litigate this issue, the article has already had an AFD, and the moderator who closed it specifically said the keep arguments for the article's notability were stronger than the delete arguments against it (many of which the moderator said were "transparently motivated by off-wiki sociopolitical concerns"). He suggested if there was a debate to be had, it was whether not whether the article should be deleted, but rather whether it should be merged with some other article. (I would still argue there is enough coverage to warrant its own standalone article, but that's an argument for another forum.) It would have been more appropriate for the nominator to attempt to start a merge discussion before taking it to AFD yet again, but since that was not done, I would argue the AFD should be closed and the article should be kept. — Hunter Kahn 20:45, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    There is no procedural requirements to initiate a merger discussion before an AfD; whether the article should deleted, merged or redirected is probably best discussed here. This whole suspension saga is a marginal incident in the larger Elon takeover and ElonJet sagas—it is already adequately covered in those pages, and there is neither a need to merge anything, nor any one appropriate merge target. Many of the "keep" !votes were, and are also, as much if not even greatly "motivated by offwiki sociopolitical concerns", as your reference to "free speech issues surrounding Twitter" demonstrates, so let's not put too much weight onto that; the new AfD is needed precisely because of the number of such motivated !votes in the previous one, and so let's not repeat that again. The sources you present demonstrate this point—they discuss the issue not at length as some great story on its own, but as a marginal point, part of the larger stories about Elon Musk and Twitter. This is what WP:PAGEDECIDE is about. regards, TryKid [dubious – discuss] 21:54, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Apologies, but as someone who was heavily involved in that discussion and recently reread it, I cannot fathom how one could come away from it with the conclusion that the keep arguments were just as "motivated by offwiki sociopolitical concerns" if not more. The closer only singled out the delete !votes because some of them really were a sight to see. One !vote was just a quote of Elon making fun of the article in place of a rationale for deletion, one delete !vote was just a personal attack against a keep !voter claiming they are "the reason Wikipedia is the leftist cesspool it is today", quite a few !votes' only rationale was the unconvincing argument that the article itself is inherently biased. Where was the equivalent from the keep !votes in that discussion? There was a stark contrast in the ratio of policy-based rationales between the various positions, so the suggestion that actually the keep !votes were just as ill-motivated makes me question your judgment on this one.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 04:45, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: More than well-sourced, still being discussed into 2023. [27]. Strong keep Oaktree b (talk) 22:44, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This event was quite notable, and the sourcing is ample. TH1980 (talk) 01:59, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This event is still notable and talked about to this day. The whole platform of Twitter was changed into a website totally different from what it was prior to late 2022, and this article exemplifies what Elon has done to the website under his tenure. Strong keep, per Hunter and everyone else. Explodicator7331 (talk) 14:56, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: It's an obscure topic but remains very relevant in the context of what occurred to Twitter since Elon took over. It's a great detailed reference as to the turning point in Twitter history as well as Musk's legacy. It documents forgotten truths about the suspensions,ie that certain journalists in fact weren't reinstated. Still very useful for digital archaeology purposes. CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 04:26, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Not much has changed since the last discussion, and I don't think I have it in me to rewrite the excessively long and rambly !vote I left last time, so I'll instead link to it, the main takeaway being that there is a very poor case for deletion and it's large enough that a merge would not be appropriate as it would warrant a WP:SPLIT if covered elsewhere. Please do give it a read, I put way too much time into it and I really don't have the energy to do it again, not when nothing has fundamentally changed since then and everything that could be said on the topic has already been said and still applies. I'll also be linking to this reply articulating why the 10 year test is not a deletion rationale as I noticed it was the first rationale the nom invoked. The frequent misapplication of 10YT and NOTNEWS I see in a lot of AfDs is something I've been trying very hard to push back against, as it can be easy to think they mean "will it be viewed as important ten years from now" and "don't cover the news" respectively until one takes the time to carefully read what they actually say.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 04:21, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Rewa–Bhopal Vande Bharat Express

The result was redirect per WP:SNOW. (non-admin closure) Arnav Bhate (talk) 12:39, 12 November 2023 (UTC)‎[reply]

AfDs for this article:
Rewa–Bhopal Vande Bharat Express (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)

Rani Kamalapati (Habibganj)–Rewa Vande Bharat Express already runs from Bhopal to Rewa. All sources that give a date have said that the train was to be inaugurated on 24th April. Half a year has passed since then and no news on the train. There are no other articles about upcoming Vande Bharat Express services. I believe that may be a violation of WP:CRYSTAL. The previous AfD was closed improperly, hence I am creating a new one. I think that the article should be deleted or redirected. Arnav Bhate (talk) 18:09, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect: to Rani Kamalapati (Habibganj)–Rewa Vande Bharat Express. It is the best way. In case if the government starts a train on the same route, redirect can be removed. 111.92.78.209 (talk) 02:22, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. I see a rough consensus to Delete and the copyright questions seal the deal. Liz Read! Talk! 22:26, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Tor Ingar Jakobsen

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

Sources are either from his website (source 1), written by him (source 5) or provide no significant coverage (sources 2-4). No indication of WP:NMUSICIAN. Also a likely WP:COI creation, as the author created the two articles in the first paragraph (since deleted). Google search also doesn't show anything useful. ARandomName123 (talk)Ping me! 18:03, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Please assess expansion of article since nomination.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 18:33, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: How on earth can you use his own website as a source?!?! MaskedSinger (talk) 10:55, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for your reply. Yes, his website has been used as source for things like his year of birth, and which town he was born in. All the other main achievements, as his published books, rewards, productions and work for musical theatre are covered with other sources as newspaper articles, press reviews, publications from publishers etc.I therefore still think it should be kept. Morpfhoby (talk) 21:15, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:52, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:20, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Well the publicity photograph is filched directly off the subject's own copyrighted WWW site. Let's see about the article text, with the subject's own autobiography on the left and Special:Permalink/1184636506 (the article as nominated for deletion) on the right:
−
Early Years Tor Ingar Jakobsen was born in Lena, Østre Toten, Norway in 1973. He started taking piano lessons at the age of 6, and started to do his first paid gigs at the the age of 13. In his teens he played in different rock and pop bands, who often entertained at different local clubs, pubs and dance halls. In his later teens he got interested in jazz, and joined different jazz groups, including a big band where he tried out his first arrangements. In 2004 he was educated from the University of Oslo as cand.philol. in jazz piano, composing and arranging. In his master thesis, […] Composer and arranger Jakobsen has composed and arranged music in many different formats. Several genres in different jazz formats, such as quartets, quintets, big band and cabaret orchestras. He has also composed and arranged in more classical styles, such as string quartets, brass quintets, choirs, wind orchestras and symphonic orchestras. Among those are the symphonic orchestra ‘The Norwegian Radio Orchestra’ (KORK) for whom he has composed and arranged several pieces; ‘Bryllupsmarsj fra Hadeland’, ‘Sommer ved Randsfjorden’ and ‘Fra Biri til Butterfly’. Teaching The last 15 years Jakobsen has been the jazz piano teacher for the students at Toneheim Folkehøyskole. He has also has been hired as a guest speaker at several universities and colleges around the world to talk about musical theatre, musical theatre history and composing for musical theatre. Among these are: 'Kristiania University College', 'NSKI University College', 'Bårdar', and 'The University of Oklahoma'
+
Jakobsen was born in [[Gjøvik]], Norway, and started taking piano lessons at the age of 6. At the age of 15 he started doing his first professional jobs as a musician. In his teens he started to play in different bands, including rock bands, cover bands and jazz bands. Along with the work at the concert scene, this was also the time when he started doing his first jobs as musical director in different local theatre productions. In 2004 he was educated from the [[University of Oslo]] as ''[[Candidatus philologiæ|cand.philol.]]'' in jazz piano and composing. As a composer, Jakobsen has composed and arranged music for many different formats and genres. Besides jazz quartets and quintets, he has composed and arranged for jazz big bands and cabaret orchestras. He has also composed and arranged in more classical styles, such as string quartets, brass quintets, choirs, wind orchestras and symphonic orchestras. Among those are the symphonic orchestra ‘The Norwegian Radio Orchestra’ (KORK) for whom he has composed and arranged several pieces. Jakobsen has been hired as a guest speaker at several universities and colleges around the world to talk about musical theatre, and composing for musical theatre. Among these are: Kristiania University College, NSKI University College, Bårdar, and The University of Oklahoma.

Subsequent edits such as Special:Diff/1184661405 have lifted more sentences straight from the autobiography and attributed them to some other source. This isn't original writing. This is a foundational copyright violation of an autobiography. Uncle G (talk) 12:04, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your input. I have deleted the content where his website was the source, and therefor also the content that did quote his homepage. I therefor think the copyright problem and reliable source problem now should be solved. Morpfhoby (talk) 09:52, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

Dust Waltz

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

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

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

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

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Hip Hop Pantsula. Liz Read! Talk! 22:53, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

O Mang Reloaded

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

This is an extended version of O Mang?. If I'm not mistaken, a deluxe or extended version is not eligible for a standalone article therefore this should be merged into O Mang?. dxneo (talk) 17:36, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is no reason why a deluxe album wouldn't be allowed its own article. It's less likely to happen because deluxe albums don't usually get the same level of coverage, but articles such as Teenage Dream: The Complete Confection are completely valid. However, notability is required for any album, deluxe or otherwise to receive an article, and I don't see evidence of that for either version of O Mang, so I say delete redirect both articles to Hip Hop Pantsula. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 20:21, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
QuietHere, my point exactly. I don't know a way of nominating two or more articles at once so I thought it would be great to merge or redirect then delete them altogether as I don't think we can discuss notability of another article here. I stand to be corrected. dxneo (talk) 20:27, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Dxneo follow the instructions at WP:MULTIAFD and you'll have it. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 21:53, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
QuietHere, the related article (O Mang?) is marked as redirect, i guess this should also follow in that direction since the nomination looks stupid already. dxneo (talk) 04:58, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I meant to write "redirect" rather than delete above and forgot. Adjusted my vote. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 15:19, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. There is only one article included in this AFD deletion discussion. To do a bundled nomination, please see guidelines at WP:AFD.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 18:32, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting seems a bit inadequate as there are no sources and redirect is probably the way to go. dxneo (talk) 18:52, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I can see why you would disagree with a relisting but I don't understand how it is "inadequate". I think you probably meant another word. As for me, I just wanted to hear assessments from more than two editors. That's my preference and it's only the first relisting. I don't think that is asking for too much. Liz Read! Talk! 03:34, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 04:52, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Luca Palazzo

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

Subject is a footballer with just two seasons of experience in the lower ranks professional football. He fails WP:GNG due to lack of WP:SIGCOV ([31]), all sources in the article are non-independent (transfer reports from his clubs at the time, and name mentions from Football League reports). I could not find anything relevant or even close to noteworthy by searching for the subject around the Web. Angelo (talk) 17:25, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Weak delete, Does indeed fail GNG per nom, but I tend to try and not side with deletionist thinking and aim to keep when possible. Iljhgtn (talk) 21:31, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 18:30, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Letterkenny Residents Party

Letterkenny Residents Party (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 another one flagged by Guliolopez and I agree that it has not established WP:ORG. This party contested two elections: the 2009 Letterkenny Town Council election (successfully) and the 2014 Donegal County Council election (unsuccessfully). It was created in 2008 ahead of the 2009 election and dissolved in 2015 after the 2014. There's nothing to suggest that it was anything other a branding exercise for Tom Crossan's brief political career. I've added a note on both election pages. There's something similar on the 1985 Waterford Corporation election page for the Waterford People's Party and on 2009 Fingal County Council election for the Seniors Solidarity Party, and seems a good way of handling localised parties with a fleeting existence. Iveagh Gardens (talk) 16:29, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 18:28, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Otokar Kaya

Otokar Kaya (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)

Complete Lack of sources. The only Link goes to manufacturer website, which provides very little information. From my research has not been adopted by any agency or country. F.Alexsandr (talk) 15:53, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. In addition to being a clear minority, arguments in favor of keeping the argument did not provide evidence to refute the core claims of the deletion argument, which is that lasting notability for the session in itself, independent of the notable matters that were discussed in it, has not been demonstrated. signed, Rosguill talk 17:00, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

2023 Special Session of the Parliament of India

2023 Special Session of the Parliament of India (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

In India, Parliament sits at least three times a year - in the Budget, Monsoon, and Winter sessions. These sessions last for months, and discuss and promulgate many pieces of legislation, similar to the sessions of other countries. When even the Budget sessions, arguably the most important parliamentary sessions, do not get their own individual articles, I fail to see how this five-day session, that passed one single piece of legislation, is notable.

Most of the article is either a list of individual statements and minor speeches made by politicians or a load of media speculation that turned out to be nothingburgers. We shouldn't include these since WP is NOTNEWS (nor is it the Hansard).

There are two, and only two, notable things in this article, and none are inherent to this special session - Parliament started functioning in a new building, and the Women's Reservation Bill was passed as the 106th Amendment. The Amendment already has its own article, and the information about the inauguration of the building more properly belongs to the New Parliament House, New Delhi article. Other articles that can absorb info from here include 17th Lok Sabha and second Modi ministry.

The article subject - the special session itself - shows no enduring relevance; searches for "special session" dropped sharply after the close of the session, and even the sources themselves talk less about the importance of the special session and more about the Amendment. Thus, in my view, the article should be deleted. W. Tell DCCXLVI (talk to me!/c) 15:37, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete:Event has not demonstrated enduring relevance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bro-Koji (talk • contribs) 22:21, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete/selective merge to 17th Lok Sabha. I don't see any other articles on Indian parliament sessions, so I don't see why we'd need such a detailed news-style agenda of a two-day session. Reywas92Talk 16:52, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, albeit cautiously. I do agree that there are weird implications of this special session being played up as especially important when other sessions don't have such detailed articles. I also think it may be worth adjusting the tone to make more clear that this did indeed turn out to be a "nothingburger". But, well, nothingburgers in politics that have hype at the start but is unfulfilled happen, and can be relevant to document, too. If we have more detailed articles in the future on what each session of the Lok Sabha does, that's probably okay? As a fallback, redirect/merge but do not think the content is worthy of outright deletion. SnowFire (talk) 19:53, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Information in this Wikipedia article is verifiable and there are numerous reliable independent sources which can be found on this topic. Determining notability does not necessarily depend on things such as fame, importance, or popularity—although those may enhance the acceptability of a topic. Content in this article is not an indiscriminate collection of information. To provide encyclopedic value, data in this article is put in context with references to independent sources having "significant coverage". Notability is a property of a subject and not of a Wikipedia article. Policy clearly states - If the subject has not been covered outside of Wikipedia, no amount of improvement to the Wikipedia content will suddenly make the subject notable. Conversely, if the source material exists, even very poor writing and referencing within a Wikipedia article will not decrease the subject's notability. A rule of thumb for creating a Wikipedia article is whether the event is of lasting, historical significance, and the scope of reporting (national or global reporting is preferred).
This article page was created as an offshoot of Special session of the Parliament of India. Requesting fellow editors to help the community to preserve the editorial effort and this useful information on 2023 parliament session with historic significance.
P.S. - Editors evaluating notability should consider not only any sources currently named in an article, but also the possibility or existence of notability-indicating sources that are not currently named in the article. Thus, before proposing or nominating an article for deletion, or offering an opinion based on notability in a deletion discussion, editors are strongly encouraged to attempt to find sources for the subject in question and consider the possibility that sources may still exist even if their search failed to uncover any. --Anand2202 (talk) 09:17, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Find the response on my talk page here
Above comment posted by Wilhelm Tell DCCXLVI. -The Gnome (talk) 13:49, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Greetings, Anand2202. You wrote: "[E]ditors are strongly encouraged to attempt to find sources for the subject in question and consider the possibility that sources may still exist even if their search failed to uncover any." I truly cannot understand what that task could possibly entail. We search for sources but find none, yet we should continue to believe sources exist?! They might, since that probablity is never zero, but how does that help our search, or, more importantly, our assessment of an article's notability? It smacks of "well, sources might exist". -The Gnome (talk) 13:49, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 18:27, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. Daniel (talk) 05:28, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Douglas R. Bush

Douglas R. Bush (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 test case: I don't believe being the United States Assistant Secretary of the Army for Acquisition, Logistics, and Technology is enough to satisfy WP:BIO. Clarityfiend (talk) 14:48, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  1. ^ a b c Center for Strategic and International Studies (23 Mar 2023) Pressing Challenges to U.S. Army Acquisition: A Conversation with Hon. Douglas R. Bush
  2. ^ a b United States Army War College and Army Force Management School (2019-2020) How the Army Runs HTAR: A senior leader reference handbook which synthesizes "existing and developing National, Defense, Joint, and Army systems, processes, and procedures currently practiced"

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 18:27, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. I am ultimately surprised at my own vote here. There simply is not enough independent, in-depth coverage of this incredibly accomplished person. Ultimately, I don't think GNG can be met here. In the future, I would just bundle nominations like this.--Mpen320 (talk) 03:34, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Currently split between deleting and keeping...
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 07:38, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete It might be more appropriate to delete it, since it needs to portray a more related source(s) to show its notability/independence... Ali Ahwazi (talk) 12:15, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I'm not seeing the independent and significant coverage from reliable sources that would be needed per WP:GNG or WP:NBIO. The only ones that are even broadly independent are the two Breaking Defence stories, and of those ref #4 has no analytical content about the subject (the only things about him specifically are quotes, i.e. non-independent) while ref #2 is your run-of-the-mill "X was appointed as Y" announcement thing. Nor does there appear to be any more specific notability guideline that would be relevant. I'll also note that vague hand waving about how the AAE is needed to win, if anything, just demonstrates how there doesn't seem to be any policy-based argument for keeping this. -Ljleppan (talk) 08:32, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Update. I have nominated four of seven other officeholders for deletion (excepting two generals and a member of the National Academy of Engineering). Three are bundled together, while Bruce Jette has been nominated separately because he survived a 2018 Afd (the arguments there seem inadequate to me). Clarityfiend (talk) 15:39, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus‎. Daniel (talk) 00:00, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Atlantic Lacrosse Conference

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

Subject does not meet the WP:GNG due to a lack of in depth secondary sources which are independent of the source. The only source I found which comes even close to qualifying is [[32]]. Let'srun (talk) 14:46, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Collegiate athletic conferences are presumptively notable, IMO; we have countless articles on less noteworthy subjects. The only reason for concluding that the subject is non-notable would be if it were a hoax, which does not seem to be the case. The issue here is how to find good sources; but notability is not determined by the present state of sources, nor are sources required to be online. The failure of someone's Google searches to uncover material on something that must certainly be documented merely shows that this search strategy is inadequate. One or more editors will have to take the time to figure out where independent sources might be located, and consult them. They may not be online, but there is no deadline for improving articles. Given that we know this conference exists across a number of colleges in several states, and has for multiple years, concluding that there are no independent sources merely because one couldn't locate them online is inadequate to demonstrate a lack of notability P Aculeius (talk) 12:50, 12 November 2023 (UTC).[reply]
    Comment: Collegiate athletic conferences conferences in the NCAA may generally be notable, but there is no criteria that says they are presumptively notable, and in this case this "conference" is in a club-level competition with little in the name of coverage due to the level of the competition. Just like your local travel baseball league isn't notable, this conference isn't either. Most of your vote reads like arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. The absence of available sources should not, in my view, ever be twisted around to be seen as proof that sources actually exist. We can only use what is available, not what we imagine might exist in some fantasy world, and this article isn't up to snuff, simply enough. Let'srun (talk) 14:15, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
And yet you're setting up a series of straw men. I didn't say that the absence of sources proves that they exist in some fantasy world. Your claim is that sources don't exist because you couldn't find them online. This is precisely the kind of subject that's likely to be documented primarily through college athletic sites and local news that isn't searchable online. It's fairly certain that written or audiovisual confirmation of the conference and its history and membership exist; the only plausible explanation for it not existing would be if this were a hoax, which it's clearly not. A relatively short search revealed that Davidson College's athletic site discusses its Lacrosse program, although some of the other colleges mentioned don't seem to. But that speaks to the quality of their web sites, not the reality of their participation in the league. If I haven't made this point clear yet, sources do not have to be available online. The simple fact that it's a collegiate athletic conference means that sources will exist; a claim that they don't because you couldn't find them online is not credible. P Aculeius (talk) 18:23, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Great, but we need independent, secondary sources. A member school discussing their program is a primary source. WP:ITEXISTS and WP:SOURCESEXIST are not legitimate keep arguments. Let'srun (talk) 18:53, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You've got it backward. "None of these sources are good enough" and "I can't find any sources I consider acceptable" aren't legitimate delete arguments for something that we know exists and that should be notable. You're still fixated on the lack of online sources, as though you hadn't read the guidelines that you keep wikilawyering with. Sources do not have to be available online; articles don't get deleted because their sources aren't good enough; there's no time limit on improving articles. The burden rests with the nominator to show that a topic cannot be documented, and that burden is not satisfied by arguing that there aren't enough online sources that are independent of the subject—particularly when it's obvious that better sources exist, even though they don't seem to be easy to come by over the internet. P Aculeius (talk) 23:27, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Of course offline sources are just as good as online sources, yet it is nowhere near obvious that better sources exist. Let'srun (talk) 01:13, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: To address @Let'srun's concerns for notability of a "club-level conference"; for most schools, the MCLA is the only available option for collegiate level lacrosse, especially for schools along the west coast. More schools participate in MCLA level lacrosse than NCAA DI and DII lacrosse. Yes, the Atlantic Lacrosse Conference is a young conference, so it has a shorter history and fewer online sources than others, but every other MCLA conference has met Wikipedia's notability guidelines. SammySpartan (talk) 15:17, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Just because other conferences have articles doesn't make this one notable. Also, did any of those other articles have AfD discussions? Let'srun (talk) 01:11, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 23:48, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 14:01, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 23:06, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep‎. ✗plicit 14:23, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Marty Slimak

Marty Slimak (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:COLLATH / WP:NBASIC. –Aidan721 (talk) 12:51, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:21, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 14:34, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lee Jin-e

Lee Jin-e (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)

Failed WP:GNG, WP:NBLP, and WP:SINGER with WP:BEFORE on Google/Bing (English) and Daum/Naver (Korean) showing lack of WP:SIGCOV from reliable sources. While, she has released couple of songs, none of it charted on the Circle Digital Chart, the national chart of South Korea. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 14:19, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:25, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 14:24, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dalglish Papin Test

Dalglish Papin Test (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)

Despite being probably named after two very notable footballers, I'm not seeing any notability for Dalglish Papin Test himself. I can't find anything close to WP:GNG or even WP:SPORTBASIC #5. Best sources found were an image caption in Bharian and a passing mention in Dayak Daily. Just searching for "Dalglish Test" only brings back results about Kenny Dalglish testing positive for COVID-19. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 13:40, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect‎ to Survivor: One World. There is consensus that there is insufficient sourcing for Spradlin to have a standalone page, however there is no clear consensus on target nor any indication further input is forthcoming. Since she won this season, I went with that as the target but this element of the close is an editorial decision and a new target can be chosen through the same process, if needed. Star Mississippi 14:03, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kim Spradlin

AfDs for this article:
Kim Spradlin (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)

Notable for only winning Survivor: One World. Everything else she has done since seems resume-building, not indication of notability, and probably fan-titillating. The Jeopardy reference is just mere reference to her One World win.

Should be redirected to either (preferably) Survivor: One World or (alternatively) List of Survivor (American TV series) contestants. If WP:BLP1E doesn't apply, how about WP:BIO1E or WP:PAGEDECIDE instead? George Ho (talk) 03:10, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:20, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep or Merge – WP:BIO1E does present a strong case for removal. However, there is one source, Southern Living, that is about her work as an interior decorator. This feature article a top-ten (non-celebrity) magazine suggests that she is moving toward notability for other things. Other coverage of her marriage, false arrest, and pregnancy are not related to the television show and indicate that her celebrity has continued beyond the show, especially given that these articles are from major media. It is challenging to deal with people who are famous for being famous, but there is a demand for reliable content on these individuals in Wikipedia. My biggest push back on WP:BIO1E is that she is known for not just one television show but for two shows. Although both are part of the Survivor franchise, Survivor: One World and Survivor: Winners at War are treated as two different shows within Wikipedia. And the Survivor: Winners at War is where an issue emerges—almost all of the cast members of this show have a stand-alone Wikipedia article; all are similarly notable for being a winner of a prior season of a Survivor franchise show. I looked at a few of these articles; they had fewer sources and less post-show coverage than Spradlin, again indicating that her celebrity goes beyond the show. That being said, I do think the best solution for all of these Survivor-related bio articles is to merge a trimmed bio into the television shows' article. Because merging would be part of a bigger project and might take longer than the duration of this deletion discussion, more time is needed and is reasonable. I do not write about contemporary celebrities and do not watch Survivior, but have edited reality television show articles for the GOCE. Normally, there is a short bio for each contestant within the article for each season. However, short bios are not part of the Survivor: One World or Survivor: Winners at War articles. So, the redirect that I would normally support, would only take someone to the barest of details; content the searcher most likely already knows because they are searching for Spradlin. I support a merge vs. a redirect because there is content and related sources here that will add value to another article and would be lost with a redirect. If the decision is made to keep rather than merge this article, it needs a major copy edit. I have gone ahead and flagged it for this. Rublamb (talk) 16:05, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The two "shows" you refer to are Survivor seasons. Some returnees who appeared in Winners at War have been redirected to their own winning seasons due to their lack of notabilities outside their own winning seasons.
Why must we preserve info about "her marriage, false arrest, and pregnancy", especially at the cost of enforcing WP:BLP? Even returnees' family info didn't save such articles from being redirected. Furthermore, I don't see her notability as an interior decorator verified by multiple sources other than Southern Living. Must we include and preserve every info about her to justify keeping this article?
I don't see any info that is relevant and valuable to Survivor: One World. George Ho (talk) 18:51, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and regarding "would be lost with a redirect", the info about this person won't be lost (unless servers would mess up deleted pages?). Just historical revisions shall suffice, shan't they? George Ho (talk) 18:56, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I stand corrected on seasons vs. two shows and will strike that above. I am not saying there is a need for overly detailed information about her marriage and pregnancy in the article and have indicated a need for a comprehensive edit. Rather, the coverage of such life events by mainstream media helps define her as a celebrity vs. a one-off reality television show participant. There is a tipping point between the two; the Southern Living article stands out in this regard. When I referred to information being lost, I specifically meant inaccessible to the people who come to Wikipedia for information—because deleted articles are removed from Wikipedia and Internet search results. In terms of what might be valuable in a merge, a general bio might include where a contestant is from, their occupation, and any personal details that were significant in how they played the game. Photos are also included. Because this is one of many Survivor participant articles that would need to be deleted based on the criteria outlined in your nomination, it is simpler to treat this as a comprehensive merger project that would not necessarily require discussion for every article. I have previously merged articles that fell under BIO1E without complaints; the key is that valuable content is retained while the questionable article goes away. Rublamb (talk) 19:40, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In terms of what might be valuable in a merge, a general bio might include where a contestant is from, their occupation, and any personal details that were significant in how they played the game. That's something that Fandom can do, can't it?
inaccessible to the people who come to Wikipedia for information—because deleted articles are removed from Wikipedia and Internet search results. I apppreciate your concerns about effects on accessibility, but being removed from search results doesn't mean info is valuable. Sometimes, being part of search engine results, like Google, is more like... clickbait?
Regarding merger, I don't see any Survivor season article containing a mini-bio of its winner, do I? When a winner was redirected, no info about such winner was merged into the season article, and relevant info about contestants, including winners, have already been included only as long as the info is relevant to the specific season. George Ho (talk) 20:07, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Response: My recommendations are based on articles for other reality television shows where the contestants do not have their own articles. Clearly, the contestant's background info is not included in the Survivor articles because someone expanded that content into a secondary article. When deciding between partially merging or deleting in this instance, we should consider what is wanted by and/or helpful to users of Wikipedia; what is included in Fandom is irrevelant. As discussed in WP:WPINWA, Wikipedia has a different role from Fandom and includes sources for its content. While some content in this article should be trimmed and is better suited for Fandom, it also includes basic details could be helpful to understanding the televison show and the dynamics between cast members. Let's see what other's think. Rublamb (talk) 21:02, 4 November 2023 (UTC) Rublamb (talk) 21:04, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 13:18, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:46, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 04:59, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Guy Joachim

Guy Joachim (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)

Auction results for paintings and not much else don't add up to enough to satisfy WP:ARTIST. (From what I can see from other, non-paywalled sources, his works sell in the range of hundreds of dollars only.) Clarityfiend (talk) 12:53, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:05, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - I am not finding any reliable sourcing on this artist. All the listed sources are auction results which does not count towards notability. Joachim does not have significant coverage, nor has his work been part of major exhibition, and I cannot find evidence that his work is part a notable collection. --WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 02:06, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge‎ to Lachung River. (non-admin closure) NotAGenious (talk) 20:06, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Amitabh Bachchan Falls

Amitabh Bachchan Falls (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:N. — Hemant Dabral (📞 • ✒) 08:20, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge selectively to Lachung River. The falls themselves are mentioned in Emptying the landscape: outsider place-making, tourism and migration in Sikkim, India, as well as in a bit of news coverage ([37]). However, I'm not really seeing sources that are ever going to get an article on the falls beyond a stub. WP:GEONATURAL says that [i]f a Wikipedia article cannot be developed using known sources, information on the feature can instead be included in a more general article on local geography. In the spirit of both this and WP:NOPAGE, which says that at times it is better to cover a notable topic as part of a larger page about a broader topic, I think we'd be better off merging this article on the falls into the article on the river itself, where the falls can be covered in sufficient depth in the greater context of the river where the falls are. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 03:52, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:02, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. — Hemant Dabral (📞 • ✒) 17:40, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus‎. No comments after 2 relistings so I'm closing this as No consensus. Feel free to return to AFD at a future date. Liz Read! Talk! 23:15, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ajum Goolam Hossen

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

No evidence of any notability. The refs quoted are simple name checks except for one article which is a blog. Fails WP:GNG  Velella  Velella Talk   11:25, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If you actually read the article, you would see that the information is displayed in these books. You can’t set it for deletion if you haven’t even read the articles properly. Ajum was the owner of a major trade company in Mauritius and was secretary and co-founder of the Surtee Soonnee Mussulman Society, which has made a great impact on the Muslims (not just Surtis) in Mauritius. If that’s not notability, I don’t know what is. Yolia21 (talk) 15:04, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Please tell me which citations do not fit the requirements. I used the same sources as used in Amode Ibrahim Atchia as the person was also a Mauritian businessman. It has the same information. Yolia21 (talk) 15:11, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I have read both the article and the references provided.
  • The first is a record of a civil court case. There is a name check but nothing that talks of notability
  • The second ref has a name check for "A J Hossen" and a short quote. Nothing about the subject.
  • The third is a blog believed to be the blog of the article creator - blogs have no value in asserting notability
  • The fourth does not appear to mention the subject
  • The fifth states "Goolam Hossen Piperdy who died in 1875 after successfully founding A G Hossen and Co. engaged in extensive import and export activities , had branches in Calcutta, Bombay, St Denis.....". The quote continues but adds nothing to indicate any significant notability. He was obviously a good businessman of his time but that isn't a claim to notability
  • The sixth is another civil court case decision about the value of goods - no notability here.
  • The seventh demonstrates that he shook hands with Mr K Gandhi in 1901 - again no evidence of notability.
In Summary, none of the sources discuss the subject, they are all mentions or name checks and thus the article fails WP:GNG as noted in the nomination,  Velella  Velella Talk   15:33, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I found several refs cited online that may mention them but they may be available on paper only. If someone here has access to them, please try to dig them up. They might solve the notability as well as enrich the article with useful content:
    • Rouillard, G. (1964) Histoire des Domaines, Sucriers De L’Ile Maurice. Les Pailes-Ile Maurice: The General Printing and Stationary Company, Limited
    • The Gujurati Merchants in Mauritius 10 THE GUJURATI MERCHANTS IN MAURITIUS: 1850-1900 AC Kalla - The Coolie Connection: From the Orient to the Occident, 1992 - Windsor Press
      • Also published as: The Gujarati merchants in Mauritius c. 1850–1900 AC Kalla - Journal of Mauritian Studies, 1987
In the meantime, these potential refs don't count in this discussion
Velella, I disagree with your assessment of ref #5, especially in combination with #7. #5 indicates he was a major player in the economy and #7 indicates he was the leader of the dominant group on the island, Indo-Mauritians, who welcomed Gandhi. I'll further note that our notability guideline does not discriminate against successful or unsuccessful businesspeople -- they're based on references.
--A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 17:22, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you A.B. Yolia21 (talk) 18:31, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
They are called references for a reason.
  • The first reference is to show that Ajum died on the 14th of February in 1919.
  • The second shows that he was notable individual in the Surtee community in Mauritius
  • The third is written from knowledge of his descendants. (me) This is not the first time this has happened as shown in Amode Ibrahim Atchia’s reference of a blog by Michael Atchia, his grandson.
  • The 4th shows his sugar factory in Pamplemousses.
  • The 5th talks about his company and how we was a notable trader in Port Louis, which is why he’s mentioned in the book in the first place.
  • The 6th talks about how he had many branches across the Indian Ocean like Singapore, South Africa, Mauritius, and India.
  • The 7th is talking about how his company faced legal issues which lead to the collapse of it. This is one of many recorded cases of Ajum Goolam Hossen and Co.
  • The 8th talks about how Ajum hosted M K Gandhi and Ajum did a speech with his son and two others. A person doing a speech at Taher Bagh when M K Gandhi is there is most likely a notable person.
  • The 9th shows his contributions to the recovery of Mauritius after the cyclone and his contribution to Rander, his family’s origin town.
Yolia21 (talk) 18:59, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Heritage Reclaimed by AC Kalla even mentions how notable he and his father was. Yolia21 (talk) 12:49, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think that there is a misunderstanding about the word "notability". Wikipedia defines notability in very specific ways that require multiple reliable sources that discuss the subject. "Discuss" does not equate to mention. Equally, a source that states that a person is notable does not equate to "Notability" in Wilkipedia. The two concepts are quite separate and different. Sources may state that the subject is notable but that doesn't support notability here. Regarding the comment about businessmen - I made no assertion about his role as a businessman and his potential notability. What would be very useful if someone with access to the references quoted here (but not in the article) could provide unedited trascripts of the relevant passages onto the talk page of the article. I have so far seen no text that conveys notability.  Velella  Velella Talk   13:31, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There are multiple sources that talk about him, but I do not have access to all of them like you said. I dont understand what makes a person notable. Is there a specific amount of references? Yolia21 (talk) 14:01, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The requirements are set out at WP:BIO. To be able to meet those standards it is necessary for the supporting texts to be read and be capable of being quoted. The sources don't have to be universally available and, especially for a person in Mauritius in the 19th century that might be very difficult but extracts from named documents from the National Library in Port Louis would be acceptable if they do indeed confirm notability.  Velella  Velella Talk   14:32, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I am currently contacting Abdool Cader Kalla on information of Ajum. Kalla is an author located in Mauritius who has made lots of books about Mauritian Indians. Maybe we can get more references. Yolia21 (talk) 12:56, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I added about 9 references, now there are 16 in total. Does that make him notable? You may check the sources if you want. Yolia21 (talk) 20:22, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry but the simple number of references does not add anything to notability. As noted above, what is required is reliable and independent sources discussing the subject. Thus court rulings, press reports of visiting dignitaries which simply mention the subject do not equate to notability. As previously suggested, copying some key paragraphs from these sources where the subject is discussed in a way that demonstrates notability would help enormously. At present, just from the sources quoted , I am still not seeing evidence of notability.  Velella  Velella Talk   22:57, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I added some of the references you mentioned which you said could show notability. Yolia21 (talk) 23:37, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. I'd like to see a second opinion on the article expansion since nomination.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:49, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, we need some more source assessments and opinions on what should happen with this article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:36, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. Eddie891 Talk Work 13:38, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Vinay Sapru

Vinay Sapru (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:BIO. Refs are clickbait and PR. scope_creepTalk 11:02, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy keep‎. Withdrawn by nominator with no other support for deletion. RL0919 (talk) 21:52, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Radhika Rao

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

Fails WP:BIO, WP:SIGCOV. References are clickbait, interviews, PR and profiles. No secondary sourcing. scope_creepTalk 10:55, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'm prettty confident in Beccaynr's ability to analyse an article for notability. scope_creepTalk 11:32, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - While I think there is more work that can be done, I have made updates to the article to incorporate reviews, including with an assist from WP:ICTFSOURCES, and to remove non-RS and what appears to be promotional content. I think keep is supported per WP:DIRECTOR#3 per multiple notable works with multiple reviews, including secondary coverage of her collective body of work. Beccaynr (talk) 03:41, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge‎ to 2023 Hamas-led attack on Israel. There is coverage, but not enough to sustain a separate article in the face of NOTNEWS and NOPAGE. No one is arguing the massacre should not be covered, the question was where. With respect to the target, noting, however, that should editorial consensus change to Ein HaShlosha as a target, that is fine. The consensus is not to maintain a standalone, however there is not a particular consensus on a target. Star Mississippi 18:47, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ein HaShlosha massacre

Ein HaShlosha massacre (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)

As with several other pages on less prominent components of the 2023 Hamas attack on Israel, this page is unnecessary, not notable as a standalone event and should be deleted or merged back into the parent, which still only holds 24kB of readable prose, yet has been a source for far too many unnecessary child articles. This page's issues are compounded by its poor quality sourcing and fuzzy detail - as the page itself notes, the facts "are largely unknown" - and Haaretz stands alone as the only WP:RSP in sight. Iskandar323 (talk) 10:47, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose -
-The massacre has been featured in international press.
-The massacre is worth mention. In 2023 Israel-Hamas war page, there is ALWAYS talk of making new articles since the article is to big. Therefore we should not delete pages created on the subject that take off some of the load from the main article.
-This page exists in 9 different languages on Wikipedia.
-Regarding sources, Citations in regards to the occurence:
[38] - Specifically on Kibbutz (News from UK)
Spanish - [39] [40]
French - [41]
Russian - [42],
More: [43][44],[45],[46] (there are more Hebrew sources, but I think my point is clear). Homerethegreat (talk) 11:44, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding merger, Talk:Ein HaShlosha massacre#Proposed merge of 2023 Israel–Hamas war with Ein HaShlosha Massacre
This has already been discussed, and from what I saw, it's been opposed. So it must be an independent article. Regarding quality of source and adding more sources. Here above I added plenty, and also in the page article itself there are already sources other than Haaretz. Homerethegreat (talk) 11:49, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If unclear in regards to the Oppose I wrote above. My meaning is Keep article. Homerethegreat (talk) 15:10, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Elie goodman (talk) 11:17, 18 November 2023 (UTC) Sock strike. Daniel (talk) 23:44, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as opinion is divided between those arguing to Keep this article and those who'd prefer a Merge. As far as I can see, all participants here are extended confirmed.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:51, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Keep or merge?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 07:40, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. After looking at sources [47], it appears this page can be significantly expanded because a lot of details are missing. Moreover, this is a developing event. For example, what was/will be the fate of hostages taken from Ein HaShlosha by the militants? This alone will make a story. My very best wishes (talk) 04:26, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to 2023 Hamas attack on Israel. Not every component of this atrocious attack is independently notable. It is far WP:TOOSOON to tell which crimes will prove to have an enduring WP:EFFECT independent of the overall attack. For this particular article, the sources are WP:PRIMARYNEWS; no secondary analysis of this portion of the attack has emerged (as shown by the paucity of info in this article) and in-depth analysis does not exist yet; and the reporting around this element of the attack has not been WP:SUSTAINED other than in passing mentions (and those are in primary sources). This falls in WP:EVENTCRIT #4, an horrific act that is (and should be) covered in appropriate detail in the parent article. Cheers, Last1in (talk) 20:58, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Well documented incident in a historically notable run of attacks. I see no reason even to propose removal of such incidents. Mistamystery (talk) 22:09, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question - if this article is not necessary due to raised concerns, why is the nominator creating articles such as Beit Rima massacre about events of the same scale, with Ein ha-Shlosha being obviously more documented as massacre and showing intentional killing of civilians rather than collateral damage in Beit Rima including militants. Fraankly I find both not notable enough, but would be happy to get an answer whether this is a systemic bias of the nominator.GreyShark (dibra) 19:19, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It is certainly odd that an editor would create one article, and nominate a similar one for deletion. But there's nothing improper about it. Editors change their mind, or wish to solicit debate about the necessity of such articles. I wouldn't rush to assume bad faith or a systematic bias. Let's discuss each article on merits alone, without pulling the author's or AfD nominator's history into the discussion. Owen× ☎ 20:04, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    You would do well not to project motives on other editors (advice I struggle at time to take). We are building an encyclopaedia; to do that we work on articles, not editors. Also, arguing against an article based on other articles is both dangerous water and explicitly recommended as something NOT to do. See WP:WHATABOUT.
    I also have a two-fold answer for your question. First, that article is also in AfD right now and I don't think it passes WP:NEVENT with its existing sourcing. I would delete both, but for different reasons. Second, that has zero to do with this article. It has different issues as well as a viable parent article for the overall event. The 2023 Hamas attack on Israel is encyclopaedic and already has strong secondary sources (something that simply cannot be said for each individual atrocity that the event comprises, like the subject of this AfD). Cheers, Last1in (talk) 20:06, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I strongly believe that the article should be kept on Wikipedia. This event is a significant part of history and provides valuable information for those seeking to understand the complexities of the region’s past. The article is well-sourced, providing multiple references to verify the information presented. It adheres to Wikipedia’s guidelines for neutrality, presenting facts without taking a side. Deleting this article would be a loss to the Wikipedia community and its readers worldwide. Therefore, I urge the moderators to consider the educational value and relevance of this article in their decision-making process. דור פוזנר (talk) 13:16, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge this minor article into Ein HaShlosha article, will sit better there than anywhere else. Selfstudier (talk) 19:19, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Ein HaShlosha as not significant enough for an individual page. Freinland (talk) 07:33, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This happened. this article shouldn't be deleted to favor ones bias, attempt to deny it happened. User:Iskandar323 has shown systemic bias against Israel on every, article posted about the Hamas Attack on Israel. on Every page he's asking to either rename articles from "massacres" to "attacks" to lessen the crimes the group has committed, and here again, he's attempting to do the same. in breach of WP:BIASCViB (talk) 18:29, 9 December 2023 (UTC) Struck non-EC comment per WP:ARBECR. Iskandar323 (talk) 20:42, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    First, WP:BIAS is about systemic bias, not about accusing fellow editors of personal bias which is a breach of WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF. Second, It does not require a bias (in either direction) to support or oppose a position based on policy and reliable sources. Once, just once, I'd like to see a civil discussion in Middle East topics that does not end up with folks implying racist motives on pro-this or anti-the-other editors. We're here to build an encyclopaedia; if everyone can't leave their bigotry at the door, we will fail. Cheers, Last1in (talk) 18:39, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to 2023 Hamas attack on Israel, this is best covered in the parent article. I find myself in agreement with Last1in's comment above. Daniel (talk) 21:43, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was 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 09:56, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Natural History of Fear

The Natural History of Fear (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 nominating this article for failing to meet WP:GNG. There is a lack of reliable sources for this article online, and it only contains an external link to the production company's website. List reference to this article is at Doctor Who: The Monthly Adventures. Currently, this article does little more than serve as an external link an online store to purchase the release. This article have existed for over a decade with no improvement to satisfy notability. Torpedoi (talk) 08:56, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 04:59, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Mansfield

AfDs for this article:
Thomas Mansfield (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 law firm. Very limited sources. Orphaned for a decade. PepperBeast (talk) 08:04, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:00, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Junk article that is fueled by primary sources, is promotional in tone, and contains no links to any other articles. Has a whopping eight edits in the past two years. sixtynine • whaddya want? • 18:08, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Previous instances were deleted after AfD decision in 2013, before the present instance was created by a WP:SPA. I have had a look for any sources to revise my "delete" opinion in the first AfD, but I am seeing no better than occasional items about research by the company and short articles by company employees, which fall under trivial coverage at WP:CORPDEPTH. I am not seeing the evidence needed to overturn the previous consensus that the firm has not attained notability here. AllyD (talk) 10:18, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge‎ to Hippocampus. Eddie891 Talk Work 13:41, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Between-systems memory interference model

Between-systems memory interference model (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)

Extremely doubtful notability. Sources are mostly WP:PRIMARY PepperBeast (talk) 08:00, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 05:09, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nima Rahizadeh

Nima Rahizadeh (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 notability, the guy actually exists but those info showing him winning an Asian Games silver or an Asian Cup gold is completely false. he is just a bench player in some non-notable team. never played for the national team. absolutely non-notable. Sports2021 (talk) 03:21, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:54, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:59, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep.He is a member of a famous team, even if he is on the bench, which doesn't seem like it, because in the game of basketball, even if you are in the game for one minute, you are considered famous. Also, he is in the Iranian national basketball team. If he is not a famous player, he should not have been invited to the Iranian national team.whose news link is also from a reliable Iranian news agency. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.7.122.182 (talk) 11:45, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sorry but you can't lie here to keep this article. by throwing Persian links hoping other people will not understand it. that article you posted says the guy was invited to the Youth (u16) national team. you failed to say that's a youth team. (and even if that was the senior team, just being invited is not enough) this guy is a total nobody. Sports2021 (talk) 12:52, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Sorry for your thought, I did not create this article.I speak according to reliable sources.Is deleting this article personal for you? As far as I know, there is no copyright on Wikipedia and no one can blame someone for expressing their opinion.You don't consider Iranian sources as valid, how about foreign sources This source even mentions the number of points they have earned. 31.7.122.187 (talk) 16:13, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      I apologize for my bad pronunciation, my English is very bad 31.7.122.187 (talk) 16:14, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Almost all of the content of Wikipedia is licensed for reuse under very liberal terms, but it is a mistake to say "there is no copyright on Wikipedia"; there certainly is. You may see further information on this at Wikipedia:Copyrights, if you wish to. However, I'm not at all sure why you have mentioned that, as nothing written on this page had anything to do with copyright. Also, you said "You don't consider Iranian sources as valid", but Sports2021 has not said that at all. What he said (rightly or wrongly, I have not checked) is that the source does not say what you said it does. That is completely different from saying that the source is not reliable. JBW (talk) 16:35, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No, you have misunderstood my meaning. The user stated that I insist on keeping the article because I wrote it, that this statement was wrong.Because I am not the author of this article, this person is an Iranian who, according to Persian language sources, is in several Iranian basketball teams.And in the source I posted above, he has even played for Iran's under-16 national team.Even in this source borna news, it is mentioned that this person has won the third place with the basketball team and is also known as the most technical player. 31.7.122.187 (talk) 17:01, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
However, I only expressed my personal opinion according to the review. The decision to keep or delete the article is with the respected administrators 31.7.122.187 (talk) 17:03, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
you really think people don't try google translators, don't you? you are saying:
he has even played for Iran's under-16 national team this source borna news, it is mentioned that this person has won the third place with the basketball team and is also known as the most technical player.
anybody who reads this may think he won a bronze medal with Iran U16 team (which is still not notable enough) but his achievement is not even that! again you failed to say he won 3rd place in Iran schoolboys championship, the whole article is a complete lie, none of those achievements are correct. he never won the Iranian league, he never played a single minute for the national team, let alone winning medals in William Jones Cup, Asian Games and Asian Cup! Sports2021 (talk) 18:05, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I was not intending to comment on this article or its nomination: I just posted my message above in the hope of helping the IP editor by clearing up some misunderstandings. However, having seen the disagreements about what the Persian sources say, I decided to check them, again with the intention of helping to clarify things, not to join the deletion debate. What I found surprised me, because it was far further than I expected in the direction of misrepresentation rather than misunderstanding. "...he has even played for Iran's under-16 national team. Even in this source borna news, it is mentioned that this person has won the third place with the basketball team" would I believe, convey to any reasonable person the impression that he has personally "won the third place" with Iran's under-16 national team. In fact the cited source is a report of the performance of a provincial high school basketball team, which came third in a national competition. In an earlier post by the same editor, we were told that "he is in the Iranian national basketball team". Sports2021 has already pointed out that this refers to the national youth team, not the Iranian national basketball team; furthermore, the cited report (originating from a member of the Young Journalists Club) says that Nima Rahizadeh is one of two players from Hormozgan province who were invited to the preparation camp for the youth national team. I cannot determine exactly what the status of that "preparation camp" is, but I am not sure that being invited to the preparation camp is the same as being selected for the team. So, on investigation the apparent evidence of notability has evaporated: from apparently being a member of the national basketball team, he moved to apparently being a member of the national under-16 team, and now he has moved from there to actually being a member of a regional high school student team who has been invited to a training camp for the national under-16 team. Absolutely nowhere remotely near to notable by Wikipedia's standards. JBW (talk) 20:47, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 06:59, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Aliyar Najafi

Aliyar Najafi (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 notability, never played for the national. just a regular league player with no special achievement, the fact that the page is an orphan also proves his non-notability. Sports2021 (talk) 03:17, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:54, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep‎. (non-admin closure) Let'srun (talk) 19:27, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Australia–Peru relations

AfDs for this article:
Australia–Peru 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)

Previously deleted via AfD back in 2010 and recently recreated. (I'm not an admin and can't see the original version, but I don't think the current version is close enough to qualify for WP:CSD G4.) Anyway, the arguments in the original AfD still apply. Cited sources are all either government websites and/or fall well short of constituting direct, in depth coverage of these countries' relations. Yilloslime (talk) 02:39, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • It's not the same as the 2010 version. This is purportedly a translation of an article started on the Spanish Wikipedia in 2014. It covers the same ground, but it's not a strict translation. Uncle G (talk) 02:54, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - there are enough sources and diplomatic relations pages are a standard on the Wiki. Styx (talk) 03:14, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:53, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:58, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 08:04, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 01:35, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Reduce America's Debt Now Act of 2011

AfDs for this article:
Reduce America's Debt Now Act of 2011 (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 page is not WP:Notable as it is covering a bill that did not become law and has not been covered by WP:Secondary sources in any sort of meaningful or substantial way. ~Politicdude (About me, talk, contribs) 03:51, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:52, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 23:45, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Crabtree

Steve Crabtree (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 sources Questions? four OLIfanofmrtennant (she/her) 03:59, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: articles aren't deleted because they're inadequately sourced; they're deleted because their subjects aren't notable, or the statements in the article are unverifiable. WP:BEFORE expects a reasonable effort to locate sources before nominating articles for deletion; articles shouldn't be nominated merely because they don't contain enough sources. Being an unsuccessful candidate for a state office may not be enough to establish notability, but it might be combined with some of the other assertions to do so. Even unsuccessful candidates for office generally receive news coverage, but that hasn't been cited—so we know there are sources out there that haven't been included in the article. Once a reasonable attempt to find sources has been undertaken, then we'll be in a better position to tell whether the subject is notable. P Aculeius (talk) 13:33, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Comment is accurate, articles shouldn't be deleted simply because there is a lack of sources in them nor for any reason that can be corrected through editing. I think it would help to look at those WP pages that have lists of good and bad arguments for deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:51, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. No sources out there. Clarityfiend (talk) 14:35, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Just added several sources. Notably the October 1995 Lexington Herald-Leader article has a fairly lengthy profile of him as part of coverage of the secretary of state election. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 00:25, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: I appreciate the effort to add sources, but at this point I don't see enough GNG level coverage to justify a keep for this working individual. Coverage seems mostly limited to the election in which he was a failed candidate, and the consensus here is that type coverage is not significant and is routine level. If there is an article on the 1995 Secretary of State race, I would support a redirect. Let'srun (talk) 14:31, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To assess addition of sources by Sammi Brie which has been evaluated by Let'srun, further input needed.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 23:42, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:37, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 01:37, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Final Four (Survivor: Borneo)

The Final Four (Survivor: Borneo) (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 appreciate the efforts to demonstrate the Survivor: Borneo season finale's "notability", but the execution is poorer than I expected: excessive synopsis and very little third-party (secondary) coverage other than viewership/ratings. I tried to find reliable sources covering production notes and critical reactions without avail. Even with such sources, I couldn't see how the season finale is independently notable from Survivor: Borneo other than attempt to extend long details of the season finale itself. Furthermore, I don't see how initial (first-run) reactions would help other than to overemphasize the episode's importance, which is already covered in the season article. Well, WP:PAGEDECIDE is subjective but should apply to this topic.

Furthermore, this is the recording and production of the event itself, so WP:SBST and/or WP:EVENT, including WP:EVENTCRIT and WP:COVERAGE, should apply as well. Diversity of sources are expected, yet I've not seen such regarding the whole episode itself.

Should be either redirected to Survivor: Borneo or deleted as a whole. George Ho (talk) 04:52, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify, I don't mind what the default decision shall be if there are neither objections nor comments from others. If the default decision shall be delete, then the page shall be soft-deleted right away. If the default decision shall be redirect, then the page shall be redirected to the TV season article. George Ho (talk) 16:00, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:47, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE. Almost nothing but an extremely bloated episode summary. Bgsu98 (Talk) 11:39, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 01:38, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Artur Gubaydullin

Artur Gubaydullin (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 football player. Article recently deprodded. No indication of notability nor can significant coverage be established. Mbdfar (talk) 05:02, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already PROD'd so not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:46, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 06:53, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Toivonen

Thomas Toivonen (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 man may be a virtuoso, but there's no sourcing that I can find that establishes that at an encyclopedic level. His side project Kaburu is likewise listed at AfD. Drmies (talk) 01:31, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:20, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:42, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus‎. I don't want to close this as a Merge to Ruslan Shostak as this article is also being considered for deletion at an AFD discussion. Liz Read! Talk! 08:04, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ruslan Shostak Charitable Foundation

Ruslan Shostak Charitable 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)

It seems like the organization doesn't have enough notability and reliable sources to support its credibility, as well as insufficient media coverage from third-party sources on the given topic. 19 pick ups bought for the army is circulating in the news, but it's not about notability. possible promotion of the Ruslan Shostak persona as the author is the same for both pages DreamlarT (talk) 12:45, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Ruslan Shostak is a notable businessman, the founder of huge national retail chains. The charitable foundation he founded, in particular, after the start of Russia's invasion of Ukraine, organized the evacuation of almost 2,000 orphans from Ukraine for a temporary stay in Turkey. There are more than enough neutral and reliable sources about both Ruslan Shostak and Ruslan Shostak Charitable Foundation, especially in Cyrillic. --Perohanych (talk) 18:22, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 05:23, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete it does not meet the site's notability criteria. The foundation lacks significant coverage from independent, reliable secondary sources. WP:Mill or WPREFBOMB won't halpe much, as the majority of the citations come from news releases wich fails WP:RS. Furthermore, the article reads more like a promotional piece rather than an objective encyclopedia entry. NiftyyyNofteeeee (talk) 13:15, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It does meet the Wikipedia's notability criteria. The foundation has significant coverage from independent, reliable secondary sources. There are dozens of such sources. Every statement in the article is based on reliable sources in authoritative publications. The article reads as an objective encyclopedia entry. Please let me know the exact wording of the article that you believe appears to be promotional material, and I will be happy to remove it. --Perohanych (talk) 22:11, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I translated 3 of the listed articles and they are substantial articles about the work of the organization. I cannot comment on the reliability of the publications themselves. I admit that I find it awkward to have an English Wikipedia article without a single English language reference. I would not object to a future Afd (maybe some years) if this organization is never covered in non-Ukrainian sources. I am assuming that there is an entry in the UA Wikipedia, but am not able to check that. Lamona (talk) 22:51, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: It would help if any of these translated sources (or a summary of their content) was brought into this discussion or added to the article. Right now, there have been no changes to the article since it was nominated so that's what editors are judging it on.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:42, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:51, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep as redirect and merge into Ruslan Shostak. Both articles are on the shorter side and given the amount of content that'll probably be removed when both articles undergo rewriting (especially Shostak's article), it'll be best for the two to be merged so they don't each become stubs. Imo, I think this article would work great as its own section in Shostak's article, granted its rewritten and trimmed (it would also help give context for why he got a top state civil award, which the current BLP fails to answer). Cheers, Dan the Animator 06:29, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 06:50, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

2023–24 Isles of Scilly Football League

2023–24 Isles of Scilly 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)

Sourced almost entirely to facebook. DrKay (talk) 07:41, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus‎. Liz Read! Talk! 06:49, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Doms (company)

Doms (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 to meet the Wikipedia's notability guidelines for corporations, as explained in WP:NCORP and WP:ORGCRIT. Charlie (talk) 12:45, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 05:23, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:39, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect‎ to List of Shiva temples in India. No participation here after two relistings so rather than a Soft Deletion, I'm redirecting this article to where the subject is mentioned. Liz Read! Talk! 00:01, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Siva Sthalam

Siva Sthalam (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)

Generic name for Shiva temples. Covered in List of Shiva temples in India Redtigerxyz Talk 06:47, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:37, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:47, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus‎. RL0919 (talk) 21:47, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lingam Suryanarayana

Lingam Suryanarayana (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) 07:37, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:47, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    • The discussion about notability appears to be used to delete some selected articles. What notability you require more than his position as Vice chancellor of an Indian Health university, Principal of a century old Andhra Medical College, WHO expert on some Health issues related to developing countries and good number of research publications. Would you like to consider only "Big" award winning persons only to have biographies in English Wikipedia.--Rajasekhar1961 10:45, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 08:02, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 14:42, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Parisam vaippu

Parisam vaippu (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)

As I stated on the talk page two months ago, Parisam vaippu does not appear to be a notable topic; I can't find any reliable sources even mentioning it. These issues have been present since its creation in 2014.

As such, I think that the page Parisam vaippu should be deleted. TypistMonkey (talk) 02:30, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 04:22, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previously deleted by WP:PROD, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:18, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:36, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 07:57, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Beyaz Hap

Beyaz Hap (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)

Appears to fail WP:NFILM DonaldD23 talk to me 14:10, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:35, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:13, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 08:12, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of Japanese overseas military actions

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

Overly broad. This would theoretically include every Japanese operation in World Wars I and II, in addition to countless previous actions. SilverStar54 (talk) 05:50, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:47, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 08:01, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as a case of WP:TNT - There might be a list to be created within this area, but the current contents (effectively unsourced and containing vague statements like By some interpretations...) and the mismatch between it's title ("military actions" encompasses almost anything) and it's inclusion criteria (historical wars or other military conflicts outside the geographic boundaries of Japan in which Japanese soldiers participated) make this a difficult knot to untangle incrementally: removing unsourced contents would be equivalent to just removing the article, and a discussion on what the scope/inclusion criteria/title should be is exactly the kind of discussion that I've found rarely works out in practice. Easier for everyone involved to just start over. -Ljleppan (talk) 08:50, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - This article is just junk. We have [[51]] which is also questionable, and we have Military_history_of_Japan. DCsansei (talk) 22:07, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. Withdrawn per WikiNav outcome and no primary topic with respect to long-term significance. (non-admin closure) NmWTfs85lXusaybq (talk) 06:56, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

財閥

財閥 (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 dab page is used as an example in WP:CJKV. However, it's actually a WP:2DABS and Chaebol seems to be the primary topic with respect to usage per pageviews. Thus this dab page should be replaced by a primary redirect to Chaebol with a hatnote on its top per WP:ONEOTHER, just like that of 文. NmWTfs85lXusaybq (talk) 03:58, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't mean that Chaebol is primary in the same aspect as Radical 67, but simply use 文 (disambiguation) as a precedence for a CJKV dab page with a redirect as the primary topic. NmWTfs85lXusaybq (talk) 06:49, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. While some potentially-usable coverage was identified, rebuttals regarding the quality of the cited sources were not refuted, delete has a slight numerical majority, and late momentum. signed, Rosguill talk 16:20, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

River City Rivalry

River City Rivalry (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 discusses a rivalry between teams that are not traditional rivals and do not have enough coverage for a separate article. As a result, the article doesn't meet the WP:GNG. Let'srun (talk) 03:07, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports, American football, Ohio, and Pennsylvania. Let'srun (talk) 03:07, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. To the extent any of this is encyclopedic and not indiscriminate local-sports trivia, it can be summarized at each team's article in a short section, and perhaps also summarized at a list a US college football rivalries, if that exists somewhere. This is basically "college cruft". A short-lived series of what amount to exhibition games is not a notable "sports rivalry". Googling around for this turns up various mentions of a rivalry that are not articles about a rivalry but about games and teams and players and such; and some coverage that is ostensibly about the alleged rivalry as such, but it all appears to be local and/or student press, aside from regurgitation of one of them at Yahoo!News. These materials all seem to be "of a piece" and recycle lots of the same language verbatim (like "after an 11-year hiatus" and "The two schools [...] created the trophy when they were members of the Big East Conference", etc., so this is a very strong indication they are just recycling a press release from one of the teams or its school's athletics department and thus lack independence from the subject. One tellingly says "It was only truly a rivalry when both teams played in the Big East", i.e. when they were in formal competition against each other in a league system. But this is not what much if any of the material is about; it's about the exhibition game trophy they set up, so it's a manufactured "rivalry". Wikipedia doesn't exist to memorialize short-lived "school spirit" PR shenanigans.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  15:12, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, by SMcCandlish's standard, this problem exists in very large portion of the the college rivalry articles we have. Just look at Nebraska Cornhuskers football, they have 10 rivalry articles in the infobox! The proliferation of articles on rivalries, which are often only of importance to the schools involved, needs to be addressed. funplussmart (talk) 19:19, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    That is generally my view, yes. We have a tremendous amount of trivial fancruft of only local interest, and it makes up the majority of our articles on "sport[s] rivalries". The vast majority of this stuff should be reduced to a few sentences at the relevant team/school articles. But we also have some legitmate articles in this topic area that are of widespread notability, e.g. Liverpool F.C.–Manchester United F.C. rivalry. They probably have to be handled on a case-by-case basis, tedious as that is. There are other but related problems, such as the total trainwreck at List of association football rivalries, which is a morass of badly confused OR, that is mingling together personality disputes between players (e.g. over girlfriends or whatever, and completely unrelated to sport), alleged "rivalries" between team/club managers (what does that even mean?), actual sport rivalries as the term is generally understood, antipathies between fandoms of different countries (often going far beyond football but rooted in historical conflicts), and series of games between two or more places are just series of games and not a "rivalry" in any encyclopedic sense, and probably some other claptrap as well. It's basically the fallacy of equivocation compounded several times over, to glom together everything that could conceivably be termed a "rivalry" by anyone under any of many senses of that word.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  19:57, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @funplussmart - Nebraska has played some of the teams listed 50-100 times over a span of 130 years. Rivalries sometimes don't even require a single game to be played to be created. KatoKungLee (talk) 01:12, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Newspapers.com has what appears to be plenty of coverage of this – not enough time to sort through it all right now however. BeanieFan11 (talk) 20:14, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Not really buying the argument of mainstream coverage of various games not counting as coverage for the rivalry. Here's 4 more good articles to add to the sources here - 1, 2, 3, 4 KatoKungLee (talk) 01:03, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't have a strong view one way or the other but FWiW here some examples of coverage (some of which cast doubt on how real the rivalry is): here, here, here, here ("UC-Pitt game has a trophy, but it's not a rivalry yet"), here ("the River City Rivalry trophy -- and while it might seem like a contrived 'rivalry game' driven by marketing gurus, the players insist it is real because of familiarity among the players"). Cbl62 (talk) 01:26, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Even if the coverage has a predominant tone of "bet you didn't know this was a thing", it's still coverage that is good enough for our encyclopedia standards. Abeg92contribs 16:00, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, since there is disagreement over notability here, a source analysis would be helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:10, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Meets GNG (as WP:NRIVALRY requires) with sources presented above (even if excluding student newspapers). Meets WP:SUSTAINED as well. Cbl62's sources are quite solid and [52] from KatoKungLee seems quite good as well. —siroχo 07:27, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The fact that the series was named as a rivalry by the schools should not be controlling. This was (as the sources confirm) an attempt by school officials to create a "contrived rivalry game". It lasted only eight years from 2005 to 2012. A number of publications picked up on the "River City rivalry" moniker, and accordingly one can argue that GNG is satisfied (and I do not agree that local coverage is irrelevant). But most of the proffered coverage is simple game coverage with passing mentions of the supposed rivalry. What I am not seeing is in-depth coverage of the rivalry itself. All said, this is, at worst, not a real rivalry and, at most, a contrived and short-lived rivalry between non-major programs. Processing the totality, reasonable minds can disagree, but my gut leans delete. Cbl62 (talk) 18:11, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Question. This has been cited as an example of SIGCOV, and I agree it has depth. Does anyone know what pittsburghsportsnow.com is and whether it's a reliable source. Cbl62 (talk) 18:34, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
They seem to have a full editorial staff with full-time sports journalists - usually that indicates reliability. BeanieFan11 (talk) 20:04, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Calling the author a full-time sports journalist is a stretch. His bio (here) says he "hopes to become" a full-time sports writer. Until a year or two ago, he says he was a grocery stock clerk and now works for a company called J.T. Enterprises where he wrote a brochure for an industrial supply company. Cbl62 (talk) 00:20, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm... I guess I read that too quickly - it does say though that his only job in the past three years has been with the website - it also says he previously wrote for The Pitt News, something we'd probably regard as reliable. BeanieFan11 (talk) 00:26, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I agree with Cbl62. This was never really a rivalry except for a brief period between 2005 and 2012 when both schools were competing together in the Big East and were trying to create a rivalry between them. Had they remained together, it very well might have developed into a true rivalry, however, Pitt left the Big East for the ACC and the series ceased until a non-conference matchup earlier this year. And, even the newspaper coverage from the 2005-2012 era leaves a lot to be desired. Sources like this, this, this, and this are all basically saying, "this isn't really a rivalry yet, however both schools are hoping that it might become one in the future." Ultimately, because of conference realignment, that never wound up happening. Ejgreen77 (talk) 19:04, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Scrounging for sources testifying to some kind of worthy notability of the subject brings forth a sorry harvest. Trying to make a mountain our of, at best, a molehill is what's that. -The Gnome (talk) 13:01, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Fails GNG. Agree with Cbl62 this seems manufactured for promo purposes. Not seeing any sources showing this meets guidelines.  // Timothy :: talk  15:07, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. signed, Rosguill talk 16:13, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Pop Stefan

Pop Stefan (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 not sure this person is notable. He is only apparently notable for his translation to Bulgarian/Slavic Macedonian of Daniel Moscopolites's dictionary (which can easily be covered in Daniel's article) and for his connection to the Miladinov brothers. There is not much else that I see that is relevant. I've been reading about the Aromanians for years and I had never seen this figure mentioned before. I also struggle to find English-language sources about him. I do not believe the article's writer has a firm grasp of our notability policy. They had previously created a separate article for Daniel's dictionary, which is the only thing that actually makes him notable in the first place. I would like the assessment of some other editors, I am not 100% sure myself what the outcome should be. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 02:21, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to ping Jingiby and StephenMacky1, from what I see this person could be discussed the most frequently by Bulgarian and Macedonian authors and I think their word can be greatly helpful. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 02:26, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This article is about a well known person from the Ohrid region. It is also significant because for the Macedonian language he was very valuable. I find it weird to read that you can't find sources about Pop Stefan, because there are numerous sources about him, Macedonian but also in other languages. Newspapers, foreign linguistics books, papers, Macedonian school books etcetera. Maybe you don't search properly? This article has been improved numerous times and was approved. I don't see why it should be deleted. This is about the Sakkellarios Pop Stefan. In most sources he is referred to as Pop Stefan or Pop Stefania. As well as Popa Stefan. In American linguistic research he is sometimes referred to as Stefan of Ohrid. He is important for linguists who are specialized in Balkan languages. For the current modern Macedonian language he is important because his texts are the first written texts of a modern Macedonian language dialect. It's notable and there are numerous sources. Mostly written books. Macedonian, Bulgarian, Greek, French, English. From thousands of Wikipedia articles about less known and important individuals this article is seen as a problem? I have been working on it for a year, finally getting approved recently. The OP seems to be having some sort of issue with me when editing on Wikipedia where Aromanians are mentioned. There is a reaction and calls for deletion or merger from the OP on every article which I edited where Aromanians are mentioned. This was the case last year as well. As soon as the articles are approved. Though, the thing is that the Aromanian aspect of these articles are not the main subject. This history and this individual, Pop Stefan, is important for linguistics. Not being Aromanian. I don't understand. I see you are from Romania involved in Aromanian research. That's great, but there are others who research as well. This article was not intended to highlight Aromanians. This individual just happened to be of Aromanian ancestry. It is about the linguistic part which is important. That should be noted. Brooklynlegv (talk) 20:59, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per StephenMacky1's reasoning. ǁǁǁ ǁ Chalk19 (talk) 14:31, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: While there is a rough consensus to Delete this article, given User:Brooklynlegv's comments, it would be helpful to see a source analysis from editors that have the proper language background.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 01:33, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep is what I say. Not just because I created it, but because of it's significance for the modern Macedonian language and the history of Macedonia and the Ohrid region.
There many Macedonian and other international books and other sources who mention Pop Stefan and mention his importance today for the history of the Macedonian language. Well known linguïst and professor Victor A. Friedman has several publications about Pop Stefan and his addition/importance to the modern Macedonian language.
We have Gane Todorovski, Macedonian historian, writer and poet who has written about Pop Stefan and his importance, for the Modern Macedonian language, numerous times. In his words: "Chrysostom (golden-mouthed) Sakkellarios Pop Stefan of Ohrid, presented the Macedonian language to educated Europe.", "The hero of the Macedonia culture, Pop Stefan. This is one of the most modest ways to thank him." Furthermore in his books about the Macedonian language he also writes more about Pop Stefan, his life, his family and his contact with Daniil of Moscopole.
Other writers like Snegarov, Nichev, Kepeski, Lunt, Koneski, Theodor Capidan (dialectul Aroman) as well.
Then there is the book "Nikulcite na novata Makedonska Knizhevnost" by Haralampie Polenakovic, Misla 1973, who wrote "It is known that the Greek material was translated into Macedonian by the Ohrid priest Pop Stefan. For the history of the Macedonian language this text is very significant, because it is also the oldest printed Macedonian text."
There are even Greek sources who realise the significance of Pop Stefan for the modern Macedonian language: "Ωστόσο αυτά τα «βουλγάρικα» του παπά Στέφανου, ήταν η σήμερα θεωρούμενη, από τους ειδικούς γλωσσολόγους, μακεδονική διάλεκτος της περιοχής της Οχρίδας. Και το μέρος αυτό του λεξικού, αποτελεί το πρώτο γνωστό γραπτό μνημείο της μακεδονικής γλώσσας." "The part written in "Bulgarian" is of great importance. This piece was not written by Daniel but by a certain Papa Stefanos who was then living in Ohrid. In his letter dated April 13, 1793 Daniel begs the above known pope to translate the manuscript dictionary into "Bulgarian", to send it by Easter of the same year to be printed in Venice. However, this "Bulgarian" of Papa Stefanos is today considered as the Macedonian dialect of the Ohrid region by expert linguists. And this part of the dictionary is the first known written monument of the Macedonian language".
There is also German research, for example in the "Zeitschrift für Balkanologie" by well known linguist/slavist Norbert Reiter who also wrote about on this subject.
There are many more sources and most are also referenced in the article itself. Pop Stefan and his addition is very important for the Modern Macedonian language. A language which is studied extensively by linguists across the globe. Brooklynlegv (talk) 21:03, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ultimately this is all about the same thing, his translation of Daniil's dictionary. There's not really much else he could be notable of. All of this can be resumed in: Stefan is considered to have written the first Macedonian text by some authors. That's it. This can be covered easily in the article of the dictionary's main author, Daniel Moscopolites. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 21:45, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You fail to realize the point here. The existence of Pop Stefan's addition is far more important for linguistics, for history of a nation than the whole dictionary published by Daniel. They are two different things. On one hand the dictionary by Daniel to motivate the 'barbarians' to learn Greek and on the other hand a source, a person responsible for a document which is of utmost importance for a (modern) nation, it's existence and it's language. It's a document which gives us insight and proves how they spoke this Macedonian dialect 200+ years ago. It proves that it was a Macedonian dialect and not simply 'Bulgarian'. Most countries have archives and sources and documents and what not. For the Macedonian language that is not the case. For a country like Macedonia and for a language like Macedonian these are the modest treasures for its existence.
I mean, there are articles about which ships blasted their canons first to salute the United States thus recognizing the country. It is minor, but important. For a nation like Macedonia and the Macedonian language, this is a important piece of history. Brooklynlegv (talk) 22:21, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Issues of article worthiness as never assessed on the merits of importance for a particular nation or country, but on merits of citation. -The Gnome (talk) 12:58, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • You're gonna have to back all your claims with sources. Gane Todorovski in his book Книга нашинска сиреч славјанска (page 23, ISBN 9788636901199), which is also cited in the article, literally confirmed that there is no information about him - Автор на македонскиот превод, поп Стефан од Охрид, за кого буквално немаме никакви податоци ... (Author of the Macedonian translation, Pop Stefan from Ohrid, about whom we literally have no information ...). What you wrote also really only confirms that he's only notable for the translation. Authors mentioning him in passing does not indicate any notability. Your contribution is appreciated, but you should find a notable subject next time. I'd also advise you to not make unfounded accusations against other editors. Focus on the content. Thank you. StephenMacky1 (talk) 22:37, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yet, Gane still managed to write a lot more about Pop Stefan. Not only about the translation, but also about his life, the friendship with Daniel, the connection with Miladinovci and his fondness of Pop Ioan and the importance of Pop Stefan to the Macedonian language. Have you read that as well? Also, I'm not accusing anyone. Brooklynlegv (talk) 08:59, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hey. I was busy with exams. Well, admittedly I don't have full access to Gane's source, however the sources I have full access to and the ones that are cited here do not indicate any notability.
The Contact Hypothesis Revised: DOM in the South Slavic Periphery (p. 67): The Lexicon Tetraglosson is a quadrilingual lexicon of Greek, Albanian, Vlach (Aromanian), and “Bulgarian” (Macedonian dialect of Ohrid) written by Daniel Moscopolites, an Aromanian priest from Moscopole. It is assumed that the Slavic version was translated from Greek by Stefan, an Ohrid priest of Aromanian descent (Nichev, 1997). - Mentions him in passing like most sources and also solely about his translation.
The sources Извори за познавање на старата градска архитектура во Охрид (p. 218) and Зборник на трудови ПРЛИЧЕВАТА „1762 ЛЕТО“ - Симбол на непокорот на Македонецот (p. 11) mention Nikola Pop Stefanija, but not him. So, these sources cannot be used to prove his notability either.
Ив. Снѣгаровъ. Македонски Прегледъ. Година I, книга 4, София, 192. II pp. 55–56: With a letter from 13 April 1793, the Moscopole Sakellarios and priest Daniil informed the Ohrid Sakellarios Pop Stefan (the progenitor of the current Ohrid family, Pop Stefanievi), that he was sending him the Greek dictionary with his student to translate it into Bulgarian within a week, because after Easter he wanted to send it to Venice for printing. At the same time, he asks him to listen to the speech of his parents, so that there is no mistake ... - Simply repeats what other and newer sources know him for - his translation. Koneski, Lunt and Friedman also mention him solely for that reason. StephenMacky1 (talk) 14:49, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. (non-admin closure) (non-admin closure) Eternal Shadow Talk 04:28, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Suhr

Daniel Suhr (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:VICTIM. Hundreds of firefighters have died in 9/11, not all of them merit a separate article. The conditions of his death don't seem to be all that special. At best I think we could redirect this to Casualties_of_the_September_11_attacks#Deaths by jumping or falling, given that this page is getting 6k views a month and its creator already wrote about Suhr there. SparklyNights (t) 01:10, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 01:26, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 01:24, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

DBMail

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

No evidence of notability. Apparently was deleted back in 2006(!) as a PROD but said PROD was just contested and undeleted today? Didn't even know you could do that. But at the end of the day, the page hasn't been substantially improved at all, and if it wasn't sufficient in 2006, it sure isn't sufficient today. Taking Out The Trash (talk) 00:28, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks for undeleting this entry.
DBMail is notable as it's the only IMAP server backed by an RDBMS. It's also the only one that appears to be able to scale using Docker.
I've updated the entry to be more useful, please allow time to encourage independent articles.
Thanks in anticipation, Alan Alan-hicks-london (talk) 14:45, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note that according to the article, Alan Hicks has been maintaining this software since 2020. SmartSE (talk) 17:09, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 00:21, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kai Lundstroem Pedersen

Kai Lundstroem Pedersen (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:CRIMINAL. This person is notable for only one event, that being the crime he was convicted for, and the crime in question (sextortion on Facebook) also seems to be relatively WP:ROUTINE in the news. People get convicted for that basically every day, that doesn't make them notable. SparklyNights (t) 00:26, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 01:22, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 01:22, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Piperdy (surname)

Piperdy (surname) (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. A very weak source which does not support the text. Repeatedly re-created on a redirect  Velella  Velella Talk   00:19, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Many pages like this have no sources. For example, take a look at Vohra. This surname is in my family, so I know the meaning.  Yolia21  Yolia21 Talk   01:18, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Human name articles can exist for the sole purpose of disambiguationg people with the name, but there are zero notable people with this name. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 02:09, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete, no prejudice against recreation if better sources have been found--Ymblanter (talk) 22:13, 15 November 2023 (UTC)‎[reply]

Christiane Vleugels

Christiane Vleugels (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 Belgian artist (who's article was previously deleted) does not meet WP criteria for notability per WP:NARTIST not WP:GNG. A "before" search only finds social media, blogs, databases, user-submitted content, and primary sources (such as galleries and websites that sell her work). What is not found are reviews in art magazines (with the exception of an amateur-hobby trade journal and paid-placement native advertising). I can find no serious art historical articles or book chapters on her work; no notable museum collections, nor what we normally find for a notable artist. It is clear she has technical skill, but that is not what is needed for an encyclopedia article. The article states she is "involved with IBEX Masters art collective", and the article was created by a user AGIbexMasters, so it looks like it is also WP:COI and possibly WP:UPE. Netherzone (talk) 18:28, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Not eligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 00:09, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per the quality of her work (this would probably be an WP:IAR Keep comment), which is undeniably and interestingly photorealistic in nature. The gallery showings should also weigh into a keep for this page. Randy Kryn (talk) 10:56, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 00:20, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 00:18, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Unfortunately it must be a delete. Considering her work, which is absolutely stellar but no exhibited works as far as I can see apart from the "virtual museum" and no works being kept in any collection, although it must be only a matter of time. The skill there is astounding and I'm sorry its got to go. I'll add Christiane Vleugels to my todo list and check it every few weeks when I create a new article, it will get checked. Its got to be case of WP:TOOSOON. scope_creepTalk 12:37, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2023_November_11&oldid=1184680305"