Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 December 22

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< December 21	December 23 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was 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 14:11, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Visual Component Framework

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

Not notable. All the reference provided are dead links and the project seems abandoned since 15 years. Internet search shows one book (but claims on its cover page to be sourced by Wikipedia article, and mostly blog entries and tutorials. Christophe (talk) 13:46, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Computing and Software. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 14:05, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Project activity shows that last update was 9 years ago. It's not 15 years but still superdead. Project has a generic name which you would expect from big entities like Microsoft, but it was developed by some random programmer. No independent (and reliable) sources to show notability. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 14:14, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete‎. CSD G5 Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:32, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ankita Mallick

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

Does not meet WP:NACTOR. Macbeejack ☎ 13:46, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, Women, and India. Macbeejack ☎ 13:46, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of West Bengal-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:20, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 03:14, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Arabesque TV

AfDs for this article:

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

Doesn't pass WP:GNG. I tried clicking "The official homepage" link on the bottom of the article, but the site doesn't mention any "Arabesque". Was previously nominated for AfD but speedy kept because nominator gave the wrong reason. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 12:49, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 12:49, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:21, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Not eligible for Soft Deletion. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:29, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, an article with the correct name already exists at Arab Radio and Television Network. SailingInABathTub ~~🛁~~ 22:59, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. (non-admin closure) Schminnte^{[talk to me]} 22:14, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sputnikmusic

AfDs for this article:

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

All passing mentions or refs to the cite itself. There are some hits on a WP:BEFORE but nothing that seems to meet WP:SIGCOV imo. BuySomeApples (talk) 12:10, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep : I am puzzled that this website can be nominated again for deletion for its notability. I just read through the references listed in the article for deletion and I read that the website is cited as a reliable source in published books, academic works and mainstream magazines. After a quick search, I found some magazines and newspapers that cite Sputnikmusic as a reliable source (The Florida Times-Union [1], Classic Rock [2], Verve [3], Loudwire [4]). The website is still listed among the generally reliable sources in Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Sources and in the Metacritic engine. My best guess is that all the parameters for notability are checked. Lewismaster (talk) 11:37, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I do agree that Sputnik is reliable, but I'm not sure about notability. The sources in the article and the ones that you found are very short passing mentions, mostly in articles or books that summarize an album or band's reception with critics and fans, or which namecheck music review websites. BuySomeApples (talk) 09:03, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Considering that we are talking about a website which provides musical info and reviews, I think that it could also be important to know how much it is consulted, read and used as a source to determine its notability. I checked Sputnikmusic's web traffic with this free app [5] and compared it with some of the websites listed in Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Sources. Sputnikmusic's traffic amounts to 42,5K monthly accesses, which is very low in comparison with AllMusic or Rolling Stone, in the same range of Rock Hard and Metal Storm's websites and much higher than Uncut, Rock Sound, The Wire and Metal Forces'. Sputnikmusic is cited in about 400 articles on Wikipedia as a reliable source. Doesn't this fact alone make it notable? Lewismaster (talk) 08:58, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't this fact alone make it notable? No. For example, jazzdisco.org is a reliable, and frequently cited source, but fails WP:NWEB Mach61 (talk) 20:08, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ditto the above. A lot of websites, books and articles are reliable sources but aren't notable themselves. BuySomeApples (talk) 21:52, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music and Websites. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 12:10, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:21, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment While it is very little, there is some coverage of the website in the books, and I've added another.★Trekker (talk) 14:17, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I'm leaning keep, but had to trim some trivia. The section "Stratification and rating systems" needs heavy trimming. Geschichte (talk) 15:48, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 12:03, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:NPERIODICALS #4. I can find at least 30 scholarly books that cite this website. As I say every time a website like this is nominated, rarely do people write articles about niche, but reputable publications. That's why you always look for how often it is cited in its field, similar to WP:NPROFESSOR. Furthermore, I will always maintain that it is valuable for a reliable source used on hundreds of Wikipedia to have a page. Why? I Ask (talk) 05:55, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree with this !vote by Why? I Ask. It is evident (and likely incontrovertible) that Sputnikmusic is both highly cited and reputable, and invoking WP:NPERIODICALS is valid. Sputnikmusic is evidently not an inconsequential website, and removing this article from the encyclopedia is, in my view, detrimental to the project. Furthermore we are in the business of presuming notability; being highly cited in secondary reputable sources is a very good indication, and in this case far better than trying to base notability on users trying to do increasingly flawed google searches which may, or may not, find requisite evidence. ResonantDis_tortion 23:32, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above. PARAKANYAA (talk) 17:13, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was draftify‎. ✗plicit 13:23, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Brack

AfDs for this article:

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

There are some passing mentions in RSes but nothing that seems like it meets the requirements of WP:GNG. BuySomeApples (talk) 11:59, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 12:04, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. Just tagged it under WP:G11. Was speedy deleted previously. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 12:07, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Move to draft to provide an opportunity for improvement, as an WP:ATD. The article was deleted five years ago, and a great deal can happen in a person's career in that time span. The current version does not appear to be a copy of any previously deleted version, and the Harvard Business Publishing reference appears to be, at least, a better reference than anything from the previous versions. Many of the other refs are paywalled. Pinging @CNMall41: you accepted this via WP:AFC, but also tagged it for notability, presumably to allow for exactly this kind of discussion? BD2412 T 14:28, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@BD2412:, Thanks for the ping. This was a borderline case based based on what appears to be two of the references going more in-depth about him rather than any of his companies. Moved it from AfC while cleaning out some old submissions (those that sit in AfD that long usually tells me other reviewers were on the fence as well). I think draft would be a good option here. --CNMall41 (talk) 19:21, 27 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. Withdrawn by nominator. (non-admin closure) asilvering (talk) 00:33, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jakkur (Bengaluru) Inscriptions

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

Not ready for mainspace. not have any source Youknowwhoistheman (talk) 11:38, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Youknowwhoistheman (talk) 11:38, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Karnataka-related deletion discussions. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 11:51, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The article now has many relevant citations and strong sources added. This article is extremely notable as it shares accurate and verifiable information about historic Jakkur. Therefore, this article must be retained and should not deleted. Anusha.Morching (talk) 09:46, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:29, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify, clearly not ready for mainspace. Unclear notability and reads like a WP:SYNTH. SailingInABathTub ~~🛁~~ 22:44, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@SailingInABathTub what do you think about the changes made since your !vote? The nom wants to withdraw. -- asilvering (talk) 15:28, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @asilvering, the article has improved. The lede still requires attention but there is no need to keep this discussion open and it can be closed as keep/withdrawn. SailingInABathTub ~~🛁~~ 16:36, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Note that the article now has sources and 17 citations. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:58, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 12:02, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Actually, at this time. i am satisfied with the improvements of this article. Thanks you. Youknowwhoistheman (talk) 13:12, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – I went through and made a whole lot of copyedits. One thing to note is that even though there were 19 references at the time, 12 of those were duplicates. Recon rabbit 17:09, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Daniel (talk) 11:45, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Priyanka Maurya

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

Fails WP:NPOL. — Syed A. Hussain Quadri (talk) 10:59, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Women, India, and Uttar Pradesh. Syed A. Hussain Quadri (talk) 10:59, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Doesn't meet WP:NPOL. Macbeejack ☎ 13:58, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NPOL. - FitIndia ^{Talk (Admin on Commons)} 15:00, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Not enough to show WP:NPOL is met Ravensfire (talk) 20:56, 27 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. Vanamonde93 (talk) 11:41, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Don Kulasiri

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

Not notable, fails to meet WP:NACADEMIC. No available sources to establish general notability. IdiotSavant (talk) 10:16, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oceania-related deletion discussions. IdiotSavant (talk) 10:21, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Sri Lanka. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 10:29, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Citation record does not support WP:PROF#C1 and I didn't see evidence of any other form of notability. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:40, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Kulasiri has been a full professor at Lincoln University since 1999. My understanding is that full professors at NZ universities meet criterion 5. Schwede 66 20:26, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No. There are thousands, if not millions, of full professors. Being a full professor alone is not significant enough for WP:NPROF. Shoerack (talk) 00:30, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the number in NZ is considerably smaller than that, of course. Waikato appears to have roughly 100 full professors, for instance. Multiply that by the 8 universities in NZ, and ignore the fact that they're not all the same size, and you get probably less than 1000. That said, I agree that full professor alone should not be considered enough. —David Eppstein (talk) 08:06, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Full professors in NZ are equivalent to distinguished/endowed professor in most Asian and North American universities and to a professor of a discipline in British universities, according to Academic ranks (Australia and New Zealand). Nurg (talk) 09:05, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

When I look there I see that it is tagged as dubious. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:03, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — per David Eppstein's rationale. Shoerack (talk) 00:30, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets WP:PROF#C5 per Schwede66 and Nurg. Lincoln is a major institution of higher learning and research, and named chairs / distinguished professor appointments are rare in New Zealand. Paora (talk) 11:01, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I do not see that it is significant enough to remain a Wikipedia article. Villian Factman (talk) 11:36, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:ANYBIO, also do not see why a NZ professor should be treated any differently from professors elsewhere. Dan arndt (talk) 01:18, 25 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. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 03:47, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Malawi–Spain relations

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

This article is largely based on a primary source of the Spanish foreign ministry. Very little actual relations, trade is very low at 5 million euros in 2015. And Spain's assistance to Malawi is through multilateral organisations. Virtually no third party coverage of these relations. LibStar (talk) 10:11, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations, Africa, and Spain. LibStar (talk) 10:11, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- This is becoming tiresome, just another example of a standalone article for every combination of two nations, no matter how insignificant their connexion may be. I think this makes six nearly-identical, non-encyclopaedic articles of this stripe in a month. As per usual, the sources presented are all WP:PRIMARY (Spanish government press). I can find no scholarly treatment of this relationship nor mentions in reputable journals. There is no info particularly worth merging. Cheers, Last1in (talk) 14:35, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Foreign_relations_of_Spain#Bilateral_relations. Per Last1in, I agree that having a lot of these non-notable stubs is kinda annoying but might make sense to just turn these articles into redirects on-sight without AfDs? The content from stubs like this could be helpful in their parent foreign relations article imo, especially given how bare-bone some of those articles could be. Alternatively, a larger discussion could be held on whatever articles are remaining and get them over with in one sweep. Dan the Animator 18:09, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
My only problem with merging is that we should hope for secondary sources even in the parent articles, and this one (and the others like it) are just paraphrasing foreign ministry press releases. If there is any value, though, I agree that a merge is good. Of course, one of the issues is the merge target. Do we pick the larger country and get accused of Eurocentrism? Or the one with the best press releases (ditto)? Or the most mature article (dit-ditto)? Or have duplicative info in both? Secondary sources will have a focus and that will usually guide us to one article or the other. I expect just such a discussion led folks to metastasise the plague of X+Y stubs. Cheers, Last1in (talk) 19:57, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Last1in. There is inherent bias in merging to a particular target country. I dont believe that merging is the solution to all these bilateral stubs. LibStar (talk) 01:44, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Last1in: True and great points and agree that secondary sources are very helpful for these sorts of articles. In the case of this particular article, I was thinking of merging to Spain's article just because it's the Spanish FM's press releases yk. Per your points above though, I don't see the harm in including the (duplicated) info in Malawi's article too. The only content I think that's valuable from the article at-present is the info about trade under "Economic relations" (which probably could be condensed quite a bit) and the Memorandum sentence under "Cooperation" which is genuinely interesting and valuable information (these sorts of agreements usually take time to negotiate and are noteworthy in themselves for signifying the start of a deeper partnership). Usually the dependence on primary sources is only a notability issue and still is perfectly valid for meeting WP:V (so content-wise, depending on primary refs shouldn't necessarily be an issue for merging imo).

About secondary & primary sources though, the mere existence of secondary refs can't be used as the litmus for deciding whether to keep an article. In the last bilateral relations stub AfD I took part in, which was for the article on Micronesia–Ukraine_relations, it was similar to this where coverage was limited (article was almost completely about Micronesia's reaction to the Russian invasion) but that one relied exclusively on secondary refs.

After thinking a bit over what you said though, if it's alright with you and LibStar, I might just start a mass-deletion discussion with all the bilateral stubs with questionable notability. Definitely don't expect all of them to get the same result but at least it'll be a much more efficient way in getting through them and figuring out which ones should be kept, merged, or deleted yk. Probably would be similar in a sense to this discussion I took part in a while back which, while not directly successful, helped pave the way for how to effectively handle the RMs in the topic area. Anyways, sorry for not replying sooner on this and would be interested to hear y'all's thoughts. Cheers, Dan the Animator 19:44, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
re: I might just start a mass-deletion discussion with all the bilateral stubs with questionable notability. You now have my undying devotion. I would so very deeply appreciate seeing a once-and-done on this. Thank you! Cheers, Last1in (talk) 20:06, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: as violating WP:OR. बिनोद थारू (talk) 01:56, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge‎ to Romanization of Chinese. Clear consensus as to a merger, less clear consensus as to the target. The one I've chosen has marginally more support, but this does not preclude merging content to both places and/or retargeting later. Vanamonde93 (talk) 11:40, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Daoism–Taoism romanization issue

AfDs for this article:

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

Not a standalone encyclopedia topic; fails WP:GNG. Should be merged into Romanization of Chinese and Taoism#Terminology. The entire article could be written in one sentence: "Tao" is the Wade–Giles (1892) spelling and "Dao" is the Pinyin (1950s); Wade-Giles was once the pre-eminent romanization method, but has mostly given way to the Pinyin as the government's official method.

As a talk page comment from 2008 states, the existence of this article is simply "an outgrowth of several-year-old arguments here on Wikipedia". In other words, this was a move-war over the article Taoism, using the same arguments now set out at WP:TRANSLITERATE, which says Established systematic romanizations, such as Hanyu Pinyin, are preferred. However, if there is a common English-language form of the name, then use it, even if it is unsystematic (as with Tchaikovsky and Chiang Kai-shek). We don't have articles called "Tchaikovsky – Čajkovskij romanization issue" and "Chiang Kai-shek – Jiang Jieshi romanization issue" for good reason, but if we did they would look like this one. Onceinawhile (talk) 09:33, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language and China. Onceinawhile (talk) 09:33, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Romanization of Chinese -- I find nothing in this article or its sourcing that sets Tao v Dao apart from every other Romanisation discussion. There is no policy basis for this to be a standalone article. For policy rationale on delete/merge, I'd use WP:GNG via WP:CONTENTFORK (and a very stale one at that). Note for closer: If merge is not the consensus, please consider these as my reasons supporting deletion. Cheers, Last1in (talk) 14:53, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Tao – This is an article I feel like we have purely so that a footnote on Taoism isn't too long, yes. I would recommend merging with Tao because that article already has an extensive etymology/orthography section, and I doubt there's even any material here that should be here that shouldn't be there. Remsense留 15:34, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Romanization of Chinese. No WP:GNG. The only source that comes somewhat close to covering the topic of this essay-like article is Carr (1990). That's obviously not enough for a standalone article. Most parts of the article are about general transliteration issues and simply exemplify them with what happens to 道. The last paragraph of the section "§Romanizations" has two sources where the authors/editors explain why they prefer "Daoism" over "Taoism". This content could be merged to Taoism#Spelling_and_pronunciation. –Austronesier (talk) 20:39, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Yes, the present article was partially a WP:SPINOFF, archived at "Done; I've moved the diatribe for now to Daoism versus Taoism. --Brion 22:41 Sep 3, 2002 (PDT)"; but it wasn’t "a move-war over the article Taoism". According to the page Diffs, anonymous IPs started both articles in the same month (in the first WP-year of low-hanging articles). The Daoism versus Taoism page originated on "18:10, 1 October 2001‎ 157.178.1.xxx:" and the Taoism one on "00:11, 20 October 2001‎ 63.192.137.xxx:" It's understandable why some readers might think this article is "pointless" while others may disagree. In my admittedly subjective opinion, there's no constructive advantage in merging. Haven't researched the Daoism/Taoism debate in years and will look for some new references. Best wishes, Keahapana (talk) 02:27, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Is this really a "strong keep", then? How many independent sources are there specifically discussing the romanization issue for this specific word? Specific sourcing seems scant on the article as is, and a few quick Google searches solely return what seem to be offhand parenthetical mentions of the discrepancy. There's no "debate", it's just a bit of confusion over two distinct Chinese romanization schemes. Articles shouldn't be kept because their existence is useful to some clique of editors, they should be kept because their subjects are in themselves notable. Remsense留 02:32, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. What clique? Inclusionist? Keahapana (talk) 21:06, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keahapana, apologies, "clique" in the loosest sense of "those who feel they have to keep gesturing to it"/"those who find it has utility specifically among Wikipedia editors, rather than the article having its own encyclopedic merit". Remsense留 17:55, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You appear to have !voted twice, which is against the rules. Please change to a comment. Imaginatorium (talk) 09:24, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(I see how it could look that way, but I think their intent was to clarify for me, who was confused by the original edit summary.) Remsense留 09:26, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Tao. The article suffers from extensive original research, probably a side effect of the lack of substantial secondary coverage of the issue, though there seems to be some (e.g. Carr 1990). I can't think of a compelling reason to spin it off rather than keep it as at most one or two paragraphs in the Tao article. (I don't think a merger to Romanization of Chinese would make as much sense, since this is about how Tao specifically is romanized, not about romanization per se.) WhinyTheYounger ※ Talk 15:38, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:28, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Antul Teotia

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

Looks non-notable as a politician fails WP:NPOL and also non-notable as a doctor. Times Now Hindi article is an Interview. — Syed A. Hussain Quadri (talk) 09:20, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politicians, Women, India, and Uttar Pradesh. Syed A. Hussain Quadri (talk) 09:20, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There are 7 links i have added. How much media links does an editor needs to create a article? Shivamco19 (talk) 09:56, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Shivamco19 Just media links does not make an individual Notable, the subject should pass the Notability guidelines. For a politician pls read WP:NPOL. — Syed A. Hussain Quadri (talk) 11:04, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and India. Owen× ☎ 14:10, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. She has not held any role that would constitute a pass of WP:NPOL, and simply having a smattering of run of the mill campaign coverage is not sufficient to make a person in local politics more notable than everybody else in local politics, since everybody in local politics can always show a handful of campaign coverage. At this level of significance, the key to notability is not "she exists", but "she's a special case of significantly greater importance than most other people in local politics", and that hasn't been shown at all. Bearcat (talk) 17:50, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails GNG and politicians of district council doesn't passes NPOL. 𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐕𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐭𝟕𝟐𝟖🧙‍♂️^{Let's Talk !} 11:44, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. Star Mississippi 16:08, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

BespokeSynth

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

Doesn't seem to meet WP:NSOFT. The only independent sources are this and this - from the Wikipedia article, but I don't think the latter should be considered reliable and the former just writes articles about all musical software, so I think BespokeSynth is there not because it stood out, but because website authors just needed content. I tried to find other independent reliable sources but couldn't. I believe it's not enough to merit a standalone article. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 08:57, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music and Software. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 08:57, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Both sources Deltaspace42 found are independent and provide significant coverage, so the question is whether they are reliable sources. As far as I know, the reason why a person writes a review/material is generally not relevant to establishing source reliability. If a source just writes articles about all musical software, that does not mean the source is unreliable; that's like suggesting a game review company is an unreliable source because they only write game reviews. website authors just needed content suggests that the source is not reliable due to WP:ROUTINE, but these reviews are clearly more detailed than routine coverage (for example, I consider this as routine coverage since it provides only a short description and quote). This source, while shorter, also helps to establish notability: [6]. Darcyisverycute (talk) 13:46, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Darcyisverycute, yeah, I consider "cdm" source (the first source I provided) both independent and reliable. This source, which you provided, I missed (probably because I forgot to check with a space between "Bespoke" and "Synth"). I'll wait for someone else to give their opinion whether or not it is enough for WP:NSOFT and I will withdraw this nomination if they think it's enough. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 13:59, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:21, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 12:04, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. (non-admin closure) Schminnte^{[talk to me]} 17:40, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

David R. Inglis

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

Non-notable academic, sources online are partly about a different guy who worked on the atom bomb. Andre🚐 08:07, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Social science, and England. Andre🚐 08:07, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:27, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 03:13, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article was in terrible shape (I have trimmed a lot of unsourced and unverifiable information), and there were fewer reviews of his books than I might have expected. But I think there's still a case for WP:AUTHOR, WP:PROF#C1 (citation counts 304 for Culture and everyday life, 292 for An invitation to social theory, 207 for "The body in sociology", and 164 for The uses of sport) and maybe for WP:PROF#C8 (supposed founder of a notable journal). —David Eppstein (talk) 22:32, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist, I think it would be helpful if the nominator reviewed the article since it's been improved.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:56, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Per David Eppstein improvements. Svartner (talk) 20:41, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: greatly improved since the nomination. Owen× ☎ 00:12, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. Star Mississippi 16:09, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Trojena

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

This is the third of four articles about parts of NEOM, a grandiose Saudi commercial, industrial, and recreational development:

This is a mountain tourism resort. It has been selected as the host location for the 2029 Asian Winter Games. The references are all press releases or marketing, except for one news report of the award of the games.

Reference Number	Reference	Comments	Independent	Significant	Reliable	Secondary
1	www.neom.com	Announcement of establishment	No	Yes	Yes	No
2	www.neom.com	Information-advertising brochure	No	Yes	Yes	No
3	english.alarabiya.net	Press release announcing establishment	No	Yes	Yes	No
4	saudigazette.com.sa/	A press release about the announcement of the plans for the site	No	Yes	Yes	No
5	www.spa.gov.sa, Saudi Press Agency	Press release about bid to host 2029 Asian Winter Games	No	Yes	Yes	No
6	www.arabnews.com	News report that it will host 2029 Asian Winter Games	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes

That one news story is not enough to satisfy general notability. Robert McClenon (talk) 07:57, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports and Saudi Arabia. Robert McClenon (talk) 07:57, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:27, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Its nomination as a site for the Asian Winter Games makes it notable. Jeffrey Beall (talk) 22:22, 29 December 2023 (UTC).[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Travel and tourism-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:41, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 08:22, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. Right now it looks like No consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:53, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. One of the few cases where editors have persuasively argued that the current article is non-compliant with policy to the degree that it should be deleted with no prejudice against future recreation with sources. Vanamonde93 (talk) 11:26, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

John Baker (Baker Brook)

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

entirely unsourced article about a person. fails general notability guideline. quick preliminary search finds nothing. ltb d l (talk) 08:11, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Canada. ltb d l (talk) 08:11, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Maine, and Massachusetts. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 08:32, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I found this source that confirms that Baker Brook was named after Baker. However, there's so little information that it should just be merged into the history section of the Baker Brook article. I also found this website, which has a whole lot more information. That is just some random website - it does, however, cite two news articles. I don't have time to search for those, and since they are from 200 years ago, we'd have to dig through archives of old Canadian news articles to find them, and then determine how much information they have. Generally, however, I tend towards a merge with the history section of the Baker Brook article, as Baker really only seems to be notable as the guy after whom the place was named. Cortador (talk) 09:17, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP John Baker was not simply a person who gave a name to Baker Brook. He was a driving force in an independence effort for the putative Republic of Madawaska. He was a perennial thorn in the side of the British authorities in New Brunswick, leading several altercations against them, helping to instigate the Aroostook War. Accused of crimes against King George IV, Baker caused several international incidents between the U.S. and Great Britain. It is partially because of his provocations that the 1842 Webster–Ashburton Treaty was enacted, which settled the northeastern U.S. boundary between Britain (Canada) and the U.S., which had been in dispute since 1783. In fact, one of the articles of that international treaty applied only to John Baker and his neighbor. The state of Maine later constructed a "Memorial commemorating the Patriotism of John Baker". See also ^[1], ^[2], and ^[3] and its 132 footnotes, including:

Two thorough treatments of John Baker are important for understanding the man and his role in Maine's history between 1820 and 1842. The first is an article by Roger Paradis, "John Baker and the Republic of Madawaska: An Episode in the Northeast Boundary Controversy," The Dalhousie Review 52 (Spring 1972): 78-95. The article deals with Baker's actions during those difficult years. Paradis is a skilled story teller, and Baker's story is gripping reading. Moreover, he stays close to his sources, which range from original documents like the Maine Resolves to an article in the short-lived newspaper, Journal de Madawaska (1902-1906). If readers want only one article to read about Baker, this is the one. The second thorough treatment is a book by Geraldine Tidd Scott, Ties of Common Blood: A History of Maine's Northeast Boundary Dispute with Great Britain, 1783-1842 (Bowie, MD: Heritage Books, 1992). Her focus is on the story of the border controversy, but she does not shy away from describing in detail John Baker's role as it comes up. Her treatment of Baker is neutral and solidly anchored to original documents. Readers wanting to read a recently done history of the Northeast border conflict will find no better than Tidd Scott's book. A briefer treatment of John Baker actions described in this article is available in "John Baker's Rebellion and the Subsequent Deadlock," Chapter VII of Charlotte Lenentine Melvin, Madawaska: a Chapter in Maine-New Brunswick Relations (Madawaska, ME: Saint John Valley Publ. Co., 1975). Originally a thesis done at the University of Rochester, NY, in 1956, it has been republished by the Madawaska Historical Society. Her work focuses on Baker's impact on the relationship between Maine and New Brunswick and between the US and Great Britain.

^ Paradis, Roger (1972). "John Baker and the Republic of Madawaska" (PDF). The Dalhousie Review. 52 (1): 78–95. Retrieved 2017-05-04.
^ Day, Clarence A. "Aroostook, the first sixty years: a history of Maine's largest county, from its earliest beginning up through the bloodless Aroostook War". first published serially in the Fort Fairfield Review from December 26, 1951, to February 27, 1957.
^ Findlen, George L., "Under His Own Flag: John Baker's Gravestone Memorial in Retrospect", English translation of an article published in Le Revue de la Société historique du Madawaska (French language), issue 30, January/March 2002, 5-55.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeff in CA (talk • contribs) 05:39, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:TNT, without prejudice against recreation if somebody can write and source a new article properly. This is completely unreferenced, and has deep problems in its writing tone as I don't think I've ever seen this many "dubious" tags in one article at one time — and no matter how notable a person may have been in theory, we simply can't keep an article that's written and sourced this badly in fact. This calls for the blow it up and start over plan. Bearcat (talk) 04:03, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:54, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete without prejudice to recreation as a proper article per Bearcat. One would expect this sort of article to be a magnet for Revolutionary War cruft, and so it proves. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:26, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:05, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ArX

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

No independent sources indicating any notability of this version control system. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 07:44, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Computing and Software. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 07:44, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:23, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails WP:GNG. I was unable to find significant coverage of this version control system in secondary sources. SailingInABathTub ~~🛁~~ 22:31, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge‎ to Neom. No objection has been raised to that, no reason to close as n/c despite the lack of input. Star Mississippi 16:10, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Leyja

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

This is the second of four articles about parts of NEOM, a grandiose Saudi commercial, industrial, and recreational development:

Leyja is an ecotourism destination. This article reads like an information brochure. It focuses on what the Saudi government says about Leyja and not what this parties say about it. The references read like press releases.

Reference Number	Reference	Comments	Independent	Significant	Reliable	Secondary
1	www.neom.com	Announcement of establishment of Leyja	No	Yes	Yes	No
2	www.spa.gov.sa, Saudi Press Agency	Press release that is same as reference a	No	Yes	Yes	No
3	www.designboom.com	Press release with promotional description	No	Yes	Yes	No

Robert McClenon (talk) 07:32, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Entertainment and Saudi Arabia. Robert McClenon (talk) 07:32, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This is a tough one, Google News turns up several dozens of results for this, seems like lots of different people are talking about it. If push comes to shove, I might need some assistance with ascertaining the quality of the sources. Left guide (talk) 08:07, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with ~~Noem~~ Neom. I nearly brought this to AfD for the same reasons as the nominator. However there are a few reliable sources outside of the middle east that have picked this development up, such as The Evening Standard and The News International. It's borderline. SailingInABathTub ~~🛁~~ 14:53, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I think that User:SailingInABathTub means to Merge with Neom. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:48, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yup! Thanks for pointing that out. SailingInABathTub ~~🛁~~ 11:47, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:22, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Travel and tourism-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:41, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:46, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:47, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Travel and tourism-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:39, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:55, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Draftify‎. The event is within the six month window and can potentially be improved with sourcing connected to it. Star Mississippi 16:20, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Manny Pacquiao vs. Buakaw Banchamek

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

future, WP:CRYSTAL sporting event, insufficient independent and WP:SIGCOV sources Andre🚐 07:30, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Boxing-related deletion discussions. Andre🚐 07:30, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and China. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 07:31, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Draft I guess we could draft until the event happens (in less than a month), but it looks to be a fight between tow "has beens" in the boxing world, from my limited understanding of that part of the sports world. Happy to be proven incorrect, but I'm wondering if this would even be notable after the event. Oaktree b (talk) 14:58, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:21, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:36, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify, as of the present moment, the existence of sourcing available for this event appears to fail WP:PERSISTENCE, since I only really see two brief bursts of coverage (one in mid-July 2023, and another about 1-2 weeks ago). However, it's very plausible (even likely) that there will be more depth and persistence of coverage as the event gets closer, as well as during/after. It costs little for the encyclopedia to hang on to this as a draft, and a lot of useful work can be saved. Left guide (talk) 08:54, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:20, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

AkelPad

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

I haven't found any reliable independent sources covering this text editor. It's just a random non-notable text editor, fails WP:NSOFT. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 07:04, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 07:04, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Best I can find are reviews on download sites. I don't imagine a text editor gets much critical notice; I couldn't find any reviews in RS. Oaktree b (talk) 15:00, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge‎ to Norwich City Council. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:10, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Norwich City Services

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

Fails WP:NCORP. No WP:INDEPENDENT sources. A412 (Talk • C) 06:53, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and United Kingdom. A412 (Talk • C) 06:53, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 07:09, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Norwich City Council. Not independently notable, but sufficiently important and verifiable for a mention as part of a larger article. Thryduulf (talk) 11:00, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge: A primary-sourced new article on a Council's service company. I agree with Thryduulf about its lack of specific notability, and suggest its existence and a summary list of the additional services is better under a new Services section in the Norwich City Council article itself. AllyD (talk) 15:47, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. (non-admin closure) Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 19:35, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

OurGrid

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

Couldn't find any independent sources covering the subject. Some seminars, paper "OurGrid: An Approach to Easily Assemble Grids with Equitable Resource Sharing" - but I believe that they are not independent sources. Withdrawn by nominator because of new sources found by SailingInABathTub (thank you!) Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 06:12, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Computing and Software. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 06:12, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 07:10, 22 December 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 06:17, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Keep - Changing to keep due to SailingInABathTub's edit. Thanks for finding reliable sources. ~~Unable to find independent or secondary coverage. There are some papers on academic sites and a seminar slideshow but they all come from people directly associated with the program and the university.~~ StreetcarEnjoyer (talk) 21:56, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, passes WP:GNG. There is significant coverage in the following sources that appear to be independent of the developers:

Nikolaos Preve (2012). Computational and Data Grids: Principles, Applications, and Design. Information Science Reference. pp. 14–16. ISBN 9781613501146.

Šimon, M.; Huraj, L.; Siládi, V. (2013). "Analysis of performance bottleneck of P2P grid applications". Journal of Applied Mathematics, Statistics and Informatics. 9 (2). Sciendo: 5–11.

SailingInABathTub ~~🛁~~ 22:20, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. A review of these new sources would be useful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:54, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Concur with User:SailingInABathTub that those sources demonstrate significant independent coverage. Jfire (talk) 06:51, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. Two relistings and no new comments means it's time to close this discussion. But you can continue the discussion of a possible Merge or Redirect to another article on this article's talk page. I don't think you two editors are that far away from a decision given a little more time than what's allowed here. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:55, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

MicMac (software)

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

I believe it doesn't merit a standalone article. No reliable independent sources indicating notability of this software, thus it doesn't meet WP:NSOFT. Was PROD'ed before (reason: No indication of noteworthiness, no evidence of notability.). PROD was declined with the summary: as per Wikipedia:Notability (software)#Inclusion. Not sure how it satisfies any of the criteria listed in the "Inclusion" section. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 05:56, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Computing and Software. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 05:56, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 07:13, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: it satisfies WP:NSOFT (inclusion criterion #4) as it's a topic convered in the "Photogrammetric terminology" (doi:10.1111/phor.12314), an authoritative source published in The Photogrammetric Record, the official academic journal of the Photogrammetry Society (UK). fgnievinski (talk) 14:46, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Fgnievinski: It is just mentioned there (as terminology), the inclusion criterion #4 says It has been recognized as having historical or technical significance by reliable sources. It's not WP:SIGCOV, so doesn't count. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 14:58, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's a selective source, not a comprehensive listing. Thus, mere inclusion automatically satisfies recognition of historical or technical significance. The academic editor already exerted their judgment by selecting which software to include and exclude from the terminology. fgnievinski (talk) 15:28, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think it would be a good idea to redirect MicMac to Photogrammetry#Software section and add a line about MicMac there. Because I don't think it deserves a standalone article, but it definitely deserves to be mentioned in relation to Photogrammetry. What do you think? Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 15:07, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There's Comparison of photogrammetry software. Depending on one's inclinations (good will or ill will), probably most of the software mentioned there could be challenged on the basis of WP:NSOFT. fgnievinski (talk) 15:41, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Fgnievinski to be fair, the section is called "Comparison of notable packages" and MicMac isn't there (though it is in the "See also" section) Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 16:25, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:09, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 03:13, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. (non-admin closure) Dr vulpes ^{(💬 • 📝)} 22:23, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The ClueFinders 4th Grade Adventures: Puzzle of the Pyramid

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

Merge with The ClueFinders. Article does not have enough sources to support notability. I checked Google and the Newspaper archives and was unable to find any notable sources. Dr vulpes ^{(💬 • 📝)} 05:35, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Thanks @Zxcvbnm for the great resource for video game reviews. Dr vulpes ^{(💬 • 📝)} 22:22, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Dr vulpes ^{(💬 • 📝)} 05:35, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep MobyGames lists no less than 6 magazine reviews, so it seems notable. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 05:57, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I just looked at it, I'm neutral. I don't really see the problem with a merge, but by the standards of a video game article today it is barely meeting GNG. Andre🚐 06:18, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and Education. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:54, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. (non-admin closure) Dr vulpes ^{(💬 • 📝)} 06:43, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The ClueFinders: The Incredible Toy Store Adventure!

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

Mergewith The ClueFinders. Article does not have enough sources to support notability. I checked Google and the Newspaper archives and was unable to find any notable sources. Has been tagged with needing more sources since 2017. Dr vulpes ^{(💬 • 📝)} 05:34, 22 December 2023 (UTC) Keep, thank you Timur9008 for the sources no clue how I missed them! Dr vulpes ^{(💬 • 📝)} 06:42, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Dr vulpes ^{(💬 • 📝)} 05:34, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep MobyGames lists 4 reviews. Unless they can be proven to be unreliable, the nomination seems incorrect. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 05:59, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Found these sources [7], [8], [9] Timur9008 (talk) 08:01, December 22, 2023 (UTC)

Timur9008 , o wow that's great, I used the same site and must have missed them or something. I'll add them now and withdraw the AfD. I'll go back and recheck again for the other two I submitted. Dr vulpes ^{(💬 • 📝)} 06:40, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. (non-admin closure) Dr vulpes ^{(💬 • 📝)} 22:31, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The ClueFinders Search and Solve Adventures

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

Merge with The ClueFinders. Article does not have enough sources to support notability. I checked Google and the Newspaper archives and was unable to find any notable sources. Has been tagged for needing sources since 2012. Dr vulpes ^{(💬 • 📝)} 05:34, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep found reviews that were archived and added them to the article. Dr vulpes ^{(💬 • 📝)} 22:30, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Dr vulpes ^{(💬 • 📝)} 05:34, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep MobyGames lists 4 reviews. Unless they can be proven to be unreliable, the article seems notable. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 05:59, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 07:16, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:07, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

David T. Beito

AfDs for this article:

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

Does not meet WP:GNG as the subject has not "received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." There are only two references cited on the page; one only mentions the subject in passing, and the other is an article by the subject that has no bearing on notability. The subject also does not appear to meet any of the eight criteria of Wikipedia:Notability (academics); e.g. the article does not show that the subject "has had a significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources." Orser67 (talk) 05:08, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, History, and Minnesota. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 05:51, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Alabama, and Wisconsin. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 07:17, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Plenty of book reviews, easy pass of WP:AUTHOR. The nomination's phrasing of "only two references cited on the page" suggests a failure to perform WP:BEFORE. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:37, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- Five books published by academic publishers, together with an unspecified number of academic articles ought to be enough to keep. Peterkingiron (talk) 11:37, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. [[User |✗]][[User talk |plicit]] 06:15, 29 December 2023 (UTC) ===[[ Hartigan (businessman)]]=== :Paul Hartigan (businessman) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ([[Wikipedia for deletion/Paul Hartigan (businessman)|View AfD]] | [[Special /1191211528/cur|edits since nomination]]) :(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) Orphan article created by a single purpose editor so possible promotional. Many of the sources are not indepth about Hartigan as a person failing [[WP ]] but include him merely talking about the company he works for. Many of the sources are not entirely independent as they are tech related media. Fails [[WP ]]. [[User |LibStar]] ([[User talk |talk]]) 04:59, 22 December 2023 (UTC) *Note: This discussion has been included in the [[Wikipedia Deletion sorting|deletion sorting]] lists for the following topics: [[Wikipedia Deletion sorting/Businesspeople|Businesspeople]], [[Wikipedia Deletion sorting/Computing|Computing]], and [[Wikipedia Deletion sorting/Ireland|Ireland]]. [[User |LibStar]] ([[User talk |talk]]) 04:59, 22 December 2023 (UTC) *Delete - [[WP ]], doesn't appear especially notable - ran a company that bought out a couple of others then got acquired itself. [[User |Bastun]]^{[[User_talk
|Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!]]} 12:30, 27 December 2023 (UTC) *Delete per nom, fails [[WP ]]. [[User |Spleodrach]] ([[User talk

|talk]]) 17:46, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

:The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's [[Help

talk pages|talk page]] or in a [[Wikipedia

review|deletion review]]). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 WGGS-TV. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:02, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WDKT-LD

(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 secondary coverage. Let'srun (talk) 04:57, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and North Carolina. Let'srun (talk) 04:57, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect to WGGS-TV A diginet coatrack that used to just be a translator for something else. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 05:54, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Daniel (talk) 23:45, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Martin H. Pomeroy

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

Sum total of the article after eighteen years, much as it has been since its beginning, is "Martin H. Pomeroy was interim Chief of Police of the Los Angeles Police Department between May 7, 2002 and October 26, 2002". Less than six months as an interim police chief is not a basis for encyclopedic notability. BD2412 T 04:41, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Police and California. BD2412 T 04:41, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Lots of coverage directly of him in the LA Times going back to the mid 90s (1, 2, 3, 4, 5), but I don't know whether they count as "intellectually independent of each other" as per WP:BASIC.

Jonathan Deamer (talk) 07:33, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. He may only have acted as chief for six months, but he was deputy chief for seven years and there does seem to be sufficient coverage to meet WP:GNG. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:16, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- @Necrothesp: A deputy chief of any police department will generate some amount of local coverage. Is there any here that is not WP:ROUTINE? BD2412 T 14:34, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:01, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 03:12, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Interim/acting chief of police that doesn't seem to have done anything noteworthy, not seeing notability. Oaktree b (talk) 15:57, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. I'd love to close this discussion but I don't see a consensus yet.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:51, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails GNG and NBIO. Sources in the article and found in BEFORE are database listings/name mentions, nothing that meet WP:IS WP:RS with WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth. Being the intermin chief of police for 5 months, even in Los Angeles the most important and consequential city in the world, doesn't meet ANYBIO, and there are not sources showing this has WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth. They had a role in the police response to the North Hollywood shootout, but I was not able to find sources with SIGCOV about the subject.

The single source [10] in the article is dead link primary source redirecting to the main page, probably was to this page [11]. If sources are found, ping me. // Timothy :: talk 01:11, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to List of television stations in the U.S. Virgin Islands. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:01, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Caribbean Broadcasting Network

(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 independent WP:SIGCOV. Let'srun (talk) 04:34, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio, Television, Puerto Rico, and California. Let'srun (talk) 04:34, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Caribbean. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 07:18, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect: Unless Sammi Brie can find some sources (if anyone can, it's her), I say redirect to List of television stations in the U.S. Virgin Islands. It's not perfect, but most of their stations are in the US Virgin Islands. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 12:14, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:00, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 03:12, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: This seems like the type of small group that isn't likely to have much coverage in independent sources. (Redirecting to the list of television stations in the U.S. Virgin Islands does not seem like a good idea to me, as that list does not mention any station owners and thus may present a surprise, and this group has also owned Puerto Rico stations.) WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:34, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist given the opposition to a Redirect which is how I would have closed this discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:50, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of television stations in the U.S. Virgin Islands, a couple mentions here and there, but quite sure it doesn’t merit its own article. TLA (talk) 07:15, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. No prejudice against speedy renomination per low participation. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:35, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Humane Sagar

AfDs for this article:

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

Does not pass the criteria of notability as a musician. Has not received any award as an artist by national or state government. No references and thumbnail articles Md Joni Hossain (talk) 04:38, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Md Joni Hossain (talk) 04:38, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Bands and musicians, Television, and Odisha. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 07:33, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment rather than no references there are 55 already in the article. Those with significant coverage include this, Atlantic306 (talk) 23:30, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting so we can hear from more editors about this article subject.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:32, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:00, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Receiving an award from a national or state government is not a prerequisite for an article's general notability. Coverage in reliable sources is the measure of notability for Wikipedia. At a minimum, there are multiple (at least two; a more familiar editor might argue more) sources of non-trivial coverage establishing the article topic as a subject. P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 01:09, 30 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 Survivor: Blood vs. Water. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:59, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Tyson Apostol

AfDs for this article:

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

I can't help wonder whether Men's Health is enough to verify his notability, especially as a Survivor returnee. Indeed, we can't be sure whether his Tocantins debut and HvV return suffice, and some other returnees turn out to be notable for only their own winning seasons, especially debut ones. Furthermore, I can't be sure whether his supposed "notability" (and possibly everything else about him) comply with the WP:BLP policy, and I don't mean WP:BLP1E alone. Same goes for how he's been eliminated in Survivor, his poker winnings, and his finalist status in The Challenge.

Honestly, I think the article must be preferably redirected to Survivor: Blood vs. Water, but I don't mind it being alternately redirected to the list of Survivor (American TV series) contestants. Furthermore, his activities outside Survivor, like poker, might not save this article from being redirected(... or deleted if the consensus were to favor the latter more than the former options.) George Ho (talk) 05:14, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Television, and Utah. George Ho (talk) 05:14, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:32, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:30, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nom's comment – Just in case, if no one opposes, then I am okay with the whole article by default deleted or redirected (preferably to Survivor: Blood vs. Water) per WP:BIODELETE. I won't be comfortable with the article being kept by default, but I won't challenge the decision made if that's decided. --George Ho (talk) 04:16, 23 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. Strength of arguments on specific policy carry the day here. No strong evidence of notability. —Ganesha811 (talk) 23:08, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Elsa Jean

AfDs for this article:

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

Article was deleted through AfD in January 2020. However, five sources have been added that were published since that time. Note, Elsa Jean is a former pornographic actress, so follow due diligence regarding NSFW subjects. Sources added since last AfD: 1) Twitter, 2) JoyNights, 3) Die-Screaming, 4) AVN, and 5) XBIZ. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 04:23, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Women, Sexuality and gender, Ohio, and Virginia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:29, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Just chiming in because I declined the G4 CSD tag. This version is significantly different to the one that was deleted at AfD back then. There may be 5 sources in the current iteration that have been published since the article was deleted, but the references used in this version of the article are very different, they were mostly profile pages on various sites, a couple of interviews, and an IMDB page. It also did not contain anywhere close to this level of detail and the award section only had 5 entries compared to the much larger table it has now.

I mention this because I don't think the old discussion has any bearing on this one. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:45, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Yahoo Finance has an article with a by-line [12] about NFTs she "sold" (I guess is the verb to use?), and LADbible (which also has a by-line and doesn't seem that tabloid-ey) [13]. With the Fortune source (#9 in the article) and the rest, I think we're just barely notable. Oaktree b (talk) 21:01, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The Yahoo Finance appears to be a reprint from Business Insider (or vice-versa), so I think it's ok. Oaktree b (talk) 21:03, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Previous discussions of LADbible question its editorial oversight (factual reliability). As for the Business Insider article via Yahoo!, not only is is a primary source, it expresses the subject's perspective in the first person. WP:RSPS notes Insider not always marking syndicated content clearly. This instance reeks of crypto self promotion. • Gene93k (talk) 23:55, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The new content may clear the G4 and A7 concerns of previous iterations of the article, but the low quality of the sources still cause it to fall short on notability. The new facts since the previous AfD deletion are additional porn awards/nominations and the line of NFTs. Secondary source coverage provided by the article and found in WP:BEFORE searching consists of self-published porn blogs, the usual award rosters, crypto blogs and garbage-tier tabloids. Still fails WP:BASIC and WP:NACTOR. • Gene93k (talk) 00:11, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: It is written in 15 languages, I think it should remain. LionelCristiano (talk) 13:18, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Other stuff existing does not overcome a lack of non-trivial coverage by reliable secondary sources. Besides, many of the other versions are translations of the previously deleted version of the en.Wikipedia page. Other Wikipedia editions have their own guidelines for inclusion independent of the English Wikipedia. Existence there does not establish notability here. • Gene93k (talk) 22:23, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- WP:ENT The awards and filmography are not sourced. Those 15 languages mentioned above look like they were recently added there, perhaps by the same editor who added it at English Wikipedia. WP:RSP Some checking needs to be done on the sourcing. You Tube and Twitter are not considered a reliable sources. Each one of those non-Engllish Wikipedia listings has this same image of the subject, which was only added to Commons on 30 May 2023. Perhaps we just have an enthusiastic editor at work there. — Maile (talk) 02:33, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Actually looking at random ones, that is not actually the case.
- The Russian Wikipedia article was created in May 2017 by editor Щербина. They're a long time editor, first edit June 2009, last editing just yesterday.
- The Serbian Wikipedia article was created in April 2021 by editor SimplyFreddie. They've been editing since 2018, last edit also yesterday.
- The Spanish Wikipedia article was created in 2016 by editor Pichu VI who is the most accomplished editor yet, with 15 years on the ES Wikipedia, 2000 articles, and also editing yesterday.
I'm not even going to look at the other 12. No offense, but I think your hypothesis is not even close to correct. --GRuban (talk) 06:11, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- does not meet WP:BASIC / WP:ENT per review of available sources. Sourcing is in passing and / or WP:SPIP. -- K.e.coffman (talk) 03:21, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:31, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. She has the cover and focus article of major fashion magazines in multiple continents, Glamour Magazine Bulgaria[14], Harper's Bazaar Vietnam[15], this year, 2023. That meets WP:GNG. --GRuban (talk) 05:47, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I think it should stay. LionelCristiano (talk) 07:45, 18 December 2023 (UTC) Duplicate !vote struck. BD2412 T 15:04, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, but you already said that above. If you want, you can expand on your earlier opinion, as to why you think the article should stay, give additional reasons for her Wikipedia:Notability, but it's one bolded opinion per participant. --GRuban (talk) 13:48, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@LionelCristiano: Please do not vote twice in the same discussion. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:00, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
my fault. LionelCristiano (talk) 15:04, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Struck, in any case. BD2412 T 15:04, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Notwithstanding that this article exists in other language Wikipedias, this fails to meet general notability guidelines. The porn-related stuff is typical promotional material. The article has already been deleted once at AFD for not passing WP:PORNBIO. The post-porn stuff is nowhere near enough, but if her modelling career continues she may one day merit an article. Counterfeit Purses (talk) 16:01, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep While she is covered mostly in adult interviews and such, she meets WP:ANYBIO by being nominated and winning several awards in her field. Just because they are porn awards does not make them any less important from a notability viewpoint. Also, being on the cover of noteworthy (non tabloid style) magazines, regardless of country, in my eyes confirms notability. Regarding YouTube and Twitter being unreliable sources, true to an extent but where it is a subject saying a non controversial fact about themselves, it would fall in with being a primary source which is allowed within reason. Another secondary reference to add to the list focusing on NFTs. Awshort (talk) 21:22, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Porn actors' notability is evaluated through WP:ENTERTAINER and since PORNBIO was deprecated, I don't think porn awards matter any longer.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:30, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Er... Liz, are you performing an administrative function or are you giving an opinion? In any case, please note that WP:ANYBIO does not, actually, say "this does not apply to pornographic actors". --GRuban (talk) 19:13, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@GRuban I can't speak for Liz, but this discussion may be worth reading. Counterfeit Purses (talk) 21:55, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Counterfeit Purses, thank you for linking the above. I had never seen that, and it's enlightening in some ways. I don't normally edit in areas where this subject matter would arise. — Maile (talk) 03:58, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

GRuban, the relisting was an administrative function, the comment about porn awards was just an observation that occurred to me reading over the comments. Porn awards use to matter for notability purposes but don't any longer, as far as I know. As for whether or not this article is Kept or Deleted, I have no opinion. If I did, I would have made a "vote". Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:36, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - seems to have enough coverage to meet general notability requirements, and is a decent job quality article. Cannot see the justification in removing it from the project.Echetus Xe 00:10, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I was going to close this as "No consensus", but will instead opt to !Vote to move to draft per WP:ATD, to provide an opportunity for development of more general sources. BD2412 T 14:46, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – subject has won multiple notable awards, satisfying WP:ANYBIO. – bradv 15:06, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, even if WP does not recognize pornographic awards anymore when it comes to establish notability of pornographic entertainers (as contradictory as this may sound), Sapphire Howell has received coverage in mainstream media, presented in the page and by GRuban, above, for example, so that she does seem notable enough, "despite" being a porn star....-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 15:34, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Mushy Yank,

Who is Sapphire Howell and what does she have to do with this article? I don't see this person mentioned in this article so I'm not sure what connection they have to a Keep vote. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:58, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Liz,

Thank you for your concern.

They're the same person. and that's the name she uses in her new careeer (supposedly her real name) and that recent sources use. It was strangely removed from the intro, although sources on the page use it. The Harper's Bazaar cover and article use it, for example. Best, -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 10:33, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I don't see an ANYBIO pass here, and I'm surprised that several of my colleagues above do. ANYBIO does not say anything about a notable award; it mentions a "well-known and significant award or honor". I'm willing to accept that an AVN award in principle qualifies for this; but if you look at AVN Awards, there are 56 individual awards handed out every year, and the ones Jean won don't appear to be among the most significant. I struggle to believe that the "AVN Award for Best New Starlet" is so significant that it can confer notability in the absence of GNG. The same applies to the other awards listed. Looking at the substance of the page, it's obvious that we're also struggling to write even a short biography; there are perhaps four sentences that are not prosified database entries. I suspect this is a TOOSOON situation; Jean appears to be only increasing in profile. But we don't have the sources to write a reasonable article, and the awards are not enough for me to support a stub via ANYBIO. Vanamonde93 (talk) 11:36, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. There is clear consensus here that a standalone page is not viable. A merger has been proposed, but doesn't have consensus, and two targets have been suggested, one of which doesn't exist at the moment. So I'm going to delete this for now, in the understanding that if a list article is created, or consensus is reached to expand a different page with this information, we can redirect this title: also, that I will gladly provide a draftspace copy for anyone who wants to develop this toward a merger. Vanamonde93 (talk) 16:10, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Murad Abu Murad

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

There is no WP:SIGCOV of this individual in multiple sources that is required under the GNG guideline. VR _talk 02:56, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. VR _talk 02:56, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military and Palestine. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:20, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I've added more news sources, there's significant coverage stating his involvement in the October attacks, as well as numerous articles noting his death. Thief-River-Faller (talk) 14:52, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You added this Jerusalem Post article that supposedly gives him WP:SIGCOV. All this article says about Abu Murad is "IDF personnel eliminated Murad Abu Murad, the head of Hamas's Air Force, in Gaza City on Friday, Hebrew media reported. Murad largely took part in directing terrorists in the murderous attack last Saturday. Murad's death came as the IDF attacked Hamas's operational headquarters in the region." That's it. Nothing more. How's that SIGCOV?VR _talk 05:33, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

to me that sounds somewhat notable, at least worth merging into something or having as a list. Irtapil (talk) 14:39, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:25, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Sources are about the event, and contain very little information beyond this, simply stating they were involved in the terrorist attack/org. The event itself obviously happened, there are sources for the event, but again they contain very little information and I don't think they amount to WP:SIGCOV.

Ping me if someone makes a strong case with sources for converting this into an event article. I strongly considered this, it would provide a good redirect target for the current title. The exact name for the event should be determined by reliable sources. My issue here is finding WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject (the event) directly and indepth, just because it happened doesn't make it notable. No objection to a consensus redirect. // Timothy :: talk 07:37, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@TimothyBlue: I think we should start a list article, there are a lot of cases like this, where there's a notable amount of news coverage, but not enough information to be a whole page (see below). Start with a big list that includes everything, then split off if it gets too big. But, journalists already have their own page and I'm not sure how to frame it for that?

Irtapil (talk) 18:03, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:51, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a BIO1E. Also little known about him because lacking SIGCOV. Not mentioned anywhere else so should not be redirected. Not ruling out a merge, yet it should be noted that organically nobody deemed Abu Murad important enough to be included in a more comprehensive article and there are many of these. So don't force it. gidonb (talk) 04:51, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Izz ad-Din al-Qassam Brigades#Leaders killed by Israel or other causes as an WP:ATD. Readers might be searching for the name, and there is at least potentially some information we could give them (meaning there is enough sources for expanding the target with content about this subject, even if no one has done so yet). Seems like a typical situation where we'd have a redirect. Levivich (talk) 19:09, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Abu Murad is not mentioned at the target so not a valid option. gidonb (talk) 14:08, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Who cares, easily fixed. Levivich (talk) 14:51, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sure but that fix isn't a redirect. 15:38, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Ok I changed my vote from "redirect" to "merge and redirect." Easy. Levivich (talk) 15:42, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Much better! gidonb (talk) 16:24, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

the target? Irtapil (talk) 18:04, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's right there! Including the section at target! gidonb (talk) 19:08, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist to see if there is more support for a Merge or if a straight Delete is preferable.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:07, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete of course. A stub with no potential to expansion, no notability. Nothing to merge there. Hamas has thousands of killed members and we have a NOTAMEMORIAL to not list them all. Only the ones who were notable. With regards, Oleg Y. (talk) 17:30, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Oleg Yunakov: Not all, but this guy got news coverage in at least 3 countries, Israel, India, and Germany.

Actually, that combination makes thus article weird, most of this topic have too many USA and UK sources, but this page has none? Possibly there is a another article about him with a different spelling of his name?

Irtapil (talk) 14:30, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also @Oleg Yunakov: I'm tentatively skeptical of "Hamas has thousands of killed members". As far as I can tell, that figure includes ALL males over 15 years old who've been killed in Gaza? when the number of militants was previously estimated as just 40,000 out of the half million men in Gaza, and the war has kilted thousands of adult female civilians.

The only way I see that adding up is if nearly all of the missing are dead combatants that Hamas are refusing to report, which is fairly plausible (under reporting combatant casualties is very common, and would be a lot easier than the over reporting of civilians they keep being accused of), but that's pure speculation. So currently I'm filing "thousands of dead Hamas militants" as "one side said", the same category as the number of Israeli tanks Al-Qassam claim to have destroyed?

But there is a slight bias towards adult males in the deaths so it could be one or two thousand, just not quite as many thousand as the IDF claim.

Irtapil (talk) 14:30, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I hear you however an individual who receives only temporary news coverage doesn't meet the BIO1E guidelines. For instance, not every victim of the October 7 mass murder committed by Hamas has a dedicated article, despite multiple news coverages for each. I have done research when I wrote over 100 articles on this topic in ruwiki (including all major October 7 events such as all but one here, articles on Hamas members, settlements, victims and etc.). To warrant an article, sustained interest over a longer period and potential analytics, along with adherence to notability criteria is necessary.

I'm not referring to all males over 15 and 40K, but specifically focusing on the 8K killed Hamas members. With regards, Oleg Y. (talk) 14:49, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Oleg Yunakov

I know exactly what your are referring to. I was saying I don't believe the "one side says" unless there's some other evidence (you seem to have my even read to the end of the headline, "says IDF spokesman"?) There is no independent source verifying tower 8,000 dead people exist, unless you count almost every dead man and dead teenage boy in Gaza. So,

The IDF just made up the number
The IDF are counting dead civilians as militants (seems most likely, the USA has often counted every adult male as a combatants, "military aged males", people write whole PhD theses on that)
The Hamas government in Gaza are hiding thousands of the deaths of combatants (quite common, Ukraine and Russia are both hiding the numbers)

18:33, 7 January 2024 (UTC) Irtapil (talk) 18:33, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am not disagreeing with you and I do not think that anyone would disagree that those numbers can only be used with an attribution. But I am missing the point regarding how such number is related to the notability of Murad Abu Murad? IMHO it's unrelated. Regarding the potential list of little stubs it has to comply with PEOPLELIST. If the guy has another name you are welcome to find it and prove notability. Otherwise we can say that anyone can have other name with potential notability. With regards, Oleg Y. (talk) 19:51, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Oleg Yunakov And as I was saying below, I thin best solution is to make a list page complying all these little stubs. But, "Abu" is very common in militant pseudonyms, e.g. the spokesmen, so this guy possibly has another name…

18:40, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

Second choice, Keep or merge with an existing page, but I would prefer…
Start a list page - There will probably be a lot of these little articles?

To begin with I would include all factions and Hezbollah (not just Hamas). We can split it if it gets too long. Some entries can refer to a {{main}} page, but most probably won't. But what do we call it? And should we include notabe civilians?

📝 "List of Palestinian and allied militants killed in the 2023-2024 Israel-Hamas war"

But that is too long?

📝 "Palestinian and allied militants killed in the 2023-2024 war"

Which war is probably implied

📝 "Alleged militants killed in the 2023-2024 Israel-Hamas war"

Some (e.g. Ali Bazi) seem to be officially unconfirmed and recently dead people probably warrant similar caution to WP:BLP? Possibly we could just make it comprehensive?

📝 "List of notable deaths in the 2023-2024 war"

That would include journalists and any other civilians whose deaths got substantial news coverage?
But the 1,139 deaths on the Israeli side at the beginning probably belong on a different list, the level of detail about them could easily fill an entire wiki page?

📝 "Notable non-Israeli casualties in the 2023-2024 war"

But I have never seen "notable" in an article title before, is there a better way to say that?
The 3 hostages who got shot seem like they belong in that list, but "kilted by Israel" is obviously going to cause problems. Possibly it could just be 8 October onwards? But the IDF soldiers seem like they belong elsewhere?

Irtapil (talk) 13:41, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I like the idea of either having a list of casualties for the war in general, or split lists for Israeli/Palestinian sides, although the list of 'Notable' people may not be long enough for split articles. Thief-River-Faller (talk) 19:05, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, WP:BIO1E applies. Probably worth making a list page. Stifle (talk) 09:20, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Star Mississippi 03:13, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rajnesh Singh

AfDs for this article:

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

Last AfD was 16 years ago with a no consensus result. Hardly any articles link to this. Almost all of the sources are primary. Note there are 2 Indian academics with the same name (and only a minor number of citations). Fails WP:BIO LibStar (talk) 04:24, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Computing, Oceania, and Australia. LibStar (talk) 04:24, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 07:19, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Unable to find any significant coverage. Most of the references are 404 not found. Macbeejack ☎ 14:03, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as not eligible for a Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:29, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:18, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:28, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hwang Jae-won (footballer, born 2002)

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

Reviewed during NPP. No evidence of wp:notability under GNG or SNG. Sources are just database entries. This is reflect in the prose of the article which is one sentence saying that he plays football and who for. North8000 (talk) 03:14, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sources: I found this article by SPOTV, and this article published by the league he plays for and was republished by OneFootball. There's also these two Korean-language sources from the French Wikipedia article. Left guide (talk) 07:46, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:03, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:03, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:03, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:03, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 12:53, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sources above which (I think) show notability. Young player with 60+ appearances as a professional in Korea, with ongoing career. Clearly notable. Giant Snowman 12:57, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as Left guide's comment shows there is enough coverage to pass WP:GNG. Quality of the article right now is poor but it needs improvement not deleting. Inter&anthro (talk) 15:30, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the sourcing above, which appears to satisfy WP:GNG. Left guide (talk) 20:46, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per above. Young player with sources with ongoing career in fully pro Korean league. Article needs improvement, not deletion. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 21:10, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. I'm closing this trainwreck of a discussion as No consensus. I am reluctant to close this as Keep as those arguing to Delete have valid criticism about the lack of secondary sources. But there are stil strong opinions about Keeping this article based partially on what they see as lapses in the AFD process but it definitely doesn't qualify as a Speedy Keep. This discussion became unnecessarily personal which is not how an AFD should proceed. No penalty against a return trip to AFD to have a manageable discussion focused on sources and notability not on mentorship, personalities, or PRODs. I just want to emphasize that BEFORE is an important step prior to any AFD nomination and it's useful to share the results of any BEFORE search that was done. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:27, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Cavalier Rural Electric Cooperative

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

Fails WP:NCORP and unreferenced David notMD (talk) 03:01, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: unable to find any meaningful secondary coverage about this organization. Left guide (talk) 03:42, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Dakota-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:03, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:04, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:04, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable बिनोद थारू (talk) 04:07, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment @David notMD: Fails WP:NCORP and unreferenced So this is fascinating to me, how can an article simultaneously fail NCORP and be unreferenced? Usually you need to assess the sources of an article to claim it fails NCORP, but as there's no sources to assess, you're basically leaning heavily into "unreferenced" to do the dirty work on an article that's nearly 20 years old (and never been tagged with any maintenance tags to give interested editors an opportunity to fix the issues you might have). —Locke Cole • t • c 05:08, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Google बिनोद थारू (talk) 05:19, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Neat. Because they're the only source of knowledge in the world, according to you. —Locke Cole • t • c 06:05, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I also used Gooogle, and did not find any website content independent from CREC that I thought provided notability. I did find out that CREC has about a dozen employees, serves fewer than 2,000 customers and has annual revenue less than $6,000,000. This AfD process takes 7-10 days. If there are valid refs, add those and the reviewing Administrator will take that into account. David notMD (talk) 08:38, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm well aware how AFD works. See my comment above about the lack of any efforts to improve a nearly 20-year old article for my thoughts on that. I'm also aware that बिनोद थारू appears to be on a crusade to delete articles because their creation was deleted at AFD. We shouldn't be tolerating editors simply trying to disrupt the project to prove a point. —Locke Cole • t • c 09:15, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
My opinion is that proposing articles for deletion is a good deed. If your opinion is that this is a worthy article, then there is a guideline at WP:RESCUE. David notMD (talk) 10:57, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Obvious Keep Insufficiently cited articles are exactly why Wikipedia has {cite tags}. We can't build an encyclopedia by tearing it down when it is being built. MLee1957 (talk) 16:48, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Obvious keep I agree with MLee1957. The rationale cited by the nom, unable to find any meaningful secondary coverage about this organization, is an invalid basis to initiate an AfD. The nom and others are improperly using AfDs and should familiarize themselves with Individual message boxes: Issues with citations and sources. For this article, the {{more citations needed section}} tag is indicated. The use of cite-tags teaches others who are trying to contribute on how to improve their articles and build the project. Deleting others’ work discourages participation and undermines why most of us contribute here.
User:बिनोद थारू has recently been advised by admins to better learn the processes used on Wikipedia and avoid the rampant use of AfDs in lieu of proper alternatives. I very much doubt that merely resorting to WP:PROD, as he/she did here yesterday is what the admins had in mind. While resorting to WP:PROD has a the virtue of bypassing the inconvenience of discussion, it’s a misuse of that tool: As WP:PROD says, Proposed deletion (PROD) is a way to suggest an article or file for uncontroversial deletion. It is an easier method of removing articles or files than the articles for deletion (AfD) or files for discussion (FfD) processes, and is meant for uncomplicated deletion proposals that do not meet the strict criteria for speedy deletion. PROD must only be used if no opposition to the deletion is expected. The immediate resorting to WP:PROD by User:बिनोद थारू is increasingly looking like it might be “wikilawyering” to achieve the goals of a single-purpose editor to do end run around community consensus. Such tactics run counter to Wikipedia’s principles.
As regards Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies), a non-profit electrical utility that serves an essential service (electricity) to many thousands of users is far-cry from some random Dairy Queen or “Al’s Tire-O-Rama” in nearby Belcourt on State Route 10. A utility seems reasonably notable to me. Greg L (talk) 18:32, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Obvious keep and COMMENT - Re Category:Electric cooperatives of the United States. Also see Rural Electrification Act. In the United States, these electric coops are the energy-providing life blood of rural areas. Some articles are well-done and fairly well-sourced. Some articles are done just like this one is done. The Rural Electrification Act was established during the Franklin Roosevelt administration. Prior to that, much of rural America had nothing but what a local area could put together, if anything. That said ... you can nit-pick and delete the sparse ones like this, or you can come up with a better solution. — Maile (talk) 22:27, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Maile66: Thank you very much for that input; it adds helpful and larger context to this matter. Greg L (talk) 00:52, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I also added some links in the article. It had no references at all, and needs to be improved in that area. But I don't think it needs to be deleted. It's just one of those kinds of subject matters that a lot of people would have never known about. — Maile (talk) 02:47, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Maile66: Thank you, sir. Greg L (talk) 03:48, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What you added contains no single mention of "Cavalier Rural Electric Cooperative" बिनोद थारू (talk) 03:56, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment First, User:बिनोद थारू did not start this AfD; I did. All comments about User:बिनोद थारू and the reverted PROD have no relevance to the AfD. Second, "unable to find any meaningful secondary coverage about this organization" was not by the nom (me); rather, it was a Delete from another person. Third, the one recently added reference about rural electrification makes no mention of CREC and hence does not contribute to the notability of CREC. Fourth, putting a "more citations needed" tag on this article would be futile because there are none to add. David notMD (talk) 03:57, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep of course, mostly per the comments above, and per my concerns around this and similar nominations simply being disruptive behavior indicative of WP:NOTHERE behavior. —Locke Cole • t • c 04:00, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have been 'here' more than 15 years, have made more than 50,000 edits, have raised 19 articles to GA, and only very, very infrequently initiate an AfD. David notMD (talk) 04:33, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Why did you nominate this for AFD after बिनोद थारू's declined PROD? —Locke Cole • t • c 04:55, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Because in my opinion it is clearly not Wikipedia notable. As to HOW I became aware of the article and the reverted PROD, I signed up to be a Mentor for new accounts. User:MLee1957 was assigned to me, so I looked at all edits to see if any guidance was needed. MLee1957 reverted the PROD. I then looked at the article and initiated the AfD. I have no personal animus toward CREC nor the state of North Dakota. David notMD (talk) 13:05, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Are you serious? You were assigned to mentor me?? The user बिनोद थारू created an article some number of months ago that got deleted after an AfD. Since then, बिनोद थारू has been obsessed with initiating AfDs on all types of content on the English language version of Wikipedia and MOST of those AfDs were voted as KEEPs. बिनोद थारू even did an AfD on an entire user's page and his sandbox. He was admonished by admins about this single-minded obsession and to better learn the the process of AfDs by participating in them but not starting them. But he turned right around THE NEXT DAY and initiated a PROD on this article, obviously to avoid having to deal with the hassle of having other wikipedians second-guessing him. I deleted that PROD since it was obviously an end-run and was obviously controversial, which is NOT what PRODs are about. Your "mentoring" amounted to leaving a note on my talk page saying you snuck in here and initated your OWN AfD, which by your own admission is something you rarely involve yourself in?? Please de-list yourself as my mentor. MLee1957 (talk) 20:45, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Done. David notMD (talk) 02:57, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

PROD and maintenance tags are suggested to lower the load in the AfD process बिनोद थारू (talk) 20:33, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If you’re going to engage in wikilawyering, बिनोद थारू, at least put on a good show. You need to listen to the spirit and letter of what the admins have been telling you here about your rampant use of “CSDs, AfDs, and PRODS,” as well as “your policy-rich comments and assertiveness” (here). The instructions for WP:PROD are right there on the template page; they say nothing about using PROD to “lower the load on AfD process.” All WP:PROD accomplished was to lower the load you experience during AfDs.
I sympathize with the fact that early on in your en.wikipedia experiences, you had an article that didn’t survive an AfD. But the proper response to that life lesson is to learn from it and contribute constructively to the project by building it; not engaging in a months-long AfD bent (just look at that contributions history of yours) born out of the human emotion so common it has its own proverb: Revenge is a dish best served cold. Greg L (talk) 04:34, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's worth noting also that the Google Books link includes over ten pages of results. I find it highly unlikely that the nominator checked those sources, or other sources, in the ~3 hours between when the PROD was removed and when this nomination was made. WP:BEFORE was not followed at all. —Locke Cole • t • c 03:21, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Again, and I stress this, I initiated this AfD. The lengthy comments about the PROD, reverted, and any other past actions of बिनोद थारू have no relevance. David notMD (talk) 09:07, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fruit of the poisonous tree. Had the PROD not been created by a disruptive editor, we wouldn't be here having this AFD. —Locke Cole • t • c 17:52, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

User:David notMD: What started all this off (disruptive editing by a single-purpose editor) is highly relevant; you seem to have simply got swept up in waters without any understanding of what you were getting into. And (this is important now), you did so after providing “mentoring” to MLee1957 that is wholely antithetical to the purpose of mentoring on Wikipedia.

You came in only one day after a improper WP:PROD (they’re only for clearly uncontroversial deletions) started by बिनोद थारू.
Then you adopted from that improper WP:PROD, the faulty rationale it cited as a basis for what ails this article (it Fails WP:NCORP)
You did this after MLee1957 properly reverted the improper WP:PROD.
MLee1957 had ample knowledge of the single-purpose editor propensities of बिनोद थारू, which you would have known if you had been doing any job whatsoever of mentoring him.
Then you stated that an additional rationale for deleting an article from Wikipedia—beyond the one inherited from the faulty WP:PROD—was the lack of citations.
Now you simply had to know better than that; the proper remedy for an article that lacks sufficient citations is to put a {{citation needed}} tag on it, which is currently used on 369,000 other articles that need citations.
Finally, all this needless wikidrama—here, right now—is the result of you imagining that in any universe, providing “mentoring” to a new wikipedian, MLee1957, means noticing that he properly reverted an improper WP:PROD (improper because it was controversial) by going to his talk page and posted as follows: Given you reverted the PROD, leaving you this note to inform that I started an AfD. I find that truly repugnant.
Apparently, you thought that your pithier message was superior to Hello MLee1957. I was assigned to mentor you. We haven’t been formally introduced, but I thought I would introduce myself and simultaneously “mentor” you by pissing in your corn flakes and making life difficult for you so you learn the concept that “life sucks and then you die.” Have a nice day and 🎵be sure to AGF🎵.

So, your argument that what you did here (unwittingly continuing the disruption of a single-purpose editor by resorting to different means) has nothing to do with what started this theater, doesn’t hold water in my book. But, to what seems to be the more important principle of your comment: That we’re all here wasting time because of your actions, you and I seem to be in complete agreement.

A final thought; this one speaks to wisdom and maturity. In most situations like this, a simple “Oops. I screwed up and deeply apologize” goes a L-O-N-G ways to defusing a situation and making others think the better of you. When MLee1957 learned you came in after his proper reversion of a controversial (improper) WP:PROD and he asked that you stop “mentoring” him (following him around and make life difficult for him and others trying to intercede in tendentious editing) you responded with a rather flippant one-word response: Done. You seem adept at doubling down on poor form with even more poor form. I suggest you think about that. Greg L (talk) 20:41, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

MOTION: I believe the way AfDs like this and similar fare are closed out is that 24+ hours must elapse with no activity. I propose that there be no further posts here past 23:59 UTC, December 25 so we can be done with this and move on with our lives. Silence may be properly interpreted as responding “Aye” to this motion. Greg L (talk) 21:02, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. Only thing now is for an Administrator to make an AfD decision based on the state of the article. Which, I see, still has no valid references. David notMD (talk) 00:17, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That’s what I meant. I don’t believe an admin steps in to discern what a valid consensus is and closes out an AfD while it is still active under discussion; there must be a 24-hour-long period of inactivity. And quoting you (referencing the article you nominated for deletion): “Which, I see, still has no valid references.” Yeah, we’ve been over that, as well as your other reason, neither of which gained any traction here. There are appropriate ways to deal with insufficiently cited articles, including helping improve the article. That shouldn’t shock the sensibilities of an experienced wikipedian like yourself.

Now, do you have anything new to add that doesn’t rehash the same old arguments and amounts to Wikipedia:I just don't like it? Because if you want to keep harping about the same old tired points until the heat death of the universe, we can leave you here alone to do that. Greg L (talk) 00:58, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

According to WP:AFD, it's a seven day process. According to WP:BEFORE, there were a number of steps you should have taken before nominating this article for AFD, and it's clear to me you didn't take them. Finally, as regards [o]nly thing now is for an Administrator to make an AfD decision based on the state of the article, that is not, in fact, how AFD's are closed. Wikipedia operates on consensus. The closer will consider the arguments made, not the state of the article as they personally see it (which would amount to a WP:SUPERVOTE). I do hope they consider the concerns around बिनोद थारू's conduct at AFD/MFD, and how you played yourself into that by nominating an article which you have no background or knowledge of because of an ill-conceived/implemented "mentorship" of MLee1957. Unless someone intervenes sooner to close this, it will likely be closed on or about the 29th. I Support Greg's proposal to end it early, however. —Locke Cole • t • c 01:59, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. If you are concerned about the behavior of another editor, start a discussion on their User talk page or a noticeboard. An AFD shouldn't be the place to evaluate contributors. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:13, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

René van der Wouden

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

This article about an electronic musician has no footnotes and the three external links are not WP:RS. I have carried out WP:BEFORE and not found references to add. The biography section has recently been blanked by another editor, but it was unreferenced and there isn't anything in the content to indicate that this person meets WP:NMUSIC or WP:ANYBIO. The article has been tagged with "no footnotes" since 2014. Tacyarg (talk) 02:56, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Bands and musicians, Music, and Netherlands. Tacyarg (talk) 02:56, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No sources used in the article, nothing found in my search. Oaktree b (talk) 03:19, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - If possible, I recommend investigating the edits made by a new editor called EM-Librairian, who has never done anything for WP outside of this article. That person first added several items to the Discography section on 4 December, indicating a certain interest in improving the article, but then on 21 December they totally blanked out the Biography with no explanation, which seems quite fishy to me. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 15:32, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Before 21 December the article had a robust and rambling Biography of the musician, which was unsourced and probably copied from his personal website, but it included some facts that could be confirmed via a search for reliable sources. I attempted to do just that and found that the biography was probably accurate but the musician simply hasn't been noticed by reliable music media despite his prolific output. He plays occasional concerts which get basic newspaper listings, and he's present on all the usual self-upload and directory sites, but he simply hasn't broken through to the other side. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 15:38, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. MIA on Delpher and in the Dutch press. Deleted from Nlwiki. There's one book on Google Books that mentions him as notable in space music, with the name of a piece. That's a very modest beginning of importance and nowhere near the beginning of SIGCOV. Comes across as a music enthusiast who has recorded his own music and only occasionally performed. Nothing wrong with that except not encyclopedic. gidonb (talk) 03:21, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:10, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bengal, Minnesota

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

Minnesota so far has not been checked much against GNIS and the like, which I suspect means we have a lot of work there. This was a wide spot between the tracks as far back as I can see, and there's no sign it was a settlement as well. Mangoe (talk) 19:16, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:54, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:54, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This one's easy.
BENGAL a station of the Great Northern Railway in section 1 of Goodland Township
— Upham, Warren (2001). "Bengal". Minnesota Place Names: A Geographical Encyclopedia. Minnesota Historical Society Press. p. 260. ISBN 9780873513968.
From the report submitted the Commission finds that Bengal is a station on the line of the Great Northern Railway Company situated between the stations of Kelly Lake and Swan River, Minnesota;
— 51st Annual Report of the Commissioner of Insurance of the State of Minnesota. 1922. p. 75.
Uncle G (talk) 21:16, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Two stops down on the timetable is Goodland, Minnesota. Wikipedia once again lies that this is an "unincorporated community". Upham 2001, p. 263 tells us that it was initially a village called Gardner and became Goodland town of Goodland Township, Minnesota. Just in case you were going there next. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 21:45, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nothing found except for the nearby lake. Not a notable location, and the railroad isn't even there anymore, it looks like, from satellite views. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 00:38, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 02:42, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Bengal was a platted community founded in 1914. While there was definitely a train station there, there was also a small community. I found census records for 1920 and 1940. I've added these details, along with the original 1914 plat map (there was also a later second addition to the community); luckily, that's all been preserved in county records and state and federal census filings. I also found discussion of an influenza outbreak which hit Bengal hard in 1919. Even though all sources indicate Bengal ended up being a bit of a dud, there are reliable sources showing this was a community/town. I'll add more sources tomorrow, but it's late here tonight. Firsfron of Ronchester 10:02, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article has been very well WP:HEYed for such a small community. Passes GNG. SportingFlyer T·C 02:12, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per expansion. BeanieFan11 (talk) 23:27, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Itasca County article. The site is unincorporated, and therefore lacking a government. QED it's not legally recognized and as such cannot not be presumed notable per WP:GEOLAND. The material that has been presented in support of keeping it doesn't meet the standard of sustained coverage or verifiable evidence which is that "evidence must show the topic has gained significant independent coverage or recognition, and that this was not a mere short-term interest,". So the article is not compliant with WP:NRV or WP:Sustained. No article is irrevocably and permanently notable, and merger is easily reversed if the place ever becomes notable. We can't just keep hanging onto these perma stubs because someday they may be the "GOAT".James.folsom (talk) 00:23, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Uh, it's pretty easily verified with the coverage already in the article and WP:SUSTAINED applies to events, not towns, especially considering the sources in the article span decades. It's also no longer a stub. SportingFlyer T·C 01:06, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Leaning keep per SportingFlyer and others above. A place need not be presently incorporated to have historical geographic significance. BD2412 T 14:51, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:01, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ChoCo1

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

Reviewed during NPP. No evidence of wp:notability under GNG or SNG. As it says "ChoCo1" is a "trainee" group created by internet IP company "ChoCo entertainment" and the article lists their electronic releases. References are basically notices of this with no GNG/SNG suitable references about the band included. Tagged by a different reviewer for this since June 2023. North8000 (talk) 02:30, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and South Korea. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:47, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Seems mostly like an advertisement. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 03:05, 27 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. However if someone believes they can further address and re-scope, happy to provide as a draft. Star Mississippi 00:56, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Turfan volcano

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

The Global Volcanism Program does no longer have an entry for this volcano and the only other source (doi:10.1016/S1367-9120(02)00081-0) is extremely undetailed. I notice that this old source explicitly says that identifying a volcano there was an error. The existence of this volcano was already questioned on the talk page, the source proffered there is dead. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 13:51, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, this shouldn't be here. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:12, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:35, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:29, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Clearly an error. –dlthewave ☎ 20:45, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Looking at satellite imagery for the coordinates given by the Global Volcanism Program source doesn't show anything to indicate there is any sort of "volcano" located at or near the given coordinates. Searching it up doesn't yield any useful results either other than briefly mentioning the supposed 1120 eruption. Unless there is solid proof to prove otherwise that there (pretty unlikely) was a volcano there at some point, then this article should be deleted. Streetlampguy301 (talk) 20:53, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Volcanoguy 00:29, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are historical reports of a volcano, and this area has a history of volcanic activity[16]. Even if modern geologists might disagree (a big if?) it's not like this is a hoax. I've added a cite to an 8th century poem by frontier poet Cen Shen. Oblivy (talk) 03:18, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- That source talks about volcanic activity in the Permian more than 200 million years ago, a completely different topic than historical volcanic activity. We can't interpret that poem or undetailed historical sources as referring to volcanic activity; the Turpan-Hami basin knows coal seam fires (e.g this source) so unless a source distinguishes between the two scenarios, we can't know that the poem refers to volcanic eruptions. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:58, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  - I understand the source is not one showing active volcanic activity, although I am led to believe[17] that there is an active fault line in that area. But the fact that you may doubt whether the historic record is accurate doesn't negate that there are historic sources which refer to volcanoes (the poem refers to a volcano near Jiaohe, not necessarily an eruption). You aren't going to be able to go back and interrogate historical sources from 1000 years ago - we have what we have.
    The article on Dauvergne, cited in the nomination, is a commentary on another traveler's report which notes reports of volcanoes in the area, although it focuses on European claims rather than Chinese ones.
    May I suggest that the way to resolve this is not to delete the article, but to contextualize the claim that there was once an active volcano in the area? Oblivy (talk) 09:31, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    - I figure that there is active faulting there, but a fault is still a completely different thing than a volcano. The problem with contextualizing is that that poem is quite undetailed and a primary source, anyway. Kind of hard to call that WP:SIGCOV. I also wonder if the translation of the poem, Chinese word to the English word "volcano", is accurate. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:00, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      - Dauvergne article is relatively significant coverage since it identifies the reports of volcanoes and then attempts to debunk. There's also evidence of an earlier claim (unfortunately can't access the article now, but it's what's being debunked).
        火山 is volcano. The poem title includes 郡在火山脚, "county at the foot of the volcano", and it includes the verse 火山赤崔巍 which is something like "red, towering volcano". Oblivy (talk) 11:01, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
        
        Sure? Because to me and also to Dr. Regel that looks like a reference to Flaming Mountains, which aren't volcanic. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:15, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
        Yes? 火山 means volcano (see [18] "Volcanoes are geological structures with special shapes formed when high-temperature magma and related gases and debris erupt from the planet's crust in the magma chamber under the earth's surface.")
        I suppose it's possible that there was some lexical drift from Tang Dynasty Chinese, but more likely the Regel interpretation is an orientalist gloss (split the characters, 海豚 becomes "sea pig" instead of "dolphin"). Somewhere I have a 19th century Chinese-English dictionary, but I'd have to search for it. Oblivy (talk) 11:48, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
        
        Comment I have expanded the article based on the above discussion, to include Humboldt's work and the controversies over the existence of the volcano. Oblivy (talk) 02:32, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
        Not very strong ones, though - Earth's landscape : an encyclopedia of the world's geographic features has no page number given and gbtimes article that gives no indication of its own source and is from a non-specialist. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:48, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
        Fair enough, I just wanted to show the article could be made into something that discusses the discussion of its existence, rather than the more controversial question of whether historical accounts were correct. The GB times one isn't mine. Oblivy (talk) 13:08, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have edited the article to describe the controversy over the existence of the volcano. As it stands now, it no longer a claim that a volcano actually exists, but a documentation of earlier claims and later rebuttals to those claims. The original rationale no longer applies, and the prior votes are based on a version of the article that no longer exists. Thanks to @Jo-Jo Eumerus for their valuable input.
Either this article should survive deletion on grounds of WP:HEY or it should be relisted to generate further discussion. Oblivy (talk) 02:16, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Hrm. Here I worry about the fact that we are talking about a volcano close to Jiaohe ruins (SW from Turfan) and also about the Flaming Mountains (NE of Turfan). Are we sure the sources are talking about the same area? It's these kinds of little incongruencies that are a problem in articles with only-barely WP:SIGCOV sourcing. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:15, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  - If you look at a map, Jiaohe is about 10km down the road from modern-day Turpan. Both sit along the base of the Tian Shan. The "Flaming Mountain" moniker is applied to a long strip of the Tianshan, probably more than 100km wide (and the person who suggested the conflation of the two was writing about 10,000km away in London). Oblivy (talk) 23:38, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    - Actually, the person writing about the red rocks in Turfan was Johann Albert von Regel who lived in China and travelled the place and didn't even write in English let alone live in London. Uncle G (talk) 15:51, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to determine if the updated article scope is enough to negate the deletion arguments.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 02:27, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ditto for last relisting. It would be helpful if editors who voted "Delete" reviewed the current state of the article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:59, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As implied above, I still favour deletion. These little contradictions make me question whether the sources are talking about one topic. I don't know of any place where the Permian is considered "prehistoric"; usually in both science and colloquial "prehistoric" means when humans were around but didn't write down anything yet. Still think WP:SIGCOV is not met, with passing mentions and a primary source (the poem). Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:30, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist; independent assessment of the recent changes made would be helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde93 (talk) 06:41, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So we have some old pems; Alexander von Humboldt saying there was a volcano in 1849; an 1881 source saying that Humboldt was wrong, and misled by the old poems, based upon the reports of Johann Albert von Regel who lived in China; and 21st century geologists also deciding that this is an error. And on that we are basing an article about a Turfan volcano. Why are we propagating this error 170 years later, and going back to the poems that have been contradicted for 140 years? Uncle G (talk) 15:51, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid that delete remains clearly the right outcome here. Trojan efforts have been made to save it, but they are misguided, and we don't want a geography article about a non-existent structure. The fact that early writers made mistakes about it isn't sufficient justification. Nor is this a notable hoax, which might have formed a rationale for keeping it. It's time to delete this now, the topic has been well explored. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:56, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: This fails per the nom. UtherSRG (talk) 16:17, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎ to delete, but consensus to do something - most likely some significant editing via collaboration and talk page discussion, and potentially having a conversation on the talk page of a rename and/or refocus for the article. Daniel (talk) 00:55, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Azerbaijani-Mongolian cultural relations

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

Article is one big WP:OR mess. Not sure where even to start.

This article is named "Azerbaijani-Mongolian cultural relations", yet talks about Turks (which is a huge group, Turkic peoples) the vast majority of the time, which makes sense, considering the Azerbaijanis were not even close to forming an ethnonym at this time (we're talking multiple centuries here). The article quite bizarrely tries to claim all Turks in the area and period as "Azerbaijani", which is pure historical revisionism. This is not surprising, considering the article was translated from the Azerbaijani Wikipedia (where even the ancient Manneans [19] are claimed as "Turks" in "Azerbaijani" land), literally a mirror of all the historical revisionism/negationism campaigned by the government of Azerbaijan and its predecessor governments, all the way to the early Soviet era. Wikipedia even has an article and a whole section dedicated to it Historical_negationism#Azerbaijan and Falsification of history in Azerbaijan.

The article also uses the irredentist term "South Azerbaijan", also part of the same historical revisionism. It also cites a lot of "sources" published in Azerbaijan, which are not WP:RS, as the country is notorious in scholarship for campaigning for this kind of historical revisionism/negationism.

Sources that are actually WP:RS such as the Yarshater citation is used to mention info about the Turks in the Ilkhanate army, which is indeed mentioned in the source, but what does it have to do with the Azerbaijanis? Nothing.

Besides the two articles I just mentioned, there are countless other sources (listed down below) which also report on the Azerbaijanis not being an ethnonym at this time (first really started emerging in 1918 and the 1930s with that name and the identity they have today) and the historical revisionism/negationism heavily pushed by Azerbaijan since Soviet times. This is unanimous in scholarship. HistoryofIran (talk) 21:32, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The ethnonym Azerbaijani

"Russian sources cited in this study refer to the Turkish-speaking Muslims (Shi’a and Sunni) as “Tatars” or, when coupled with the Kurds (except the Yezidis), as “Muslims.” The vast majority of the Muslim population of the province was Shi’a. Unlike the Armenians and Georgians, the Tatars did not have their own alphabet and used the Arabo-Persian script. After 1918, and especially during the Soviet era, this group identified itself as Azerbaijani." -- Bournoutian, George (2018). Armenia and Imperial Decline: The Yerevan Province, 1900-1914. Routledge. p. 35 (note 25).
"The third major nation in South Caucasia,19 the Azerbaijanis, hardly existed as an ethnic group, let alone a nation, before the twentieth century. The inhabitants of the territory now occupied by Azerbaijan defined themselves as Muslims, members of the Muslim umma; or as Turks, members of a language group spread over a vast area of Central Asia; or as Persians (the founder of Azerbaijani literature, Mirza Fath’ Ali Akhundzadä, described himself as ‘almost Persian’). ‘Azerbaijani identity remained fluid and hybrid’ comments R. G. Suny (1999–2000: 160). As late as 1900, the Azerbaijanis remained divided into six tribal groups – the Airumy, Karapapakh, Pavlari, Shakhsereny, Karadagtsy and Afshavy. The key period of the formation of the Azerbaijani nation lies between the 1905 revolution and the establishment of the independent People’s Republic of Azerbaijan in 1918 (Altstadt, 1992: 95)." -- Ben Fowkes (2002). Ethnicity and Conflict in the Post-Communist World. Palgrave Macmillan. p. 14
"As hinted earlier, the history of Azerbaijan and of the growth of an Azerbaijani ethnie is more problematic than the other two cases. The lack of a clear way of differentiating between the various Turkic languages spoken and written in medieval and early modern times is one of the difficulties. Another is the absence until the twentieth century of an Azerbaijani state." -- idem, p. 35
"In the case of the third major ethnic group of South Caucasus, the Azerbaijanis, the path towards nationhood was strewn with obstacles. First, there was uncertainty about Azerbaijani ethnic identity, which was a result of the influence of Azerbaijan’s many and varied pre-Russian conquerors, starting with the Arabs in the mid-seventh century and continuing with the Saljuq Turks, the Mongols, the Ottoman Turks and the Iranians. Hence the relatively small local intelligentsia wavered between Iranian, Ottoman, Islamic, and pan-Turkic orientations. Only a minority supported a specifically Azerbaijani identity, as advocated most prominently by Färidun bäy Köchärli." -- idem, p. 68
"Azerbaijani national identity emerged in post-Persian Russian-ruled East Caucasia at the end of the nineteenth century, and was finally forged during the early Soviet period." -- Gasimov, Zaur (2022). "Observing Iran from Baku: Iranian Studies in Soviet and Post-Soviet Azerbaijan". Iranian Studies. 55 (1): page 37
"In fact, the change in defining national identity in Azerbaijan was a result of a combination of developments in the 1930s in Turkey, Iran, Germany, and the Soviet Union. The article concludes that these developments left Soviet rulers no choice but to construct an independent Azerbaijani identity." -- Harun Yilmaz (2013). "The Soviet Union and the Construction of Azerbaijani National Identity in the 1930s". Iranian Studies. 46 (4). p. 511
"A group of Azerbaijani nationalist elites, led by M.A. Rasulzada, declared independence for the Azerbaijan Democratic Republic (ADR) on 28 May 1918. After a century of Russian colonial rule, the emergent Azerbaijani nation established its first nation-state. Not only was it a new state but also it was a new nation. Because they previously had lacked a distinct national identity, the Azerbaijani Turks had been called “Caucasian Muslims” or “Tatars,” a common term used for the subject Muslim population in the Tsarist Russian empire (Мишиjeв, 1987, p. 159). The Azerbaijani identity and nation were new constructions of nationalists of the late 19th century, culminating in the establishment of the ADR." Ahmadoghlu, R. Secular nationalist revolution and the construction of the Azerbaijani identity, nation and state. Nations and Nationalism. 2021; 27. Wiley Online Library. p. 549
"Azerbaijan first tried to create a national identity in 1918 at the time of the formation of the first Azerbaijan republic. Because of linguistic factors and despite its deep and long connection with Iran, Azerbaijan constructed its identity on the basis of Turkism and even pan-Turkism." Eldar Mamedov (2017). The New Geopolitics of the South Caucasus: Prospects for Regional Cooperation and Conflict Resolution: Azerbaijan Twenty-Five Years after Independence: Accomplishments and Shortcomings. Edited by Shireen Hunter. Lexington Books. p. 29
"In the pre-national era, both north and the south of the Aras River (Shervan, Mughan, Qarabagh, and Azerbaijan) were provinces, akin to Lorestan or Khorasan of an all-Iranian imperial structure. Following the Russian conquest of the Turkic-speaking regions in the South Caucasus in the nineteenth century, a thin layer of intelligentsia emerged in Baku and began discussing the characteristics of a distinct Azerbaijani identity. The Republic of Azerbaijan was established in May 1918 by the same elite. This short experience was abruptly halted when the Red Army occupied Transcaucasia in 1920/21. Subsequently, the Bolsheviks launched their modern, state-driven nation building projects in Azerbaijan, Armenia, and Georgia. Contemporary Azerbaijanis are Turkic-speakers and their national history could be centered on a Turkic ethno-linguistic identity. Nevertheless, for reasons discussed elsewhere, the Bolsheviks did not prefer this solution. The Azerbaijani national identity and historical narrative constructed after 1937 stressed the indigenous nature of the Azerbaijani people and was based on a territorial definition. The territorial approach found support at the highest level—from Joseph Stalin himself." -- Yilmaz, H. (2015). A Family Quarrel: Azerbaijani Historians against Soviet Iranologists. Iranian Studies, 48(5), p. 770
"Even as the ethnogenesis of the Azerbaijanis continues to be a matter of academic debate, most scholars agree that Azerbaijan, as a national entity, emerged after 1918, with the declaration of the first Republic of Azerbaijan after Word War I" -- p. 585, Gippert, Jost and Dum-Tragut, Jasmine. Caucasian Albania: An International Handbook, Berlin, Boston: De Gruyter Mouton, 2023.
"At the beginning of the 20th century, the heavily used name “Turks” for the Muslims of eastern Caucasus was replaced by the term “Azerbaijani.” It has dominated since the 1930s as a result of the Soviet policy of indigenization, largely promoted by Josef Stalin" - p. 254, After the Soviet Empire. Leiden, The Netherlands: Brill, 05 Oct. 2015.
"Besides Azerbaijan, which as a historical territory in the 12th century has been illustrated in the maps of that era as an area in modern northwestern Iran and distinguished from Arrān, we should mention the term “Azerbaijani”. Prior to the late 19th century and early 20th century, the term “Azerbaijani” and “Azerbaijani Turk” had never been used as an ethnonym. Such ethnonyms did not exist. During the 19th century and early 20th century, Russian sources primarily referred to the Turcophone Muslim population as “Tatars” which was a general term that included a variety of Turkish speaker. Under the Mussavatist government, in 1918 and during the establishment of the Democratic Republic of Azerbaijan, the term “Azeri people” referred to all inhabitants while the Turkish-speaking portion was called “Azeri Turk”. Thus the concept of an Azeri identity barely appears at all before 1920 and Azerbaijan before this era had been a simple geographical area." -- pp. 16-17, Lornejad, Siavash; Doostzadeh, Ali (2012). Arakelova, Victoria; Asatrian, Garnik (eds.). On the modern politicization of the Persian poet Nezami Ganjavi (PDF). Caucasian Centre for Iranian Studies.
"Until the late 19th and early 20th century it would be unthinkable to refer to the Muslim inhabitants of the Caucasus as Azaris (Azeris) or Azerbaijanis, since the people and the geographical region that bore these names were located to the south of the Araxes River. Therefore, the Iranian intelligentsia raised eyebrows once the independent Republic of Azerbaijan was declared in 1918 just across the Iranian border. - pp. 176-177, Avetikian, Gevorg. "Pān-torkism va Irān [Pan-Turkism and Iran]", Iran and the Caucasus 14, 1 (2010), Brill

Historical negationism/revisionism in Azerbaijan

"The republication of classical and medieval sources with omissions, with the replacement of the term "Armenian state" by "Albanian state" and with other distortions of the original manuscripts was another way to play down the Armenian role in early and medieval Transcaucasia. ... The Azeri scholars did all of this by order of the Soviet and Party authorities of Azerbaijan, rather than through free will." Victor Schnirelmann. The Value of the Past: Myths, Identity and Politics in Transcaucasia. Senri Ethnological Studies. pp. 160, 196–97

"Bournoutian’s scholarship has always been relevant. However, today it is even more essential as Armenia and Artsakh are facing monumental challenges due to the 2020 Artsakh War. One of these challenges deals with the intentional falsification of Artsakh’s history by Azeri scholars and their acolytes in the West. Bournoutian has been on the forefront of combatting this revisionist history, which has now infiltrated western academia through Azeri-funded centers and thanks to some Western scholars who seem infatuated by the Aliyev regime." -- Bedross Der Matossian, In Memoriam, Dr. George Bournoutian (1943–2021)

"Scholars should be on guard when using Soviet and post-Soviet Azeri editions of Azeri, Persian, and even Russian and Western European sources printed in Baku. These have been edited to remove references to Armenians and have been distributed in large numbers in recent years. When utilizing such sources, the researchers should seek out pre-Soviet editions wherever possible." -- Robert Hewsen. Armenia: A Historical Atlas. University of Chicago Press, 2001. p. 291

"It should be noted that such falsifications with regards to the regional history of Iranians and other groups, to the point of denial and falsification of their history (e.g. denial of Armenian, Greek and Assyrian genocides due to modern Turkic nationalism or claims that many Iranian figures and societies starting from the Medes, Scythians and Parthians were Turks), are still prevalent in countries that adhere to Pan-Turkist nationalism such as Turkey and the republic of Azerbaijan. These falsifications, which are backed by state and state backed non-governmental organizational bodies, range from elementary school all the way to the highest level of universities in these countries. Due to prevalent political situation in the world, where historical truths are sacrificed for political and financial reasons, falsification of history has even reached some authors who claim affiliation with Western academia as noted in the Part I of this book and exposed in other books such as Vyronis 1993. Another recent example was the desecration of Armenian monuments in Nakhjavan." -- Lornejad, Siavash; Doostzadeh, Ali (2012). Arakelova, Victoria; Asatrian, Garnik (eds.). On the modern politicization of the Persian poet Nezami Ganjavi (PDF). Caucasian Centre for Iranian Studies. p. 85 (note 277).

"Azeri scholars, until some two decades ago, did not deny the historic Armenian presence in Mountainous Karabagh. In fact, the works of Mirza Jamal,'Mirza Adigozal Beg, Ahmad Beg, and Bakikhanov, mentioning an Armenian presence in the region, were printed in Baku. Everything tumed upside down in 1988, following the demands of the Armenians of Mountainous Karabagh to secede from Azerbaijan. Azeri politicians, journalists, and, as will be demonstrated below, even academics, in order to justify their government's anti-Armenian actions in Mountainous Karabagh, avowed that the region was never part of historic Armenia and that the Armenians of Mountainous Karabagh were newcomers who had gradually arrived there only after 1828." -- Bournoutian, George (2011). The 1823 Russian Survey of the Karabagh Province. A Primary Source on the Demography and Economy of Karabagh in the First Half of the 19th Century. Mazda Publishers. p. 427

"A more recent revisionist view claims that in the nineteenth century Russia and Iran conspired to divide Azerbaijan between themselves. Considering that Iran fought two devastating wars with Russia (1803–1813 and 1824–1828), the idea of a Russo-Iranian conspiracy against Azerbaijan is totally absurd. However, this is exactly what the Azerbaijani nationalist poet Bakhtiar Vahabzadeh claims in his poem titled “Gulistan.” The poem refers to the 1813 Treaty of Golistan, according to which Iran lost part of its Transcaucasian possessions to Russia. This view is now widely accepted by Azerbaijani nationalists. The result has been that Azerbaijan’s post-Soviet national identity is not only Turko-centric but also very much anti-Iran. In many ways, it has been developed in opposition to Iran as “the other,” not only as a state but also as a culture and historical entity. Being Azerbaijani has come to mean denying any Iran connection." Eldar Mamedov (2017). The New Geopolitics of the South Caucasus: Prospects for Regional Cooperation and Conflict Resolution: Azerbaijan Twenty-Five Years after Independence: Accomplishments and Shortcomings. Lexington Books. p. 31

"This certainly is the case with Zia Bunyatov, who has made an incomplete and defective Russian translation of Bakikhanov's text. Not only has he not translated any of the poems in the text, but he does not even mention that he has not done so, while he does not translate certain other prose parts of the text without indicating this and why. This is in particular disturbing because he suppresses, for example, the mention of territory inhabited by Armenians, thus not only falsifying history, but also not respecting Bakikhanov's dictum that a historian should write without prejudice, whether religious, ethnic, political or otherwise. [...] Guilistam-i Iram translated with commentary by Ziya M. Bunyatov (Baku. 1991), p.11, where the translator has deleted the words 'and Armenia' from the text, which shows, as indicated in the introduction, that his translation should be used with circumspection, because this is not the only example of omissions from Bakikhanov's text." -- pp. xvi and 5. The Heavenly Rose-Garden: A History of Shirvan & Daghestan. pp. xvi, 5. Willem M. Floor and Hasan Javadi

"The young Azeri's seemingly innocuous, abstract archaeological paper was a deliberate political provocation: all the crosses on today's territory of Azerbaijan, including significantly Nagorno-Karabagh and Nakhichevan, were defined as Albanian, a people who in turn were seen as the direct ancestors of today's Azeris. // The rest, as they say, is history. The Armenian archaeologists were upset and threatened to walk out en bloc. Protests were filed, and even Russian scholars from Leningrad objected to this blatantly political appropriation, posing as scholarship. [...] // Thus, minimally, two points must be made. Patently false cultural origin myths are not always harmless." -- p. 154, Philip L. Kohl (1996). Nationalism, politics, and the practice of archaeology. Cambridge University Press

"In the Republic of Azerbaijan, the long Soviet practice of historic falsification has left a legacy which has distorted both the views of many Azerbaijanis of Iran and the true nature of their cultural, ethnic and historic connections. The following are some examples of this process of falsification, which, incidentally, in the last few years, has been picked up and given new credence by a number of Western commentators. Several myths with significant policy implications shape the Azerbaijanis' views of their country, its origins, and its relations to Iran." -- p. 106, Shireen Hunter (1998). Shireen Hunter: Iran and Transcaucasia in the Post-Soviet Era. Routledge.

"As noted, in order to construct an Azerbaijani national history and identity based on the territorial definition of a nation, as well as to reduce the influence of Islam and Iran, the Azeri nationalists, prompted by Moscow devised an "Azeri" alphabet, which replaced the Arabo-Persian script. In the 1930s a number of Soviet historians, including the prominent Russian Orientalist, Ilya Petrushevskii, were instructed by the Kremlin to accept the totally unsubstantiated notion that the territory of the former Iranian khanates (except Yerevan, which had become Soviet Armenia) was part of an Azerbaijani nation. Petrushevskii's two important studies dealing with the South Caucasus, therefore, use the term Azerbaijan and Azerbaijani in his works on the history of the region from the sixteenth to the nineteenth centuries. Other Russian academics went even further and claimed that an Azeri nation had existed from ancient times and had continued to the present. Since all the Russian surveys and almost all nineteenth-century Russian primary sources referred to the Muslims who resided in the South Caucasus as "Tatars" and not "Azerbaijanis", Soviet historians simply substituted Azerbaijani for Tatars. Azeri historians and writers, starting in 1937, followed suit and began to view the three-thousand-year history of the region as that of Azerbaijan. The pre-Iranian, Iranian, and Arab eras were expunged. Anyone who lived in the territory of Soviet Azerbaijan was classified as Azeri; hence the great Iranian poet Nezami, who had written only in Persian, became the national poet of Azerbaijan." -- p. xvi. Bournoutian, George (2016). The 1820 Russian Survey of the Khanate of Shirvan: A Primary Source on the Demography and Economy of an Iranian Province prior to its Annexation by Russia. Gibb Memorial Trust.

"In fact, after Stalin’s failure to annex Iranian Azarbayjan in 1946, Soviet historians not only proclaimed that the khanates were never part of Iran and were independent entities, but began (and have continued to do so after 1991) to refer to Iranian Azarbayjan as south Azerbaijan, which had been separated from north Azerbaijan, see V. Leviatov, Ocherki iz istorii Azerbaidzhana v XVIII veke (Baku, 1948). Such absurd notions are completely negated by Article III of the Golestan Treaty and Article I of the treaties between Russia and the khans of Qarabagh, Shakki and Shirvan; see Appendix 4." -- Bournoutian, George (2021). "Georgia and the Khanates of South Caucasus in the Second Half of the Eighteenth Century" in From the Kur to the Aras: A Military History of Russia’s Move into the South Caucasus and the First Russo-Iranian War, 1801-1813. Brill. p. 249 (note 4)"

"In a book by Aziz Alakbarli, published by the Ministry of Culture and Tourism of the Republic of Azerbaijan in 2007 – and no less edited by Academician Budag Badagov, Prof. Vali Aliyev and Dr. Jafar Giyassi of the Azerbaijan National Academy of Sciences – the entire territory of the current Republic of Armenia is presented as Western Azerbaijan. The Monuments of Western Azerbaijan, reprinted several times in recent years and in different languages, opens with “The map [of ] the Ancient Turkish-Oghuz land – Western Azerbaijan (present day the Republic of Armenia)” [sic!]. According to this “study”, endorsed by the Azerbaijan Academy of Sciences, all monuments in Armenia are of “Turkic”, “Turkish” or “Arman-Turkish” origin, including the first-century Roman Temple of Garni, “referring to ancient Gargar Turks” [sic!], and the Cathedral of the Holy See of the Armenian Apostolic Church as a 7th-century “Arman-Turkish Christian temple Uchkilsa/Echmiadzin”.19 This kind of re-writing of “history” is based solely on sources produced by Azerbaijani authors, notably prominent academician and national figure Ziya Buniyatov, whom President Heydar Aliyev described as “the constructor of our identity and self-consciousness”.20 This constructed narrative is echoed in the political discourse of President Aliyev and is woven into state policies, diplomacy, public relations, identity construction and, critically, in the construction of extreme anti-Armenianism in Azerbaijan. -- pp. 586–587, Gippert, Jost and Dum-Tragut, Jasmine. Caucasian Albania: An International Handbook, Berlin, Boston: De Gruyter Mouton, 2023.

"From the mid-2000s the notion of western Azerbaijan converged with revived interest in the khanates in a wide-ranging fetishisation of the Erivan (Irevan) khanate as a historically Azerbaijani entity. Covering some 7,500 square kilometres and most of present-day Armenia (if not exactly coextensive with it), the Erivan khanate has undergone the same kind of transformations as Caucasian Albania before it. Contemporary Azerbaijani historiography depicts the Erivan khanate as an ‘Azerbaijani state’, populated by autochthonous Azerbaijani Turks and sacralised as the burial ground of semi-mythological figures from the Turkic pantheon.73 ‘Azerbaijani Turk’ and ‘Muslim’ are used interchangeably in this literature, although contemporary demographic surveys differentiate the latter into Persians, Shia and Sunni Kurds and Turkic tribes.74 Emulating the nationalist scientism of Samvel Karapetyan, catalogues of lost Azerbaijani heritage depict a Turkic palimpsest beneath almost every monument and religious site in Armenia – whether Christian or Muslim." p. 117, Broers, Laurence (2019). Armenia and Azerbaijan: Anatomy of a Rivalry. Edinburgh University Press.

The toponym Azerbaijan

"The name Azarbaijan is a pre-Islamic Persian name for a pre-Islamic province south of the River Aras. “Azarbaijan” was not used in any definite or clear manner for the area north of the River Aras in the pre- modern period. In some instances, the name Azarbaijan was used in a manner that included the Aran region immediately to the north of the River Aras, but this was rather an exception. The adoption of this name for the area north of the River Aras was by the nationalist, Baku-based Mosavat government (1918–20) and was later retained by the Soviet Union." p. 16 - Behrooz, Maziar (2023). Iran at War: Interactions with the Modern World and the Struggle with Imperial Russia. I.B. Tauris

"In fact, in medieval times the name ‘Azerbaijan’ was applied not to the area of present independent Azerbaijan but to the lands to the south of the Araxes river, now part of Iran. The lands to the north west of the Araxes were known as Albania; the lands to the north east, the heart of present-day post-Soviet Azerbaijan, were known as Sharvan (or Shirwan) and Derbend." p. 30, Fowkes, B. (2002). Ethnicity and Ethnic Conflict in the Post-Communist World. Springer.

"The adoption of the name “Azerbaijan” in 1918 by the Mussavatist government for classical Caucasian Albania (Arrān and Sharvān) was due to political reasons28. For example, the giant orientalist of the early 20th century, Vasily Barthold has stated: “… whenever it is necessary to choose a name that will encompass all regions of the republic of Azerbaijan, the name Arrān can be chosen. But the term Azerbaijan was chosen because when the Azerbaijan republic was created, it was assumed that this and the Persian Azerbaijan will be one entity, because the population of both has a big similarity. On this basis, the word Azerbaijan was chosen. Of course right now when the word Azerbaijan is used, it has two meanings as Persian Azerbaijan and as a republic, it’s confusing and a question rises as to which Azerbaijan is being talked about”. In the post-Islamic sense, Arrān and Sharvān are often distinguished while in the pre-Islamic era, Arrān or the Western Caucasian Albania roughly corresponds to the modern territory of republic of Azerbaijan. In the Soviet era, in a breathtaking manipulation, historical Azerbaijan (NW Iran) was reinterpreted as “South Azerbaijan” in order for the Soviets to lay territorial claim on historical Azerbaijan proper which is located in modern Northwestern Iran". p. 10, Lornejad, Siavash; Doostzadeh, Ali (2012). Arakelova, Victoria; Asatrian, Garnik (eds.). On the modern politicization of the Persian poet Nezami Ganjavi (PDF). Caucasian Centre for Iranian Studies.

"The case of Azerbaijan is interesting in several aspects. The geographical name “Azerbaijan” for the territory where the Republic of Azerbaijan is now situated, as well as the ethnic name for the Caucasian Turks, “Azerbaijani,” were coined in the beginning of the 10th century. The name Azerbaijan, which implies the lands located north of the Aras River, is a duplicate of the historical region of Azerbaijan (it is the arabized version of the name of a historical region of Atropatena) which is the north-western region of Iran. After the proclamation of the first Republic of Azerbaijan in 1918, the Turkish army invaded the Caucasus, and the name “Azerbaijan” was offered by a young Turkish regime to the Turkish-speaking territory" p. 253, After the Soviet Empire. Leiden, The Netherlands: Brill, 05 Oct. 2015.

"The Ottoman Turks coveted Iran’s province of Azerbaijan. Therefore following the Bolshevik revolution, in 1918 installed a pro-Turkish government in Baku and named it after the Iranian province of Azerbaijan" - p. xvii, The New Geopolitics of the South Caucasus: Prospects for Regional Cooperation and Conflict Resolution (Contemporary Central Asia: Societies, Politics, and Cultures), Lexington Books, Shireen Hunter

"Until 1918, when the Musavat regime decided to name the newly independent state Azerbaijan, this designation had been used exclusively to identify the Iranian province of Azerbaijan." - p. 60, Dekmejian, R. Hrair; Simonian, Hovann H. (2003). Troubled Waters: The Geopolitics of the Caspian Region. I.B. Tauris.

"The region to the north of the river Araxes was not called Azerbaijan prior to 1918, unlike the region in northwestern Iran that has been called since so long ago." p. 356, Rezvani, Babak (2014). Ethno-territorial conflict and coexistence in the caucasus, Central Asia and Fereydan: academisch proefschrift. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press

"The name Azerbaijan was also adopted for Arrān, historically an Iranian region, by anti-Russian separatist forces of the area when, on 26 May 1918, they declared its independence and called it the Democratic Republic of Azerbaijan. To allay Iranian concerns, the Azerbaijan government used the term “Caucasian Azerbaijan” in the documents for circulation abroad." - Multiple Authors, Encyclopaedia Iranica

"Originally the term Azerbaijan was the name of the Iranian historical province Adarbaigan, or Azarbaijan (from older Aturpatakan) in the north-west of the country. This term, as well as its respective derivative, Azari (or, in Turkish manner, Azeri), as “ethnonym”, was not applied to the territory north of Arax (i.e. the area of the present-day Azerbaijan Republic, former Arran and Shirvan) and its inhabitants up until the establishment of the Musavat regime in that territory (1918-1920)." - p. 85, note 1, Morozova, I. (2005). Contemporary Azerbaijani Historiography on the Problem of "Southern Azerbaijan" after World War II, Iran and the Caucasus, 9(1)

"Until the late 19th and early 20th century it would be unthinkable to refer to the Muslim inhabitants of the Caucasus as Azaris (Azeris) or Azerbaijanis, since the people and the geographical region that bore these names were located to the south of the Araxes River. Therefore, the Iranian intelligentsia raised eyebrows once the independent Republic of Azerbaijan was declared in 1918 just across the Iranian border. - pp. 176-177, Avetikian, Gevorg. "Pān-torkism va Irān [Pan-Turkism and Iran]", Iran and the Caucasus 14, 1 (2010), Brill

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Mongolia and Azerbaijan. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 23:29, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 23:30, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and modify/rename. Since I am not the author of the article, but the translator, I asked from the original author on the other wiki. Now I see he's not allowed to edit here. If the naming is problem then we can rename it something like to "Turko-Mongolian cultural relations in Azerbaijan (area)" or "Turko-Mongoloan cultural relations in Caucasian and Iranian Azerbaijan" etc.

About the term "South Azerbaijan", to be honest I don't know how is it considered as irredentism, but anyway, I don't think it's a big deal. We can simply replace the term to "Iranian Azerbaijan".

About the concerns on a specific article in azwiki. To be honest I don't know what to do with this information. I just took a look, and it just says opinions of some authors. I didn't find the claim. Even if there's one, it's not related to our current topic.

Lastly, nominator didn't mention which sources are unreliable and why. And the sources are being published in a specific country doesn't make them unreliable. There's not such thing in WP:RS.

Conclusion: the article is huge and it has lots reliable sources (14 books, and tons of citations) including books by Mehmet Fuat Koprulu and Zeki Velidi Togan. It would be a big mistake to delete such a big article. It just needs to be renamed and modified. Peace out. Aredoros87 (talk) 12:22, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"If the naming is problem then we can rename it something like to "Turko-Mongolian cultural relations in Azerbaijan (area)" or "Turko-Mongoloan cultural relations in Caucasian and Iranian Azerbaijan" etc.

As mentioned, naming is just one of the issues, and your proposals aren't an improvement. Azerbaijan was not a nation at this time (and not used as a name in the Caucasus), and Azerbaijanis were not an ethnonym, this is unanimous in scholarship.

"Lastly, nominator didn't mention which sources are unreliable and why. And the sources are being published in a specific country doesn't make them unreliable. There's not such thing in WP:RS."

But I literally did, and with tons of proof a that. Wikipedia is not a place to sponsor historical revisionism/negationism.

"I asked from the original author on the other wiki. Now I see he's not allowed to edit here."

Even more concerning that the original author is indeffed here. HistoryofIran (talk) 13:49, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- I agree with nearly all of the points raised in the nom, but not with the conclusion. WP:DINC applies, as there is a clear body of scholarly work, much of it cited in the article and more in gScholar. The problem is that the article is a hot mess, from the title on down. Replace the admittedly ludicrous 'Azerbaijani' focus with the actual RS scholarship (Turkic peoples), and I believe there is a good article underneath. I think it needs to be renamed, stripped down, and substantially rewritten, but all three of those things can only happen if we keep the article. Cheers, Last1in (talk) 14:19, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your input. Would it not be better for this article to get drafted then? We're basically talking a whole different article here. HistoryofIran (talk) 14:49, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I could support Draftify as an AtD, but what would be wrong with fixing these problems on the Talk and having more editors swarm the problem? The power of crowdsourcing article improvement is one of the reasons for WP:DINC and the extremely aggressive WP:BEFORE requirements, and it is a central question in the WP:ZEAL essay. Cheers, Last1in (talk) 16:29, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: per Last1in. This isn't so bad that it can't be cleaned up through collaborating on the talk page. Regarding renaming, I think that can be done boldly and then via RM if someone challenges the move. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:49, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Even though consensus to keep seems apparent at a glance, comment posters have expressed sufficient diversity in opinions regarding the nature of the keep that further discussion seems useful. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 05:34, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: As above.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 02:09, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Article has a lot of text and notable sources. बिनोद थारू (talk) 05:24, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 01:18, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jonathan Spéville

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

The subject, a Mauritian men's footballer, has not received enough coverage to meet WP:GNG. All that came up in my searches were passing mentions (2018, 2019, 2022, etc.) JTtheOG (talk) 02:05, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Mauritius. JTtheOG (talk) 02:05, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 12:53, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 12:56, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – No notability for clubs or national team. Svartner (talk) 17:13, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Paul Vaurie (talk) 21:00, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. The only argument for keeping this discussion relies on sources that do not traditionally count toward notability on Wikipedia. Vanamonde93 (talk) 10:48, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Suissenégoce

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

Reviewed during NPP. No indication of wp:notability under SNG or GNG. Not only does it not have GNG references, it has zero references of any type except for themselves. A search I did yielded the same results. e North8000 (talk) 02:10, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

del no significant independent coverage. - Altenmann >talk 02:17, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Switzerland. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 05:31, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Searches do find some coverage of the coming and going of large firms such as Trafigura as members of this association, unfortunately mostly behind paywalls. There is also a July 2023 item about Suissenégoce representing Swiss business sectors in talks with the US Treasury about sanctions compliance. AllyD (talk) 08:05, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: You do not find coverage because Suissnégoce is the new name. They changed their name some weeks ago. Try „Swiss trading and Shipping Association“ or STSA as a search promt and you will discover it. Please check the official business register in order to find out who is behind that organization : the big trading companies. Vitol, Mercuria, Trafigura, ADM, Bunge, Cargil, Dreyfus, as well as globally active Banks and insurance companies. To be clear : Suissenégoce is the lobby organization of a big business sector in Switzerland. It is an important player in policymaking, active in Parliament as well as on governmental level. Let's improve the article. --Sputniktilt (talk) 09:39, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Who should be doing that? The millions of editors building the articles or the overworked handful of people at NPP/AFD? — Preceding unsigned comment added by North8000 (talk • contribs) 14:47, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The article does not establish notability through references to substantial coverate in reliable independent sources. I'm fairly familiar with Swiss economic politics and have never heard of this group, not even in the context of recent public and political discourse about corporate responsibility in the commodities sector. I therefore doubt that they are as significant as the article implies. A Google News search about STSA finds nothing relevant. It is possible that significant coverage exists in trade publications, but someone would need to find and cite that. Sandstein 14:56, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment@Sandstein : you are wrong, please do proper research work. Check the Site of Lobbywatch. Check the Website on Commodity trade of the Swiss Department of Foreign Affairs and who is referred there on the bottom of the page. Check the website of the Swiss parliament and you will discover many projects where STSA/suissenégoce is involved. Here's the full prompt. --Sputniktilt (talk) 20:43, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

the article shall remain. Reliable independent sources are cited, ranging from independent press articles (AGEFI) to sources from parliament and government agencies. They are transparently linked at the top. The facts are on the table. They are not all in English, but please bear in mind that this is not yet a criterion. Facts should count. Facts are available, for example, from experienced Wikiepdia authors who know their topics, have reliable sources and have been doing this here for over 15 years. --Sputniktilt (talk) 20:26, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. User:Sputniktilt, editors are saying that the existing references are not sufficient. Instead of telling them they are not searching correctly, you should post links or citations to sources that could establish notability. That is the burden of editors advocating to Keep an article that others believe doesn't demonstrate notability.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:37, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

User:Liz, you're right. That was my spontaneous reaction to Sandstein's comment. Such flippant remarks are simply annoying, especially when the author claims to know the field in question. I apologise for that. I have updated the article, and added relevant sources. --Sputniktilt (talk) 23:56, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. A review of recently added content would be helpful here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:42, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Some coverage in Swiss sources [20], [21] and [22], most are trivial mentions. We could probably cobble something together at least to meet BASIC. Oaktree b (talk) 03:02, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I've tried several .ch searches, Gscholar as well- [23]. The association exists, but it's only ever mentioned briefly. Oaktree b (talk) 03:13, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. ✗plicit 01:18, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jackson Fear

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

Could not find coverage to meet WP:SPORTSCRIT. Also fails WP:NOLY. LibStar (talk) 02:11, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Olympics, and Australia. LibStar (talk) 02:11, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
del ; confirm nom's findings. - Altenmann >talk 02:15, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Newspapers.com has a very limited amount of Australian newspapers. Despite this, enough coverage to pass WP:GNG is able to be found on Fear, see for example Sydney Morning Herald feature, full-page The Age article, some more Morning Herald coverage, and then some more from The Age, among others. BeanieFan11 (talk) 22:53, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per BeanieFan11. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 23:09, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:38, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 01:22, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep thanks to the SIGCOV found by BeanieFan11. Clear GNG pass and then some. JTtheOG (talk) 05:45, 27 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 01:13, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bezel Engine

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

This video game engine does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NSOFT. Most of the sources I could find were primary sources from Nintendo, blogs, or press releases. A quick search through Japanese sources provided nothing of use. Sparkl^talk 01:19, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games and Software. Sparkl^talk 01:19, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not appear notable. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 06:06, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. I see a consensus to Keep this article but improvements, as suggested in this discussion, still need to be made. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:45, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pamela Stretton

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

Fails WP:ARTIST. Most sources are from http://www.rosekorberart.com/ which appears to be a primary source. LibStar (talk) 00:47, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Visual arts, and South Africa. LibStar (talk) 00:47, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: I recovered the dead links to the citations and added more details. Although it looked like all the sources were from a gallery website, they were actually reviews of her work from other publications; the content of the reviews was reposted on the gallery website. Thus, there are ample examples of significant coverage. Included is a review in The Sunday Independent, the magazines Contempo and Art South Africa, and a review in Monday Paper. I also added missing citations and looked into the awards listed in the Infobox. She was a finalist for the Absa L'Atelier Art Competition three times and was selected for the Spier Contemporary Competition and Exhibition which appears to be a big deal in the South African art scene. Rublamb (talk) 03:41, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the work put in by Rublamb. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:48, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep as per comments by Rublamb to meet WP:NARTIST. WP:DINC, even if most sources at the time the article was nominated were primary. -Kj cheetham (talk) 12:53, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. --WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 17:03, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article relies mainly on primary sources for biographical and exhibition/collection information. I am not finding reliable sourcing for the information presented. The entire content about Stretton at the VISI citation is The series by Pamela Stretton, who was born in South Africa and now lives in the U.K., focuses on the female body, and is to a large extent autobiographical. This press release was cited multiple times. Fails WP:ARTIST. Not part of any significant exhibitions or collections, and does not have significant RS coverage. WP:TOOSOON --WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 17:27, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Looks like you missed part of the VISI article. The full content to consider is: "Featuring three extraordinary artists – Lyndi Sales, Pamela Stretton and Eris Silke – the exhibition showcases a collection of artworks from colourful abstract creations to images built up from pixilated digital ink-jet prints and sensitive paintings of dreams and fantasy. ...The series by Pamela Stretton, who was born in South Africa and now lives in the U.K., focuses on the female body, and is to a large extent autobiographical. Issues such as beauty ideals and the body’s relationship with popular culture, fashion, health and food come to the fore in her works, which take the form of pixilated digital inkjet prints. Each 20 x 20mm pixel contains iconography drawn from the food, fashion, consumerism and health and fitness industries, such that the viewer is forced to stand at a distance in order to make the image visually resolve." This could be used to replace primary sources in the article. Also, it is allowable to use primary sources—they just don't apply toward notability. The key here is that there are potential secondary sources that can be used to expand the article. The review in The Sunday Independent proves notablity and is not yet used. Rublamb (talk) 01:23, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
To reinforce the point about primary sources, note WP:PRIMARY#3 and WP:PRIMARYNOTBAD. -Kj cheetham (talk) 14:47, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It looks like Rublamb missed the point that the VISI article is a press release put out by the gallery. No byline, and the bottom states Catch this showcase of the power of women in art at Cape Town’s Barnard Gallery until 13 April. For more info on the exhibition or artists, visit www.barnardgallery.com.. I understand primary sources can be used for some facts, but I do not think they can be used to establish notability. Nor can native advertising. --WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 16:59, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, secondary or tertiary sources are needed to establish the topic's notability. I hadn't noticed that was a press release (normally I'd expect to see press releases published in multiple locations), so I'm changing my !vote to a weaker keep. -Kj cheetham (talk) 17:17, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: As someone who used to write press releases and do PR for a living, reporters often end an article that way,, especially when writing about exhibitions and shows. I never assume something is a press release unless I see the same content in several places. But let's assume @WomenArtistUpdates is correct and remove VISI from the list of articles toward notability. These sources remain: The Sunday Independent, the magazines Contempo and Art South Africa, and a review in Monday Paper. Rublamb (talk) 18:18, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at the remaining "sources", there is the Monday Paper - the newspaper for University of Cape Town , and Art South Africa, which I can find no reference of existence. Are you familiar with that publication or has her gallery presented a typo in the title? Again, not much help in establishing notability. ~~Contempo Magazine is a pretty weak source as well.~~ Whoops wrong magazine. No Idea about the South African publication. --WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 01:15, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is what Art South Africa look like. A typical art journal that is significant/notable enough to be sold through the used book market. I have also added a link to a PDF of the Spier catalog.Rublamb (talk) 13:45, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - A search found reliable sources that show notability, including the subject's participation in the 10-year Spier national art project, which Smithsonian Libraries noted was juried. I have added that to the subject's article. This clearly passes WP:GNG and meets WP:NARTIST. AuthorAuthor (talk) 08:13, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:54, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Trying for one more relist before closing.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:17, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Per Rublamb and above. dxneo (talk) 15:46, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: as per AuthorAuthor, in addition the The Sunday Independent's review. Qaqaamba (talk) 20:15, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I still think the article relies on primary sources. Nothing in the citations added have shown this artist's notability. All material from https://web.archive.org/web/20110306175509/http://www.rosekorberart.com/exhibitions/stretton/stretton.htm should be removed. Most of the reviews point to the subject being a recovered anorexic as the hook. Doesn't make her a notable artist. As the college newspaper says It was time to package the experience^[1]. There is nothing notable about the Spier Contemporary award. It appears to be a showcase for a winery.^[2] Hoping another editor familiar with notability requirements for a living "creative" will take a look and agree with me. --WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 02:25, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ "Rose Korber Art". web.archive.org. 8 March 2011. Retrieved 9 January 2024.
^ "The Spier Art Collection". Spier Wine Farm. Retrieved 9 January 2024.

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

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

The result was delete‎. Consensus appears to be that sourcing is insufficient Star Mississippi 03:11, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

E.V.A. (band)

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

Unsourced and absolutely not notable. Fails WP:BAND. Sgubaldo (talk) 00:29, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Music, and Italy. Sgubaldo (talk) 00:29, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sources: There appears to be Italian language coverage of this band in these three sources. Left guide (talk) 00:53, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 01:15, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete The second two sources are press releases. Here is another source: [24]. It does not say much, though, and I wouldn't consider it significant coverage. If more sources come up, I will reconsider. Broc (talk) 23:08, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There's also coverage in Il Piccolo (p. 27, bottom left) and La Stampa (centre of the page). I also found it:Girodivite (link) but that doesn't seem reliable. toweli (talk) 18:31, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 01:18, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @Toweli: thanks for finding those sources. In my opinion it still does not fulfill WP:SIGCOV as Il Piccolo is a local newspaper and the mention in La Stampa is on the local section of Vercelli and not on the national newspaper. --Broc (talk) 08:47, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. clpo13_(talk) 19:42, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher Muneza

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

Delete as an obviously promotional article. would've been speedied as WP:G11 if it wasn't put up for AfD.

Pfomma (talk) 23:10, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 December 8. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 00:41, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Rwanda. Shellwood (talk) 00:45, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The nominator is the article's creator and they actually added an undisclosed paid editing tag (dif here) about 10 months after creating the article. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:01, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:41, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to garner more opinions here. I might have suggested a PROD prior to trying AFD.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:28, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Question: Both at this site's article and on the Internet at large, an exorbitant proportion of the subject's coverage comes from The New Times (Rwanda); how independent and reliable is that source? Left guide (talk) 02:58, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
IMHO, The New Times could be a reliable source since it discusses the subject indepth and is independent. Toadette ^{(Merry Christmas, and a happy new year)} 12:24, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – Should this article be speedily deleted since the author voted delete while sources from The New Times and KTPress establishes notability for the subject? I would choose "keep" since it fairly passes WP:NBIO but what has been commented above suggest that the page be G7'ed. The nomination is really confusing for me. Toadette ^{(Merry Christmas, and a happy new year)} 12:24, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. If you had looked at the page history, which is the least any AFD discussion participant should do, you would have seen that the article was tagged CSD G7 at least twice, both times declined. The reasons are in the edit summaries.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:50, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. ✗plicit 01:20, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lakshmi Shruti Settipalli

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

Sources run of the mail facebook account, imdb, all and all poorly sourced. Sources are not secdondary or independent dont meet WPINDP or WP:SIRS Comintell (talk) 07:30, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, and Tamil Nadu. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:47, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: All I find are PR items [25], [26] which at least confirms it's written by ANI PR, [27] and [28], none of which are RS. Oaktree b (talk) 15:28, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The article needs inline citations and may have originated for promotional purposes, but still meets notability. I dug through the listed sources and converted the bare URLs into citations. It turns out that two of the sources do provide significant coverage that is independent and reliable. "Lakshmi Shruti Setttipalli Was Intrigued by Squash When She First Saw It Played" is published in Prosquash, the leading source for squash in India (where the sport is big). The other solid source is the extensive article, "I Want To Be The Best" in the Deccan Chronicle. Rublamb (talk) 21:24, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:42, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 10:43, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Sources highlighted by Rublamb ([29], [30]) appear to demonstrate WP:GNG. ~Kvng (talk) 22:07, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 00:27, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As has been pointed out, there is some coverage. That said, it falls short a bit of the WP:GNG. gidonb (talk) 02:37, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see what's wrong with the Deccan Chronicle article; that's an extensive full-page feature story. BeanieFan11 (talk) 17:23, 26 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. clpo13_(talk) 19:46, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oxometrical society

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

Non notable University Society. Lacks depth of coverage in independent reliable sources. duffbeerforme (talk) 07:52, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Australia. AllyD (talk) 08:12, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
An entire article on a joke university society that doesn't let Wikipedia readers in on the joke. Sidney John Baker did in 1953, but alas didn't have much to say other than explaining the joke, and that's about the extent to which this has been reliably documented. The sources at hand don't really say much, either. The Melbourne Argus is mostly going on about the Ern Malley hoax, for example. Uncle G (talk) 23:01, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This point has now been address in the latest edits - further content and sources added. Hope this now helps satisfy? :) Skullbound (talk) 01:04, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

More links to further independent sources have now been added.

Is it enough to have the nomination for deletion now removed? Skullbound (talk) 01:49, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

All you've done is bombarded it with more passing mentions, So no, not enough. And it also raises questions about your own use of oxo shite. Sources you've provided simply do not directly support the text you have written. Are you looking for a degree yourself? duffbeerforme (talk) 13:53, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I suggest that this now be kept. Bduke (talk) 06:34, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 10:43, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Agreed with duffbeerforme, article is just peppered with trivial mentions. If someone could find just two or three good in-depth references, they could bulldoze this whole thing and rewrite an informative article. But a dozen or more passing mentions do not add up to information. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 16:01, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 00:27, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relisting. Right now there is no consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:46, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Agreed with duffbeerforme. Where it is mentioned in reliable sources it is only mentioned in passing. No in depth coverage. TarnishedPath^talk 10:52, 29 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 West Santa Ana Branch Transit Corridor#Stations. ✗plicit 01:15, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Arts/Industrial District station

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

Proposed station, expected to enter service in 2043. Per WP:CRYSTAL, this absolutely should not exist. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 00:08, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and California. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 00:08, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to West Santa Ana Branch Transit Corridor#Stations. We're a decade or more out from the design of the station advancing beyond a dot on a map. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 00:37, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to West Santa Ana Branch Transit Corridor#Stations: Far WP:TOOSOON. The station won't be existing anytime soon, and who knows if it will still be in the plans 10 or 15 years from now as it's proposed that the station will be there. Nothing's been confirmed yet, thus it's a WP:CRYSTAL violation. It can be redirected to the list of stations on the planned rail line for now. Streetlampguy301 (talk) 00:47, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect so that this can be changed over if it becomes notable later. Dr vulpes ^{(💬 • 📝)} 05:40, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep‎. Nomination withdrawn Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:55, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kuchinotsu No. 37

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

I made this article in January of 2021 when I knew less about editing Wikipedia. The only reliable sources I can find about this cultivar are mentions in articles about other cultivars. It was tagged for notability in September this year. AllTheUsernamesAreInUse (talk) 00:06, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I think you can just speedy delete it under WP:G7. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 00:15, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink, Biology, and Japan. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 00:18, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- @Deltaspace42: I am unsure if it is notable or not. AllTheUsernamesAreInUse (talk) 01:21, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to 'Encore' mandarin: if you're not sure about notability, let's just redirect the page to the more notable of its parents, where it is already mentioned. This can always be undone by any editor, if notability becomes clearer. Owen× ☎ 13:38, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think there's notability here. I did a Google Scholar search and turned up quite a few mentions. [31] [32] [33] [34] [35] among others. Unfortunately, I don't have access to these articles. My Japanese isn't quite good enough for academic uses, but searching for "津之望つののぞみ" brings up numerous articles. DCsansei (talk) 14:44, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 01:17, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

DCsansei, Are you sure that 'Tsunonozomi' is the same as Kuchinotsu No.37? I may withdraw this AfD nomination. AllTheUsernamesAreInUse (talk) 05:58, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I believe sufficient sources have been found to prove this cultivar's notability. AllTheUsernamesAreInUse (talk) 22:52, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

[1] Paradis, Roger (1972). "John Baker and the Republic of Madawaska" (PDF). The Dalhousie Review. 52 (1): 78–95. Retrieved 2017-05-04.

[2] Day, Clarence A. "Aroostook, the first sixty years: a history of Maine's largest county, from its earliest beginning up through the bloodless Aroostook War". first published serially in the Fort Fairfield Review from December 26, 1951, to February 27, 1957.

[3] Findlen, George L., "Under His Own Flag: John Baker's Gravestone Memorial in Retrospect", English translation of an article published in Le Revue de la Société historique du Madawaska (French language), issue 30, January/March 2002, 5-55.

[Rose_Korber_Art-4] "Rose Korber Art". web.archive.org. 8 March 2011. Retrieved 9 January 2024.

[Spier_Wine_Farm-5] "The Spier Art Collection". Spier Wine Farm. Retrieved 9 January 2024.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[1]

[2]