Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 December 10

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< December 09	December 11 >

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 redirect‎ to List of Bulgaria women's international footballers. Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 07:50, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yana Dineva

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

Redirect to List of Bulgaria women's international footballers. I am unable to find sufficient coverage of the subject to meet WP:GNG. All I found in my searches were passing mentions (1, 2, 3, etc.) JTtheOG (talk) 23:36, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and Bulgaria. JTtheOG (talk) 23:36, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:43, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per nom.--Ortizesp (talk) 08:00, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as above. Giant Snowman 18:14, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as mentioned above. Kkb091 (talk) 19:08, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to NHS ambulance services. Consensus is against a standalone article. History remains under the redirect if a merge is deemed necessary. Star Mississippi 23:49, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ambulance services trust

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

Mostly regurgiated article. "Ambulance services trust" is not a legal entity, as by defintion all are either NHS trusts or NHS foundation trusts, and none of the cited sources specifically mention this term.

The rest of the article is a regurgitation / duplicate of information covered at NHS ambulance services. Elshad (talk) 12:52, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Health and fitness, Organizations, England, and Wales. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:37, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: while not a legal term, which seems to be the objection, it is nevertheless a class of trust with a specific role. This page is the only page on Wikipedia that records the history of geographical coverage. Millstream3 (talk) 12:58, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge/Redirect to NHS ambulance services. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:19, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 00:06, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This seems an important part of a wider scope on the subject matter. Also, needs to add the "UK ambulance service" navbox — Maile (talk) 00:33, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 22:59, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge or Redirect to NHS ambulance services. No need for this content fork. Owen× ☎ 23:49, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 07:03, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hospital separation

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

It is a WP:DICDEF. The single source is a dictionary entry. [1] also defines the term as "used in commentaries on hospital statistics to describe the departure of a patient from hospital without distinguishing whether the patient departed alive or dead." It could perhaps be added to wikt:separation. Darcyisverycute (talk) 14:17, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Darcyisverycute (talk) 14:17, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: and transwiki to Wikt per nom. Owen× ☎ 14:41, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I feel like we should have something here. We have an article at Against medical advice, which is a subtopic of this one. BD2412 T 00:48, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:WHATABOUTX, I don't think the AMA article's notability transfers to this one. They are related topics, but I do not think one is a subtopic of the other. Darcyisverycute (talk) 03:52, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 22:58, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Much of this article seems to be about hospital statistics that are not specifically related to separation. "In Australia, the main hospital separations of 2004–05 were: 1. Digestive system problems. 2. Neoplasms. 3. Injury/Poisoning. ..." But those are reasons why the person went into the hospital, not why they left. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:09, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 00:41, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Velo Vie

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

Originally prodded in 2010, and the article has not seen any more sigcov. There is a review on one of their bicycles but it seems to be more about the bike than the company, barely counting as one source. Sungodtemple (talk • contribs) 16:14, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Arizona. Sungodtemple (talk • contribs) 16:14, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:43, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: hardly any coverage [2], this is all I can find. Nothing else, no mentions of the company. Oaktree b (talk) 01:21, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft-deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 22:58, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per nom and Oaktree b. Owen× ☎ 23:53, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Daniel (talk) 21:09, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Vietnamese teams in the League of Legends World Championship

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

Similar to this deletion discussion. This article is full of unsourced cruft and tables of statistics with no accompanied commentary. There are no sources that indicate that the subject of "Vienamese teams at the World Championship" is a notable topic. There is no reason to merge this article to any of the World Championship articles, as its simply statistics. – Pbrks ^(t · c) 16:41, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games and Vietnam. – Pbrks ^(t · c) 16:41, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:42, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: While eligible for soft-deletion, this has been recently edited and so a soft-deletion is unlikely to 'stick'. Relisting for further consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 22:57, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Merely statistics, no notable results in the championship. Using Ctrl+F on the main article, 'Vietnam' is only used four times in the prose, indicating there isn't enough content to be merged. Sungodtemple (talk • contribs) 00:40, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is simply not for just parking tables. REDISCOVERBHARAT (talk) 13:49, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. Daniel (talk) 00:39, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Muzeum Miniaturowej Sztuki Profesjonalnej Henryk Jan Dominiak in Tychy

AfDs for this article:

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

This is not a G4, but issues and sourcing raised at the prior AfD don't appear to have changed. The promotional tone wouldn't be as much of an issue with independent sourcing to address it. Star Mississippi 13:02, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Museums and libraries and Poland. Star Mississippi 13:02, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Same as last time, primary sourcing or non RS sites. Oaktree b (talk) 16:38, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Such a lack of sources that the first 3 are a primary site, wiki mirrors and the NYT search that shows it has no coverage in the newspaper. Oaktree b (talk) 16:40, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:26, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Cross wiki promotional spam, yes. That said, this survived an AfD on pl wiki that I started a while back (pl:Wikipedia:Poczekalnia/artykuły/2022:05:30:Muzeum Miniaturowej Sztuki Profesjonalnej Henryk Jan Dominiak w Tychach) with the majority there concluding that despite the tiny size etc. it is officially recognixzed and listed on the lists of museums supported by the pl gov't. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:47, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 16:57, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 22:56, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: are our notability standards more stringent than those of the 45 other language wikis that have a page about this government-accredited museum? The poor writing and sloppy sourcing are certainly making it difficult to endorse the article in its current form, but that's an argument for rewriting, not deleting.it. Owen× ☎ 00:09, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Protection Command. Daniel (talk) 21:10, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Personal protection officer

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

Not sure this term is sufficiently specific to warrant an article. "Personal protection officer" is a generic term that could apply anywhere in the English-speaking world. Some of the references are newspaper article where the writer may have just used it as a generic term.

I can find no statutory footing for this term or published material from the Met clearly demonstrating that this is a term specific to the Met.

Overall is a vague article. Elshad (talk) 22:20, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Police and England. Elshad (talk) 22:20, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Not eligible for soft-deletion - previously at AfD under another title.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 22:53, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: frequent references to the term in mainstream media: [3], [4], [5], [6]. Unless there's a suitable merge target for this, we need it here. Owen× ☎ 00:15, 11 December 2023 (UTC) Changed to Redirect to Protection Command, per MrSchimpf and Lightburst. Owen× ☎ 01:16, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Protection Command as a one-department concept that can be detailed in summary. Nate • (chatter) 01:58, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Protection Command, there is room in the target article Lightburst (talk) 00:59, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 07:51, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ilgar Nabiyev

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

Despite searching "İlqar Nəbiyev" and "Ilgar Nabiyev", I was unable to find any evidence of meeting WP:GNG or WP:SPORTBASIC. The best that I could find was Milli, which is just a Q&A with no independent analysis at all. In any case, one source is not enough for GNG or SPORTBASIC. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:33, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Azerbaijan. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:33, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:43, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:13, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:SPORTCRIT and WP:BLP. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 05:08, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 21:00, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Garden Networks

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

Not notable, seems to be defunct. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 21:44, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Internet, and Canada. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 21:44, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: both this and GTunnel seem very thinly sourced. Fails NCORP, as far as I can tell. Owen× ☎ 22:01, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG and WP:NCORP.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 19:42, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Found nothing online meeting WP:SIRS (though "Garden Network" isn't the easiest search term to work with). One reference also provides insufficient in-depth coverage. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 19:43, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 07:51, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Val Jobara

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

Non-notable actor. Few minor roles, but no real claim to fame. Orphaned for a decade. PepperBeast (talk) 21:04, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Sweden. PepperBeast (talk) 21:04, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Theatre, Italy, California, and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:18, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. He has had a couple of bit parts in movies. No reviews of his theatre roles. Very non-notable. -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:44, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable enough. His most prominent role in Kick-Ass (film) isn't even the main cast of the film. ✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 17:54, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – As of 2023 not notable enough.BabbaQ (talk) 09:02, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 21:03, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Muhammad Qasim Sadiq

AfDs for this article:

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

The article currently has two sources, one of which is a dead link and the other isn't verified. BEFORE hasn't turned up anything, though sources may be available in other languages. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 20:49, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Islam, and Pakistan. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:16, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep I am surprised that even after the first deletion discussions which closed as Keep it was again tagged for deletion discussion. These are some references I would like to mention: [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15] Kkb091 (talk) 09:58, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP Seems to me Kkb091 has provided many additional sources shown above. Also, today I looked and saw that he has worked on the article and further improved it, so there are no lack of sources any more at the article for notability. This Sufi sheikh (1845 - 1942) has a large number of followers in Pakistan. Ngrewal1 (talk) 16:41, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge‎ to EarthBound or an appropriate section thereof Star Mississippi 23:51, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ness (EarthBound)

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

Despite being a pretty well known character and the main face of Earthbound, there really isn't much being said about Ness. His entire reception is based around his Smash appearances, with most of it being summed up as "Ness is more known for Smash than Earthbound and is pretty fun to play." I did find this pretty good source while searching https://www.nintendojo.com/features/editorials/best-of-2012-the-church-of-ness-earthbounds-religious-overtones But I couldn't really find much more, as most discussion is just about Earthbound's plot than about Ness as a character. Given that Ness already has a section in the main Earthbound article, a merge there I feel would work as a perfect AtD, given that Ness has some legacy beyond his game, even if it isn't really enough for an article, in my book. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 20:10, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Science fiction and fantasy, and Video games. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 20:10, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. Per nom. Ness doesn't have any notability beyond EarthBound and Super Smash Bros. His entire "concept and creation" section boils down to "he was in EarthBound" and "the player can select his favorite food and favorite thing", nothing about the actual creation of the character or even Itoi's thoughts on the character. The "Appearances" section is just describing the events of EarthBound, and his Reception is 99% Smash. Two of the sources detailing him as one of the best RPG characters are listicles and have nothing substantive. --ThomasO1989 (talk) 23:04, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. As is noted, the actual proof of notability is pretty light. That said, I wonder if there isn't dev info, since I know Itoi talked in pretty great detail about even minor characters in Mother 3. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 23:10, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per above. GreenishPickle! (🔔) 23:13, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Ness is mostly known from Smash, but even that coverage is relatively slim. I don't see a ton of SIGCOV here. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 12:33, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per others. Thomas put it the best though. Also Sans is Ness Conyo14 (talk) 20:34, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge with the character section of Mother in the spirit of WP:PRESERVE. --Rtkat3 (talk) 02:26, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- That section was literally added by you today and currently has nothing inside of it. A merge to EarthBound seems more logical, given we aren't constructing an entirely new section solely to accommodate it. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 17:17, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  - Now some stuff has been added to it as a start. Of course it was also established just in case you took the AFD on his archenemy Giygas next. --Rtkat3 (talk) 17:58, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Giygas looks fine right now, and I have no intention of nominating it. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 22:51, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to EarthBound#Ness per nomination. I honestly do not see the logic at all of merging this to main franchise page, rather than to the article on the game in which he was the main character, and where a section on him already exists to merge to. Rorshacma (talk) 21:39, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per above. Videogameplayer99 (talk) 09:43, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 20:59, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nevaun Turner

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

Failure of WP:GNG. Paul Vaurie (talk) 20:10, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and Jamaica. Paul Vaurie (talk) 20:10, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:37, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:43, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, passing mentions made in here, here, and here, none of them meeting SPORTSBASIC or GNG criteria. That goes the same for other sources found. ~ Tails Wx 00:38, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:13, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 20:58, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Port Harcourt bus electrocution

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

No lasting coverage; all significant coverage I can find is from within two days of the incident. Otherwise only passing mentions in summary in ProQuest results, never exceeding about 2 sentences, mostly in relation to similar events in Nigeria. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 19:41, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Transportation, and Nigeria. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 19:41, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: In addition to the extensive international coverage the incident received at the time, it also resulted in long-term effects on electrical grid design. See for example this 2022 academic paper. Owen× ☎ 22:53, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the above. - SchroCat (talk) 14:38, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have no strong feelings about this particular article but I'd be surprised if an event in which 11 people died while using public transport as a result of an infrastructure failure had no lasting consequences whatsoever. Obviously Nigeria does not have the bureaucratic infrastructure we would expect in Europe or North America for example, but in those places there would be detailed investigations which would take months, produce lengthy reports, and likely recommend wide-ranging changes that might take years to fully implement. Nigeria may not have mature investigative apparatus like public inquiries or the NTSB, for example, but I find it hard to believe that an event like this would just be forgotten. Owen's link suggests that there is indeed more to the story. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:23, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This is indeed a disappointing AfD. The subject of this article is poised to become a topic of discussion across various platforms, spanning from academic circles to media outlets. As such, we can anticipate a wealth of developments as time progresses. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 18:53, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This event happened in 2010. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 22:16, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seawolf35 ^T--C 23:59, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Owen and HJ Mitchell. S5A-0043^Talk 04:23, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎ per sourcing identified. Normally I'd relist for source assessment to see if any of the deletes changed, but these sources are an objective answer to the nomination and many of those !votes Star Mississippi 23:53, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Queens Well, Arizona

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

I did not find SIGCOV for that topic. बिनोद थारू (talk) 16:45, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Arizona. बिनोद थारू (talk) 16:45, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - passes WP:GEOLAND.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 18:17, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. From WP:GEOLAND,
  The Geographic Names Information System and the GEOnet Names Server do not satisfy the "legal recognition" requirement and are also unreliable for "populated place" designation.
  Yet those are the only sources. बिनोद थारू (talk) 18:59, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- No it doesn't. It's a well. Uncle G (talk) 19:09, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The 1986 GNIS record for this actually gave it the feature class "well" and said that it was "UNOFF". Unfortunately, feature classes have become eroded over the years. And here we are declaring that a well "passes GEOLAND" for being an "unincorporated area" (piped as "populated place") 37 years later. The extra saddening thing, over the fact that we are still so uncritical of the GNIS that a well that even says "Well" in its name, is taken to be where people live, is that the coördinates for this in the GNIS are for the words "Queens Well" printed at the bottom left of the quadrangle map. It is the Queens Well quadrangle map. The actual location of the well on the map, where it says Queen's Well, is at 32°16′35″N 111°38′05″W / 32.276514°N 111.634689°W / 32.276514; -111.634689, with (on the 1:62500 maps) a handy stylized icon of a well to confirm that, as the GNIS used to say, it is a well. Uncle G (talk) 19:09, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- As a well, it may have legal recognition and a permanent population, namely of and by Nāgas, therefore it is still necessary to evaluate GEOLAND for that location. बिनोद थारू (talk) 21:50, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  - The Tohono Oʼodham are not known for living in wells. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 01:09, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a physical well, anymore than Indian Wells, California is a collection of wells made by a group of native Americans. "Wells" itself is a pretty common name for geographic areas: please see Wells. — Maile (talk) 00:19, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- It is. Ironically, one can even see it, at the coördinates given above. It's the round thing, exactly where the well symbol and the words "Queens Well" on the topographic maps say it is, at the end of the little service road. The maps say it's a well. The GNIS said that it was a "well" up until "well" was squashed and mass replaced (incorrectly) a few years ago. We can see that it's a well. It's mind-boggling that people want to argue that no, it isn't a well and it could be a populated place. We've got the evidence of the very computer database record that the article is based upon outright saying that it is a well for a good 30 years. Uncle G (talk) 01:09, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: It's a well. The name says it's a well. The GNIS says it's a well. The USGS topographic map says it's a well. The satellite image: [16] shows a well, or possibly a cistern, surrounded by desert. Look at the image. Do you see any sign of human population? This shouldn't be this difficult. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 02:59, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
delete A person can always argue / assume that not enough searching has been done and that the needed sources have been overlooked. The burden of proof that this well is either a populated place or otherwise notable lies on the person arguing for it. Just because it might be notable does not make a feature notable. If sources showing that can't be found, it does not belong in Wikipedia until an acceptable source showing notability is found.
I found two sources for Queen's Well, but neither shows that it is notable in any way. First on page 15 of McKenzie, D.N., (1985, RangeWater Pumping Systems State-of-The-Art-Review. Agriculture Forest Service Equipment Development Center Project Report 8522 1201, 2200-Range, San Dimas, California.) the caption of a water well picture reads, Figure 22. - Large maximum power controller pump jack water pumping system at Queens Well on the Papago Indian Reservation near Tuscon, Arizona. Finally, in Carlson, K.E., (1978. Laramie, Wyo.; Kent A. Crofts, Colorado Yampa Coal. Annual Report) there are three pictures of water pumping system at Queens Well on page 45 and two other page. None of these sources indicate any significance for Queens Wells. It is just an example of a water well run by solar panels as many wells are. Paul H. (talk) 03:48, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh bravo! I was stumped by this. (And your first hyperlink does not work for me.) Partly because I suspect the proper name is not searchable. "Queen's Well" was "UNOFF" and probably owned by a company or person named Queen. Down the road is "Tank 113" and, from the other "tanks" dotted around, I suspect that the proper official name for this thing under which it is documented is going to be something hugely mundane like "Papago well 37—05" for example. There were once wells elsewhere named Papago Farms well #1 to well #7, certainly. Uncle G (talk) 09:59, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  - It is above written: (And your first hyperlink does not work for me.) Try Agriculture Forest Service Equipment Development Center Project Report 8522 1201. Google Books is always a problem for me in extracting permanent URLs. Paul H. (talk) 02:46, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    - I wrote User:Uncle G/On common Google Books mistakes from long years of experience years ago. Uncle G (talk) 06:51, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Nothing is here to indicate this is or has ever been a populated place. Fails WP:GEOLAND. Let'srun (talk) 04:05, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - this is literally a well, and in fact, it may border on a WP:HOAX to claim it's anything more than a well. Kinopiko ^talk 20:09, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- It's not a bad-faith hoax. This article was created in 2017, relying solely upon GNIS as a source for the "populated place" requirement. Whether that practice was acceptable was debated prior to 2021, but an 2021 RfC found affirmative consensus that GNIS by itself is not enough to count as a legal recognition the populated place requirement.
  So, judging from currently clear standards, it is IMO patently clear that this does not meet the populated places requirement and be deleted. But a hoax requires a bad-faith intention to trick the audience in believing that something is real. I don't find it to be the case here, as the article's creation was more due to laxer standards before that had no clear consensus on whether GNIS is enough by itself, allowing stubs such as this to be created. VickKiang (talk) 02:24, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  - I don't remember when the WWW interface actually changed, but the USGS says that it squashed the "well" and other feature codes such as "post office" in 2021. It would have upfront said "well" in 2017. Uncle G (talk) 06:51, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. This is no indication that this site is a populated place, and the 2021 RfC I mentioned above notes that The Geographic Names Information System and the GEOnet Names Server do not satisfy the "legal recognition" requirement and are also unreliable for "populated place" designation. As such, GEOLAND is failed and this should be deleted. VickKiang (talk) 02:25, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: On Wikipedia, one thing I learned we can do, is look for sources! Queens Well, this exact location, was described as a "village of 15 homes" by the Tuscon Citizen in 1993[17], and a Papago village with solar equipment constructed in 1982[18] (Edit to add: another 1982 mention[19]), and an "outlying Indian village" in which 3 homes were destroyed in a flood in 1962 where the "Red Cross is feeing and clothing all the residents of Queens Well."[20] Surely these are poor native americans without the favor of white skin so that the US Government sees them, but it does seem to be a populated place.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 17:20, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but SIGCOV is needed for GNG and passing SNG alone does not pass GNG if the sources were exhausted. That's what people said on Talk:Notability recently. बिनोद थारू (talk) 01:36, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what people said on Notability recently, but we have editors concluding this article is a "hoax", when searching newspapers.com with my free wiki editor account yielded a number of hits. The primary ground for the delete votes to date is that they don't think its a populated place, and that assumption has been shown to be incorrect. I believe the nomination was completely in good faith, but incorrect.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 12:36, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

surprisingly, keep The well and the settlement are two different locations and labels on the topo maps: the latter is about 2/3s of a mile south of the former. The settlement label is not as well placed as it could be, but there is a clear line of structures just to the east. Mangoe (talk) 20:23, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I've added a few sources that show this is a populated and notable area in the Tohono O’odham Nation (formerly known as the Papago Indian Reservation). Dr vulpes ^{(💬 • 📝)} 06:07, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Also here's an election record from the 2023 Tohono O'odham Nation Election that lists someone being elected from Queens Well.Dr vulpes ^{(💬 • 📝)} 06:15, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I do not see "Queen's Well" anywhere in the source you added... बिनोद थारू (talk) 06:21, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Click on the section of the web page titled Schuk Toak District. It's a little hidden but it's there. They elected Katrina Lopez this year. Dr vulpes ^{(💬 • 📝)} 06:24, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I found it so I change to Keep. बिनोद थारू (talk) 06:27, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎ since WP:V precludes a redirect. Should that change, happy to restore the history for a redirect Star Mississippi 23:56, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

San Luis (I), Pima County, Arizona

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

Did not find any SIGCOV for this topic. बिनोद थारू (talk) 16:14, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Arizona. बिनोद थारू (talk) 16:14, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The only Tohono Oʼodham San Louis/San Luis that I can turn up are either the other Arizona one (the San Luis Wash in USDI 1941, p. 25 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFUSDI1941 (help)) or one in Mexico (San Luis Babi according to Hodge 1907, pp. 201, 447 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFHodge1907 (help)). Uncle G (talk) 17:25, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- It doesn't pass GNG or have SIGCOV. It would better fit as merged, or just redirected to Pima County. बिनोद थारू (talk) 18:55, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  - I think that we'd need documentation that it even exists, first, and isn't some random cartographic rubbish that the GNIS has ossified. Hodge 1907, p. 201 has a laundry list of placenames for "Papago" settlements, and it isn't on it. USDI 1941 is a whole report on place names, and it isn't in it. It has the San Luis Wash on page 25, and a San Luis village on page 14 at (it says) 32°05′00″N 111°57′30″W / 32.08333°N 111.95833°W / 32.08333; -111.95833 on a bend of the Wash. But no San Luis anywhere near where this San Luis is purported to be. This claims to be a second San Luis. But Hodge 1907, p. 449 tells us that the Tohono Oʼodham San Luis, a second one, is in Mexico. Uncle G (talk) 19:31, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hodge, Frederick Webb (1907). "Papago". In Hodge, Frederick Webb (ed.). Handbook of American Indians North of Mexico. Bulletin. Vol. 30. Smithsonian Institution. Bureau of American Ethnology. (Handbook of American Indians North of Mexico at the Internet Archive)
Place Names on the Papago, Gila Bend and San Xavier Indian Reservations. Applied Anthropology Documentation Project. Vol. 2. Sells, Arizona: United States Department of the Interior, Office of Indian Affairs. 1941.

Keep - passes WP:GEOLAND.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 18:16, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. From WP:GEOLAND,

The Geographic Names Information System and the GEOnet Names Server do not satisfy the "legal recognition" requirement and are also unreliable for "populated place" designation.

Yet those are the only sources. बिनोद थारू (talk) 18:56, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is not a notable geographic location and it fails WP:GEOLAND. There is no RS to that I could find and on a map it looks like this. The other San Louis in Yuma is notable San Luis, Arizona Lightburst (talk) 01:08, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Per Uncle G's investigation, it's not even clear that this place exists.

JoelleJay (talk) 07:28, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Uncle G. Hog Farm _Talk 02:22, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Imaginary chair. I have taken the suggestion to preemptively move wall sit to imaginary chair. But the move can be undone at editorial discretion. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 20:56, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jetliner position

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

Issues have been raised regarding this name since 2005, and no RS has been provided to give this name since. Move relevant information into wall sit article and delete this unless RS can be given for this name. GnocchiFan (talk) 15:55, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Wall sit: no verifiable information here. Owen× ☎ 16:33, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:32, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Wall sit. TJRC (talk) 00:53, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps if the original creator of the article had known that this is called the imaginary chair in many books and reports going back to the 1970s about posture torture methods employed in apartheid South Africa, and had not simply made up a name for this, things would have gone a little differently for the past 18 years. Uncle G (talk) 02:07, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Rejali, Darius (2009). "Forced Standing and other positions". Torture and Democracy. Princeton University Press. p. 326. ISBN 9781400830879.
Thanks for sourcing this! Do you think it's still best to delete this article and re-start from scratch, or should we move this to imaginary chair with content from the source? (If there are no sources for this term then the current title will be deleted as a redirect I assume...) GnocchiFan (talk) 17:36, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I just added the Rejali 2009 ref to Wall sit, with this AfD as the attribution. I think renaming the Wall sit page to Imaginary chair is a good idea. The torture aspect seems more encyclopedic than the exercise, not to mention better sourced. Owen× ☎ 18:04, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 11:29, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Tindle Radio. Content may be merged at editorial discretion. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 20:48, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Anglian Radio

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

A company that bought and then subsequently sold some local radio stations four years later. Trade press coverage revolves around the company buying and then selling its radio stations, nothing appears to be covered other than this. There is nothing here that could not be covered in the articles for the individual stations - it warrants a brief mention of the ownership transfers, rather than a full article. Flip Format (talk) 15:49, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio, Companies, United Kingdom, and England. Flip Format (talk) 15:49, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as there are huge problems with general notability and NCROP as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnpaul2030 (talk • contribs) 08:04, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:NCORP, and reads like an advert. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 05:09, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This is a difficult one to call as I am never in favour of article deletion. I think it passes notability but only just but, as Flip Fprmat says, the references are only related to the forming and selling of the company. However, to delete it means that the information which is contains will be lost. Merge with Tindle is another option, and maybe the best option, and ensure that the relevant information is transferred to the Tindle Radio article before it is merged as merge is another word for delete. Rillington (talk) 11:50, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have now done this so I'm prepared to change my vote to Merge. Rillington (talk) 12:02, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. It seems like this discussion has resolved at least some confusion about how this topic is different than others. We should also expect more clarity on definitions from outside sources in the coming years. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 20:47, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Cisgenderism

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

Three reasons for nomination in AfD:

All of the sources I could find in my BEFORE and currently present in the article are WP:PRIMARY journal articles investigating the topic at hand.
This article is a WP:CFORK of cisnormativity, trans erasure and lastly misgendering (per the original paper [21]). No secondary source clearly delineates cisnormativity and cisgenderism leading me to think that they're just WP:DICDEFs that are synonyms of each other (all mean biases towards cisgender).
The only and main secondary source:

Ansara, Y. Gavriel; Berger, Israel. Cisgenderism. In: Goldberg, Abbie; Beemyn, Gemmy, editors. The SAGE Encyclopedia of Trans Studies. SAGE Publications; 2021. ISBN 978-1-5443-9381-0.

was co-written by the same person who invented the term for his masters thesis (making it likely a WP:NEOLOGISM). All sources were selected from very few psychology or gender journal articles (half of them having Ansara as a co-author), raising WP:NOTABILITY concerns. Such publications are WP:MILL research output and not been picked up by independent secondary sources. बिनोद थारू (talk) 15:45, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. बिनोद थारू (talk) 15:45, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Discrimination, Sexuality and gender, and Social science. -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 16:10, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. All three of your claims prove inaccurate looking even just at the first source listed in the article. It's an encyclopedia article (not primary), it clearly and explicitly distinguishes cisgenderism from cisnormativity, and again, it's not primary. I also don't think your assessment of the sources that are journal articles is very accurate. Ansara and Hegarty (2012) I believe coined the term, so that one could arguably be considered primary in this context, but the rest are either wholly secondary (Lennon & Mistler, 2014), or contain significant secondary discussion on existing research on cisgenderism. WP:ROUTINE is a part of Wikipedia:Notability_(events), which obviously does not apply to this article, and I really don't understand how you equate research with press releases or acquisition news or "fireman saves cat" news. -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 16:23, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. You brought up what you consider an example of good source (2014 article), yet it is a study from the journal Transgender Studies Quarterly has an impact factor 0.68 and h-index of 8 (https://www.resurchify.com/impact/details/21100979259) both which are very low for the field of psychology. This goes in with this topic not being notable and just being a routine output of liberal arts researchers (which is a task they are required to do to stay financed, much like firemen are required to help rescue cats). Not mentioning that it is also WP:PRIMARY. That's why I think it should be deleted or merged to cisnormativity as an alternative to deletion. बिनोद थारू (talk) 16:36, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
And journalists are required to write about the news, physicists are required to write about physics, and so on; should we also delete all articles that cite newspapers or physics journals? And by what criteria do you classify Lennon & Mistler (2014) as primary? -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 17:41, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
All the sourcing here does not fit WP:SCHOLARSHIP, in particular the points: Prefer secondary sources, Citation counts, Isolated studies and POV and peer review in journals. It is run-of-the mill research and does not support the existence of Cisgenderism as distinct from Cisnormativity. In addition, the first encyclopedia source you gave and the article is based upon was co-written by Ansara. Yet according to your comment, they have coined the term, so it cannot be considered independent from the subject. बिनोद थारू (talk) 18:09, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You still haven't specified how Lennon & Mistler (2014) is a primary source. Rather, you add more arguments that don't hold up to scrutiny. Here are the citation counts for those sources I could find them for:

Ansara (2015): 46
Blumer, Ansara & Watson (2013): 51
Rogers (2021): 17
Ansara & Hegarty (2012): 162

By the way of comparison, the Annual Review of Sociology, one of the most highly cited sociology journals, has an impact factor (average citations per article) of 10.5 [22]. You bring up "Isolated studies", but I have already said that of the articles cited, those that actually are studies include literature reviews in them, making them more than isolated studies. You have failed to substantiate what you mean when referring to "POV and peer review in journals". Are you saying that SAGE Publications, Psychology and Sexuality, Psychology of Women Section Review, Violence Against Women, Journal of Family Psychotherapy, Transgender Studies Quarterly, Australasian Journal on Ageing, and Journal on Family Strengths all "exist mainly to promote a particular point of view"? -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 20:20, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

3/4 of those sources:

Ansara (2015): 46
Blumer, Ansara & Watson (2013): 51
Rogers (2021): 17
Ansara & Hegarty (2012): 162

are by Gabriel Ansara, the one who coined the term in 2012 for his master thesis. So as well as being WP:PRIMARY (ie. not being "Reviews of Cisgenderism" or "Textbooks about Cisgenderism") they are also not WP:INDEPENDENT of the topic. बिनोद थारू (talk) 21:59, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"POV and peer review in journals" in WP:SCHOLARSHIP gives the examples of The Creation Research Society Quarterly and Journal of Frontier Science, in other words, fringe sources.

The seminal paper for this subject Cisgenderism in psychology: pathologising and misgendering children from 1999 to 2008 (Ansara) states:

Note that ‘scientific objectivity’ has been used to obscure prejudicial ideologies focused on marginalised populations and that many scientists have critiqued ‘objectivity’ as a social construct that is fashioned from the subjective experiences of the researchers. See Crasnow; Danziger; Fairchild; Fernando, (2009); Jiménez-Domínguez; Spanier; and Stanley and Wise (esp. p. 174)

This is typical of what one would find in a WP:FRINGE publication. To not stick with calling it fringe, I read the paper further. In section 1.4, the purpose the paper is given as:

In the present study, we examined whether cisgenderism has characterised the language of scientific communication about children in psychology in the period since Parlee’s (1996).

So the only purpose of this study is grepping all the psych studies with misgendering keywords and yet it makes completely unrelated conclusions at the end like:

Where some researchers (e.g., Zucker et al., 2009) see mere semantics, others consider sexist language an abusive and destructive form of hate speech (e.g., Lillian, 2007). Cisgenderist language can function to dehumanise, silence and erase. Indeed, even Parlee’s (1996) important criticism of cisgenderist language is limited by numerous instances of misgendering,7 an illustration that shifting the discourse is extremely difficult even for those engaged in critical analysis. Editors, peer reviewers, psychological researchers, mental health professionals and professional organisations all have ethical duties to address institutional cisgenderism, including cisgenderism that is institutionalised in scientific communication. Children’s self-definition and self-expression are not the only issues at stake. The moral integrity of psychology and its public image as an agent of the greater social good depends, in part, upon implementation of APA policy – which our current findings suggest has yet to impact how psychological scientists construct knowledge

How does "a frequency f of misgendering keywords" imply "Cisgenderist language can function to dehumanise, silence and erase"?

This is bad research (if you cannot see why this is the case, answer the question: what can I take out of it?). Regardless, this CTRL+F study defines cisgenderism as either misgendering or pathologizing so gives yet another WP:CFORK. बिनोद थारू (talk) 22:42, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is a gish gallop. Instead of responding to the arguments I make, you just throw out more and more assertions. -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 07:06, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

- It's also not accurate to say that cisgenderism is only discussed by a small circle of academics; searching for "cisgenderism" on EBSCOhost (available through the Wikipedia Library) turns up 278 results. I haven't surveyed them all yet; maybe I'll do so soon, but I think this shows that this is a pretty commonly used term. -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 19:33, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  Independent secondary sources like [23] either use it as a synonym of transphobia, or define it in a way that is indistinguishable with cisnormativity or trans erasure.
  
  So it just reads like a WP:DICDEF to me. बिनोद थारू (talk) 19:48, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  I'm talking about academic sources, not The Good Men Project®: The conversation no one else is having®. -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 20:03, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Popular culture and Psychology. बिनोद थारू (talk) 16:29, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Adequately sourced for an article on a sociological concept. Invoking WP:ROUTINE is beside the point; as noted above, that would be trying to apply a standard for news coverage to academic work, which just doesn't make sense. (Vast swaths of our mathematics, physics, and biology coverage could be disparaged as "routine": we don't ask that someone win the Fields Medal or the Nobel Prize before we write an article about their research topic.) It could be that after further editing, this material would make more sense as a section in a larger article, but this is not the forum to decide that. XOR'easter (talk) 19:10, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Merging an article into another article instead of deleting it outright, is definitively within the purview of Articles for Deletion. Merging is made very clear as an option to consider in this forum in the Guide to Deletion section titled Recommendations and outcomes. In the list of vote types presented there, it states: "Merge is a recommendation to keep the article's content but to move it into some more appropriate article. It is either inappropriate or insufficient for a stand-alone article. After the merger, the article will be replaced with a redirect to the target article (in order to preserve the attribution history)." — The Transhumanist 08:01, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In a brief search, I found scholarly sources discussing both cisgenderism and cisnormativity; e.g.

Sources discussing cisgenderism and cisnormativity

Phipps, Catherine; Blackall, Christopher John (20 October 2023). "'I wasn't allowed to join the boys': The ideology of cultural cisgenderism in a UK school". Pedagogy, Culture & Society. 31 (5): 1097–1114. doi:10.1080/14681366.2021.2000012. S2CID 243485358. "Findings revealed that cultural cisgenderism and cisnormativity are embedded into the school culture, with gender structures evident in several areas, leading to trans marginalisation." (Abstract, T&F database via the WP Library)
Martino, Wayne; Omercajic, Kenan; Kassen, Jenny (August 2022). ""We Have No 'Visibly' Trans Students in Our School": Educators' Perspectives on Transgender-Affirmative Policies in Schools". Teachers College Record: The Voice of Scholarship in Education. 124 (8): 66–97. doi:10.1177/01614681221121522. ISSN 0161-4681. S2CID 252099884. (Open Access) "Phipps and Blackall (2021) draw attention to the need for policy enactment that interrogates the embeddedness of cisgenderism and cisnormativity in school culture, which, their research revealed, is at the heart of trans marginalization in the education system (see also Riggs & Bartholomaeus, 2018)."
Martino, Wayne; Kassen, Jenny; Omercajic, Kenan (7 June 2022). "Supporting transgender students in schools: beyond an individualist approach to trans inclusion in the education system". Educational Review. 74 (4): 753–772. doi:10.1080/00131911.2020.1829559. S2CID 226323236. (via the T&F database at the WP Library) "...the necessity of addressing the institutionalisation of cisgenderism and cisnormativity in the education system."
SJ Dodd; Jama Shelton (2021). "Combatting Cisnormativity in Social Work Education, Research, and Practice". The Routledge International Handbook of Social Work and Sexualities. Routledge. doi:10.4324/9780429342912-4. ISBN 9780429342912. S2CID 237866356. "Social work institutions, often unthinkingly replicate cisnormativity, cissexism, cisgenderism, and anti-trans bias..."

I also think the cisgenderism and cisnormativity articles can account (according to WP:NPOV) for research literature that indicates the terminology may be used synonymously, e.g. Rosenberg, Shoshana; Callander, Denton; Holt, Martin; Duck-Chong, Liz; Pony, Mish; Cornelisse, Vincent; Baradaran, Amir; Duncan, Dustin T.; Cook, Teddy (21 July 2021). "Cisgenderism and transphobia in sexual health care and associations with testing for HIV and other sexually transmitted infections: Findings from the Australian Trans & Gender Diverse Sexual Health Survey". PLOS ONE. 16 (7): e0253589. Bibcode:2021PLoSO..1653589R. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0253589. ISSN 1932-6203. PMC 8294496. PMID 34288911. ("Cisgenderism (sometimes referred to as cisnormativity) is a form of stigma that denies, ignores, and marginalizes genders other than those that adhere to a fixed gender binary" citing Ansara YG, Hegarty P. Methodologies of misgendering: Recommendations for reducing cisgenderism in psychological research. Fem Psychol. 2014;24(2):259–70.) Overall, this seems to be a broad concept article, and based on available sources, keep seems supported at this time. Beccaynr (talk) 00:32, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Cisgenderism (sometimes referred to as cisnormativity) ..."

"I also think the cisgenderism and cisnormativity articles can account (according to WP:NPOV) for research literature that indicates the terminology may be used synonymously"

You say cisgenderism has the same definition as cisnormativity, which already has an article. Why wouldn't it be considered a WP:REDUNDANTFORK then? बिनोद थारू (talk) 00:43, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify, in my comment above, I pointed to what appears to be medical research literature (stating cisgenderism is "sometimes referred to as cisnormativity") that according to WP:NPOV, does not seem to have the same WP:WEIGHT as the sociological and psychological literature that appears to be available. This is why I think an application of this core content policy to both articles, along with further review of sources and discussion, can help develop the broad concepts.

Additional sources

Lennon, Erica; Mistler, Brian J. (1 May 2014). "Cisgenderism". TSQ: Transgender Studies Quarterly. 1 (1–2): 63–64. doi:10.1215/23289252-2399623.
Shelton, Jama (1 December 2015). "Transgender youth homelessness: Understanding programmatic barriers through the lens of cisgenderism". Children and Youth Services Review. 59: 10–18. doi:10.1016/j.childyouth.2015.10.006. ISSN 0190-7409. "Lennon and Mistler (2014) define cisgenderism as “the cultural and systemic ideology that denies, denigrates, or pathologizes self-identified gender identities that do not align with assigned gender at birth as well as resulting behavior, expression, and community (p. 63).” Cisgenderism is an ideology that is prejudicial in nature; it others people labeled as transgender (Ansara & Hegarty, 2012)."
Salerno, John P. (2023). "Impact of Racist Microaggressions and LGBTQ-Related Minority Stressors: Effects on Psychological Distress Among LGBTQ+ Young People of Color". Preventing Chronic Disease. 20. doi:10.5888/pcd20.220371. ISSN 1545-1151.
Zubizarreta, Dougie; Trinh, Mai-Han; Reisner, Sari L. (January 2024). "Quantitative approaches to measuring structural cisgenderism". Social Science & Medicine. 340: 116437. doi:10.1016/j.socscimed.2023.116437.
Afroozeh, Mohammad Sadegh; Phipps, Catherine; Afrouzeh, Ali; Mehri, Ameneh; Alipour Asiri, Zahra (December 2023). ""The spectators ask, is it a boy or a girl? What is it?": Cultural cisgenderism and trans men's sporting experiences in Iran". International Review for the Sociology of Sport. 58 (8): 1221–1240. doi:10.1177/10126902231162270.
Ness, Cristalan (28 November 2023). "Dismantling structural and individual cisgenderism in Illinois libraries: a descriptive research study on cisnormativity, transprejudice and biases against transgender and nonbinary populations". Reference Services Review. doi:10.1108/RSR-03-2023-0031.

Beccaynr (talk) 01:27, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If you say they mean the same thing, then the consensus is to keep them on one page (delete, merge, or redirect this one).

This is a standard case of WP:REDUNDANTFORK. बिनोद थारू (talk) 01:43, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As an additional clarification, I did not say cisgenderism has the same definition as cisnormativity; I added sources to my first comment above that discuss both concepts, and in my second comment above I added more sources, including a source that appears to use cisgenderism in its title as a broader concept that includes cisnormativity. As to WP:REDUNDANTFORK, that section of the guideline includes, If you suspect a redundant article fork, check with people who watch the respective articles and participate in talk page discussions to see if the fork was justified. If the content fork was unjustified, the more recent article should be merged into the main article. For now, cisgenderism seems to be a distinct sociological/psychological concept that has gained traction in the research literature, so alternatives to deletion seem to be available. Beccaynr (talk) 01:50, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"As to WP:REDUNDANTFORK, that section of the guideline includes, If you suspect a redundant article fork, check with people who watch the respective articles"

I am nominating for deletion since I noticed everything has already been merged to the other article. बिनोद थारू (talk) 02:02, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Reluctant Keep -- At what point does a neologism become just a logism? This was clearly a neologism, but one that has started to appear in RS as shown both in the article and in the sources mentioned in the collapsed section above. As such, I feel that sources just barely establish WP:GNG beyond the neologistic nature of the word. As for the other point WP:BLUDGEONed above, I do not feel that it is a fork from cisnormativity. That term refers to the belief that cis is "the only normal", where this one refers to discriminatory behaviours based on that belief. I don't like the term (or the article), but it appears to just cross the line into an encyclopaedic subject. Cheers, Last1in (talk) 13:49, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I thought that "cisgenderism" would refer to the status of being cisgender, just like "transgenderism" can refer to being transgender. I realize that the article clarifies this but I was confused reading the deletion discussion. (t · c) buidhe 02:48, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article currently reads "Cisgenderism relies on the assumption that there are only two sex and gender categories, that gender is unchanging through life". The definition of "sex" says there are only two sexes. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/sex Sex explains that classification also. I clicked the reliable sources search at the top of the AFD, and don't see any reliable sources appearing. This article was made entirely by one user, ~~who identifies as queer, non-binary, and trans.~~ It reads like a personal essay. Dream Focus 23:24, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sex and gender are different concepts, e.g. see gender binary. Reading like a personal essay is arguably a surmountable issue. Darcyisverycute (talk) 05:18, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Dream Focus I ask you strike your comment about Maddy from Celeste's identity - it's irrelevant to the discussion and we are supposed to comment on content, not the contributor. Additionally, I'm a little confused how the reliable sources search didn't return anything for you - checking the link to google scholar there were over 3,500 results - so I'd appreciate a clarification of your methodology. Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 22:44, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I am not familiar with the term cisgenderism, but I do happen to know the synonym term cissexism which currently redirects to cisgenderism. My understanding is that cisnormativity is the assumption that people are cisgender, whereas cissexism is defined as a type of systemic discrimination towards transgender people, perpetrated by societies and not individuals. It can also be thought of as the difference between "sexists" and "sexism"; in the former there are individuals argued to cause harm, and in the latter there are systemic forces such as wage discrimination which no single or even small group of individuals is responsible for. At least, that is the definition for these terms to my best understanding.

I believe the term cissexism entered popular usage due to the 2007 book Whipping Girl, and there is now vast feminist literature on the term. If I had tPages of the same type on the same subjecto give a top three for independent significant coverage of the term cissexism, noting all the sources are independent of each other: [24] [25] [26]

My personal impression is that the term cissexism is in wider circulation than the term cisgenderism, eg. see [27] and [28]. Since they define their own concept and the etymology doesn't seem notable on its own to me, I think one should redirect to the other, but perhaps the other way around to what it is currently (ie. I would support having cisgenderism redirect to cissexism and treat sources using the terms interchangeably as long as they establish equivalent definitions in-text). Note the curious discussion at Talk:Cissexism#Merge which established merging of cisgenderism to transphobia, not cisgenderism as it redirects to currently. And, not to invoke WP:WHATABOUTX, but sources from the more well-developed transmisogyny article could be useful additions this article as the two terms are frequently discussed together. I also concur with XOR'easter that WP:ROUTINE is only relevant for news reporting and not academic coverage. Darcyisverycute (talk) 05:11, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Your answer does not cover:

WP:PRIMARY "academic" essays being unfit to write an article especially when no mainstream secondary source has picked it up.
Example of WP:DICDEF. Only mentions of cisgenderism are under multiple conflicting definitions. (half say "cisgenderism/transphobia" as in both are identical)
I referred to WP:MILL in my nom yet you stuck with WP:ROUTINE.

Finally you are suggesting WP:OR by changing the name from "Cisgenderism" to "cissexism", since the sources were all cherrypicked for their use of "cisgenderism", not based on an existing concept covered in secondary sources.

By the current logic, we would have to WP:TNT the article to create a different high school essay around CTRL+Fed "cissexism" sources. बिनोद थारू (talk) 05:58, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – cisgenderism is distinct from cisnormativity, with the latter being a bias of perception and the former being a form of prejudice. While related, cisgenderism is not a subtopic of cisnormativity, but it is a subtopic of cisgender. So, if there is to be a merge, the latter is the article it should be merged into.

That being said, the hurdle that needs to be overcome is meeting the inclusion criteria set forth by WP:NOTNEO:

"To support an article about a particular term or concept, we must cite what reliable secondary sources say about the term or concept, not just sources that use the term (see use–mention distinction). An editor's personal observations and research (e.g. finding blogs, books, and articles that use the term rather than are about the term) are insufficient to support articles on neologisms because this may require analysis and synthesis of primary source material to advance a position, which is explicitly prohibited by the original research policy."

And...

"Neologisms that are in wide use but for which there are no treatments in secondary sources are not yet ready for use and coverage in Wikipedia. The term does not need to be in Wikipedia in order to be a "true" term, and when secondary sources become available, it will be appropriate to create an article on the topic, or use the term within other articles." — The Transhumanist 08:44, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep The relentless WP:BLUDGEONing and gish galloping on this subject led me to reexamine the sources. I have changed from a reluctant keep !vote (struck above) to a very solid Keep. Since the nominator apparently believes that every response must remove every objection, I'll try to do just that.

Journal articles are not always WP:PRIMARY sources, so that argument is moot. Worse, it is disingenuous in the extreme. The vast majority of RS are published in journals. A subject matter expert writing journal articles investigating the topic at hand is the soul and centre of WP:SECONDARY sourcing. As examples, I'd pick Boe & Baldwin, who tackle cisgenderism in family therapy [29]; Dalton, et al, who dissects coaching and managing people to (in part) avoid cisgenderism [30]; and Rogers, who looks at cisgenderism and hate crimes with secondary analysis of primary sources [31]. If you really want books instead of journals, I'd start with these: Ross explicitly discusses cisgenderism in relationship to homelessness and rehousing [32], just as Knott-Fayle & Peel do regarding qualitative research [33] and Knott-Fayle does solo regarding sports [34]. I am not suggesting that this is the end of the sourcing list, nor that they are the best sources; this is not my area of expertise. They are, however, solid and reliable sources in accordance with Wikipedia policy.
This is not a content or POV fork off any subject. Cisnormativity is about a belief that "cis is the only normal", whereas cisgenderism is discriminatory behaviour or attitudes based on that belief. Those are separate subjects. Erasure is a wholly different phenomenon related to attempts to remove trans people from the conversation, or to ignore their existence entirely. Misgendering is not remotely related to cisgenderism at all.
The statement that there is only one secondary source in the article is false (see 1, above) and utterly irrelevant. The point of WP:BEFORE, which was obviously not done in this case, is that sources must exist, not that those sources must be in the article at the time of the AfD.
WP:NOTNEO is a weak argument in any AfD as there is no clear rule on what constitutes a neologism. Regardless, there is a substantial body of work very specifically about both the term and the concept (again, see cites in 1, above). As for the amusing statement that the article relies on a very few psychology or gender journal articles (half of them having Ansara as a co-author), did anyone even try to do a BEFORE search? gScholar comes back with hundreds of viable sources not authored by or with the Ansara that are both secondary and explanatory, and gBooks has even more.
WP:MILL is about run-of-the-mill news coverage. Trying to equate a discussion of cisgenderism to 'dog bites man' is just throwing every policy one can think of at the AfD wall and seeing if something sticks. If it were run of the mill, the individual events of cisgenderistic behaviour would be routine coverage and the concept, what this article is about, would be unquestionably encyclopaedic. This deletion argument literally makes the case for inclusion.

Overall, there is simply no good policy-based reason to delete this article, and it improves the encyclopaedia to include it. The article needs work, but WP:DINC. As it stands, though, the article more than meets GNG and is worthy of inclusion. Cheers, Last1in (talk) 14:41, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep; oppose renaming cissexism per Maddy from Celeste, Beccaynr, XOR'Easter, and Last1in. With regards to the relationship between cisgenderism, cisnormativity, and transphobia: it matches the relationship between heterosexism, heteronormativity, and homophobia - closely related but separate concepts. With regards to renaming as cissexism, Julie Serano has clarified that I also make a distinction between cissexism (i.e., the assumption that transsexual gender identities and sex embodiments are less legitimate than cissexual ones) and cisgenderism (i.e., the assumption that people who defy gender norms are less legitimate than people who conform to them), this distinction is noted in other sources[35][36] so I think the article should clarify cissexism is a subset of cisgenderism rather than synonym (though often used that way). Additionally, this ngram search (admittedly an imperfect metric) shows that cisgenderism is a more common term than cissexism.[37]

Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 22:18, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, thanks for the clarification on the difference between cissexism and cigenderism. It's gonna take work, but in that case maybe it will be later worth turning back cissexism from a redirect to a proper article. Having confused definitions in feminism and gender studies is such a common issue, especially given half the papers don't bother defining the terms too. Darcyisverycute (talk) 03:41, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, thank you for noting the scholarly coverage of the terms! For the record my keep vote was also based on yours - I feel a little silly I left that out above considering it inspired a large part of my vote lol. I agree an independent article for cissexism might be a good idea, I've got it on my to-do list now! Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 16:30, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Last1in has shown irrefutably above that the article surpasses the thresholds for WP:NOTNEO and WP:GNG, that there is plenty more material out there to research on this topic, and that the arguments levied against it are invalid. The discussion above also shows that there is the will to research it, an indication that the article will improve further over time. I came here researching the uses of the shortcuts presented at Wikipedia:Content forks, and I've found that the claim that the article is a redundant fork is false, because it is about a distinct topic. Conclusion: it's a policy-backed bona fide Wikipedia article. — The Transhumanist 13:08, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to East Aceh Regency. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 20:40, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

PSKBS Kuta Binjai

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

AFD as PROD is likely to be contested. The club existed but sources didn't show that this club passes WP:GNG or WP:NSPORTS. Sources shown the games that the team played, but no in-depth coverage of this team. ✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 15:24, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports, Football, and Indonesia. ✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 15:24, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:43, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Aceh the town the club is in, needs a sports section on that article. I don't see much notability for such a young football club. Someway off from being independently notable. Govvy (talk) 10:39, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Hmm, What town is this club actually in? I just realised that Aceh is a massive area. Govvy (talk) 19:21, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to East Aceh Regency, more accurate than the suggested above. Giant Snowman 18:16, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 14:22, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mohammed Rashed Farazuddin

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

Only a corporator of an Municipal Corporation, just fought the election and got only 7848 votes see [38]. Doesn’t passes the WP:NPOL. — Syed A. Hussain Quadri (talk) 14:02, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politicians, India, and Telangana. Syed A. Hussain Quadri (talk) 14:02, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

Delete. The person does not have enough article material and recognition. --killer bee  15:31, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP. Kindly check out the citations added in the article for sources. Furthermore, i will be adding more citations from reliable independent publications and media houses to improve the article. Thewikicolumnist (talk) 20:22, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NPOL and WP:GNG. Person has not won any election and doesn't have independent significant coverage to meet the basic notability guidelines. DSP2092 (👤, 🗨️) 04:58, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP. Farazuddin has been a councillor for more than 7 years and was elected twice by the people of his community. Kindly check out the citations added in the article for evidences. Thewikicolumnist (talk) 20:19, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP. Farazuddin has been a Councillor for more that 7 years(for two terms). In addition to that, he has been a member of GHMC standing community since 2021. [39] Thewikicolumnist (talk) 20:42, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 07:53, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom fails WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 17:19, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy close‎. Superseded by Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paul Coia (3rd nomination) which presents a deletion rationale (non-admin closure) Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:19, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Coia

AfDs for this article:

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

Second attempt at non-notable deletion Funky Snack (Talk | Contribs) 10:57, 10 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 10. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 11:17, 10 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 10. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 12:28, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 12:41, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

All-Knighters

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

No notable tag team, NO IN-DEEP coverage about them. Only worked on independent level. According to Cagematch, they only had 32 matches. HHH Pedrigree (talk) 12:07, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Wrestling and Canada. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:15, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 12:39, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Marston

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

A big page of self-promotion. Nothing of note. Links are purely to interviews and programme links. Funky Snack (Talk | Contribs) 11:31, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Radio, and England. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:14, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Clear vanity article full of minutiae and edited mainly by a user with a WP:COI. This is an encyclopedia, not a place for people to post their CVs. Flip Format (talk) 15:23, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Article is packed with BBC references, but no independent sources are available to establish notability. Thriftycat ^{Talk • Contribs} 20:37, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 12:42, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Miller (radio presenter)

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

Non-notable radio presenter Funky Snack (Talk | Contribs) 11:19, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio and England. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:18, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 20:39, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

John Viega

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

Fails WP:GNG. Almost every reference is a paper co-authored by Viega himself. Out of the three that aren't, two don't mention his name at all, and one uses a single quote from him. benǝʇᴉɯ 07:21, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Technology, and Computing. benǝʇᴉɯ 07:21, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
John is the most respected people in the software security space. Author of numerous books on the topic. I have just spent the afternoon researching and updating this. Will post next. 81.100.30.32 (talk) 18:12, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors and Virginia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 07:45, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Viega seems to have been one of the major influencers of computer security. WP:ACADEMIC applies here, as his work in the field is highly influential, whether or not he has been the subject of mutliple independent media stories. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 19:12, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as passes WP:ACADEMIC criteria 1 as google scholar shows highly cited works here. At WP:ACADEMIC Specific criteria notes: Note 1 states:" the most typical way of satisfying Criterion 1 is to show that the academic has been an author of highly cited academic work – either several extremely highly cited scholarly publications or a substantial number of scholarly publications with significant citation rates." Atlantic306 (talk) 22:59, 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!} 07:44, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I don't have an account, though I am the subject of the article.

I've been lucky enough to be in a position to do work that had impact on the industry, even if I haven't gone around promoting myself heavily (I am pretty private generally). Certainly, it was mostly a combination of dumb luck (right places, right times) and privilege. I'm definitely grateful to those looking to keep, and whoever has put this up and kept updating it over the years.

But, if you're looking for notable mentions in third-party press, two things do come to mind:

1) a popular science article about me playing Defcon Capture the Flag the hear before we hosted it (https://www.popsci.com/gear-gadgets/article/2005-04/i-attended-hacker-conference-and-all-i-got-was-all-data-your-hard-drive/).

2) A bit of the software security stuff, along with a mention of the sale of my first startup to Fortify was mentioned when I was quoted in the Economist in the March 2008 Technology Quarterly (page 14).

Also, GCM does have its own page, and I think does merit it. For GCM mode, simply being the default cipher mode for TLS 1.3 (plus having hardware support in Intel and ARM architectures) has made it ubiquitous. The 2021 F5 Labs data (https://www.f5.com/labs/articles/threat-intelligence/the-2021-tls-telemetry-report) seems to indicate ~80% plus of all TLS connections globally were using it; I've anecdotally (from people at a major CDN) that it's above 90% now.

Also, NIST is looking to update the GCM standard. https://csrc.nist.gov/News/2023/proposal-to-revise-sp-800-38d

It's not going anywhere any time soon.

Either way, thanks for the consideration. It does feel good to be thought about, even if I don't make the cut! 68.129.210.33 (talk) 17:26, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 11:15, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 00:43, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Clare Thomas

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

Has been in notable shows, but she doesn't seem to be notable herself. Boleyn (talk) 15:04, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Women, and United Kingdom. Shellwood (talk) 15:32, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:15, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Seems to meet WP:NACTOR for her roles in the main casts of Bus Life, Young Dracula and Railway Children at least ("The person has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions"). Needs further improvement. Keep.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 19:59, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have sources to support this, Mushy Yank? All articles need to pass general notability guidelines, which involves having reliable, secondary sources with significant coverage of the subject. After reviewing the sources listed on the page, as well as a quick Google search, I could find any sources with significant coverage of Clare Thomas. I'd be interested in keeping the page, though, if sources are found. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 23:21, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
https://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/news/nostalgia/what-happened-cast-young-dracula-21982683 -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 23:32, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: For further input on the source presented above.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 07:36, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:22, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: BLP, fails GNG and NBIO, no sources showing this meets any SNG. Source eval:

Comments	Source
Youtube channel	1. "Clare Lucy P - YouTube". www.youtube.com. Retrieved 27 July 2020.
Streaming site database page, nothing meets SIGCOV	MUBI, retrieved 18 November 2023
Streaming site database page, nothing meets SIGCOV	MUBI, retrieved 18 November 2023
TVGuide database page, nothing meets SIGCOV	4. ^ "The Railway Children". TVGuide.com. Retrieved 18 November 2023.
Cast list mention, nothing meets SIGCOV	5. ^ Miles, Tina (21 April 2011). "Young Dracula children's series to be filmed in Liverpool". Liverpool Echo. Retrieved 18 November 2023.
Cast list mention, nothing meets SIGCOV	6. ^ Tzvetkova, Juliana (12 October 2017). Pop Culture in Europe. Bloomsbury Publishing USA. ISBN 978-1-4408-4466-9.
Cast list mention, nothing meets SIGCOV	7. ^ Melton, J. Gordon (1 October 2021). The Vampire Almanac: The Complete History. Visible Ink Press. ISBN 978-1-57859-754-3.

Nothing above or in BEFORE shows WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth from WP:IS WP:RS. WP:BLP require strong sourcing. // Timothy :: talk 04:41, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist to review Timothy's source analysis and for further input.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 11:15, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per TimothyBlue. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 13:21, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above and because, per WP:NACTOR, I'm not convinced her significant roles are in notable productions. The Railway Children (2000 film) currently does not cite any sources and the only coverage I can find pertains to the 1970 film. Bus Life and Young Dracula are poorly sourced and do not appear notable either based on available coverage. Uhai (talk) 05:49, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
One click gives me a review in Variety about the Railway Children 2000...and this and this ..so yes, although certainly not as good as the 1970 version according to many, that film may be considered notable although the page is unsourced on the English Wikipedia.... -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 04:10, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 20:38, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mollie Green (broadcaster)

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

Non-notable local radio presenter — Preceding unsigned comment added by Funky Snack (talk • contribs) 11:11, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Radio, and England. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:17, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The only two sources I could find are the two already linked in the article - one is a mention of the presenter taking part in wider industrial action, the other is a piece about her being a victim of a crime, neither is an adequate assertion of notability. Flip Format (talk) 15:36, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Paul Coia

AfDs for this article:

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

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

Keep, per the overwhelming view regarding the previous nomination. This clearly fulfils WP:BASIC, as it did before. Nothing has changed in that regard. Rationale "doesn't really give anything" vague and evidently baseless and if there is an indication of self-promotion, please elaborate. Mutt Lunker (talk) 00:48, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio, Television, and Scotland. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:13, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is no justification to keep renominating this article for deletion as it easily passes all Wikipedia tests. Rillington (talk) 02:39, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Nothing has changed since the discussion at the first nomination overwhelmingly decided to keep this article. Nominator seems to really want this article deleted. Why, I wonder? -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:21, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: An article on a well-known long-term broadcaster, with a previous "keep" decision at AfD; in such a circumstance, a further AfD nomination should engage with that previous discussion to propose why the decision should be overturned, but this one doesn't. Since the previous AfD, a WP:BEFORE can also find the October 2022 "Big Interview" feature from the Scottish Sun, looking back over Coia's career (which, as an aside, also includes an anecdote about an even more extreme version of the reaction Scots tend to get when using the word "outwith" in England). AllyD (talk) 17:38, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Alex Dyke

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio and England. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:16, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Just another person whose claim to "notability" is that they have had a few jobs on the radio and a bit of local media coverage. Nothing of note appearing in a search outside of routine mentions of the presenter moving around between radio stations and a brief controversy over comments made on air in 2015 [40]. Flip Format (talk) 15:28, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

The Seventh Veil (1927 film)

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Nexovia (talk) 03:30, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hungary-related deletion discussions. Skynxnex (talk) 05:14, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have not been able to verify the source, but the Juhász cited reference seems likely to be a reliable source? Skynxnex (talk) 05:18, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment a Google book search for ‘A hetedik fatyol’ brings up a bunch of snippets in Hungarian, which I can’t read, as well as a couple in German that look promising. I’d be sorry to lose an article on a film from this period unless there is genuinely nothing said about it, which doesn’t appear to be the case here. Mccapra (talk) 07:32, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article can be improved but references on the page seem to indicate notability. And Mccapra’s comment above too.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 08:55, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 03:00, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note:: "the film features significant involvement (i.e., one of the most important roles in the making of the film) by a notable person and is a major part of their career." (WP:NFILM) -It is the only production directed by István Mihály.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 11:25, 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!} 08:40, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Debate camp

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business and Education. ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him)^{Talk to Me!} 11:59, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- This is the edge of WP:DINC. This purports to be an article, but is effectively a list of debate camps which definitely does not belong in the encyclopaedia (WP:NOTDB and WP:NOTDIRECTORY). However, it could become an actual article. I am seeing solid, secondary and tertiary references including [41], [42], and [43] (p38-40, 112-118). There are hundreds more, but this will be a monster to research digitally with the challenging signal-to-noise ratio noted by nominator. As for GNG, I think that this is a pretty mainstream concept with lots of supporting RS. Debate camps are a big deal for certain educational tracks, mainly for secondary schoolers but also for some adult learners. I can't find it any longer, but there was an excellent piece of MBA coursework a decade or two ago comparing the net impact of debate camps to programmes such as Toastmasters; its bibliography would have made a wonderful launchpad to sources. Cheers, Last1in (talk) 20:29, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I am well aware of what debate camps are and the impact they can have on kids (My full-time job is as a speech and debate teacher). I am getting an "AccessDeniedAccess denied" error when I try to go to your first source and your third source is a self-published middle-grade textbook that definitely does not count for notability. The second source is solid, although it notes that research on debate camps is extremely limited. ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him)^{Talk to Me!} 22:18, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I was able to find this from the Washington Post (EBSCOhost wapo.f73785f8-5f3d-11e6-8e45-477372e89d78) but mostly only found puff-piece and ROTM coverage of specific camps, not of camps as a category. ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him)^{Talk to Me!} 22:23, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 03:00, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Debate: where the subject is already covered. Owen× ☎ 17:55, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:40, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Jiangnan. This is a difficult discussion to assess consensus in, but my reading is that there is a consensus below not to retain the article. On that basis, I have chosen the redirect as an ATD to preserve the history and as it was suggested within the discussion but not objected to by those !voting delete. Daniel (talk) 22:17, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jianghuai people

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Ethnic groups and China. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:53, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. While I'm open to the argument put forward in the nomination, I think this subject and article could use more discussion to arrive at a consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:37, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per synthesis. It seems to be discussed in paper sources, but the overall picture is one of synthesizing random sources into an essay. I tried to add links, and had little success. Bearian (talk) 19:23, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 20:35, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of resorts in the Maldives

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

SImple case of WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Any notable resorts or entries can be accommodated at List of hotels: Countries M. Ajf773 (talk) 08:35, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists, Companies, and Maldives. Ajf773 (talk) 08:35, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This article does not seem very notable and the list in it seems way too long, thus making it look like a directory or a travel guide which Wikipedia articles should not be. I also agree with User:Ajf773 that it is better to list the most notable hotels in List of hotels: Countries M instead. ST7733B (talk) 06:04, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge‎ to Treaty of Hadiach. Daniel (talk) 00:39, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Polish–Lithuanian–Ruthenian Commonwealth

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Lithuania, Poland, and Ukraine. Marcelus (talk) 19:00, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose The article is about a different topic from the treaty article and I think that an article about a possible commonwealth is worthwhile, considering that similar articles like Franco-British Union exist. Cukrakalnis (talk) 20:28, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Can you explain how is it different if it literally describe the same events? Marcelus (talk) 20:44, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Treaty =/= Commonwealth itself. The Maastricht Treaty is not the same as the European Union. Cukrakalnis (talk) 12:57, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a state proposed in a treaty but nowhere else, and which was never actually created, has no importance beyond the treaty. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:08, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Merge with ~~Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth~~ Treaty of Hadiach: not enough to sustain a standalone article. Owen× ☎ 17:27, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Redirect to Treaty of Hadiach - seems duplicative content. Renata•3 01:18, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge somehow. The article is about a proposed constitutional arrangement that was agreed by the treaty, but never actually happened. Accordingly this article should not exist. The proposed target article coverts not only the treaty itslef but the surrounding circumstances. Possibly some content of this article needs merging, which will leave a redirect. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:39, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Treaty of Hadiach. This proposed state never came to fruition and gained no notability independent of the treaty proposing it. There is not much to merge but no reason to lose any particular content that can be sourced. Eluchil404 (talk) 05:44, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. There seems to be a rough consensus that some of the content in this article should be Merged but several options on what the target article should be.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:27, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with merge proposition to Treaty of Hadiach Marcelus (talk) 09:43, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 07:00, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Gaynor Barnes

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Journalism, and United Kingdom. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:58, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Delete: BLP, fails GNG and NBIO. WP:BLP require strong sourcing, this has none with WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indpeth from WP:IS WP:RS. Source eval:

Comments	Source
Fails WP:IS, primary, "Barnes is a patron of Yorkshire Air Ambulance", fails WP:SIGCOV, does not address the subject directly and indepth, name mentioned in list and caption	1. "Yorkshire Air Ambulance Annual Report 2017" (PDF). Yorkshire Air Ambulance Annual Report. March 2018. Archived from the original (PDF) on 4 July 2019. Retrieved 4 July 2019.
Fails WP:IS, primary, interview "The Prince of Wales Hospice welcomes three new Patrons, ITV Calendar presenters Gaynor, Christine and Du"	2. ^ "Calendar Presenters Become Patrons". The Prince of Wales Hospice. 14 August 2020. Retrieved 20 October 2021.
Interview, fails WP:IS	3. ^ "TV Presenter Gaynor Barnes talks to Yorkshire Life". Yorkshire Life. 11 January 2010. Retrieved 31 January 2019.
Fails WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth	4. ^ Berry, Chris (13 May 2005). "The Southern 'softie' with northern grit". The Yorkshire Post. Archived from the original on 1 February 2019. Retrieved 31 January 2019.
Primary, fails WP:IS, "Meet the team" promo	5. ^ "Meet the team". ITV Calendar. 31 January 2019.
Name mention, panelist, fails WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth.	6. ^ Zientek, Henryk (19 November 2008). "Help for entrepreneurs". Huddersfield Examiner. Retrieved 10 August 2010.
Interview, fails WP:IS	7. ^ TV Presenter Gaynor Barnes talks to Yorkshire Life Yorkshire Life, 11 January 2010
Routine news about programming change. Fails primary, fails WP:SIGCOV addressing subject directly and indepth	8. ^ "John Shires and Gaynor Barnes to leave ITV News Calendar". ITV News. Retrieved 19 March 2021.
Name listed, fails SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth.	9. ^ "RTS Yorkshire Programme Awards 2021". Royal Television Society. 15 January 2021. Retrieved 20 October 2021.

Above keep vote provides no sources or guidelines for eval. BLPs require strong sourcing. // Timothy :: talk 11:20, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. It would help for those editors who want to Keep this article to respond to the source analysis or bring forward some additional sources that could help establish notability.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:21, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above analysis: there's no indication WP:GNG is met and there doesn't appear to be additional sources beyond what is already in the article and analyzed above. Uhai (talk) 05:59, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 06:50, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bill Jackson (photographer)

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Photography, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:14, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete, fails WP:NBASIC. I couldn't find any sources to establish notability of the subject. The closest I could get is a NB Magazine profile of the subject, but that's not going to establish notability. Ping me if notability guideline-worthy sources are found. Tails Wx 03:05, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 00:44, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Secretarias

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

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Ecuador. DonaldD23 talk to me 15:12, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete, links in the deprod are not sufficient.

JoelleJay (talk) 21:05, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:16, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Without any reference or parallel article on es.wiki Svartner (talk) 03:20, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. No one is arguing for retention, and no indication any input is forthcoming. Star Mississippi 19:42, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Amir Válá Meshkin

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Architecture, and Australia. LibStar (talk) 11:21, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete - He may be better known as an architect than a musician, but several of his architect related citations are from books or publications that cannot be accessed online to verify. None of his music citations are acceptable, so even if the page is kept it needs to be edited to remove much of his music info. If someone can find verifiable citations, let me know and I can change my vote.Royal88888 (talk) 21:25, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:14, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 00:45, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Vion Pharmaceuticals

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

WP:MULTSOURCES - one source for its bankruptcy alone is not notable, nor did the experimental drugs ever leave trial stage. Cannot find any other sources. Darcyisverycute (talk) 13:44, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Medicine. Darcyisverycute (talk) 13:44, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:48, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:13, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: An article created then later updated by the WP:SPA VPInc regarding the progress of their drug trials then in progress. The FDA rejection and subsequent Chapter 11 bankruptcy of the firm do not provide attained notability. AllyD (talk) 17:13, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Eliminative materialism. History remains under the redirect for a merge, if desired Star Mississippi 18:52, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Revisionary materialism

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

Non significant coverage at [44] and [45] (they mention the term twice and once respectively. Cannot find any other verbatim usage. Suggest merging/redirecting to eliminative materialism if anything can be salvaged. Darcyisverycute (talk) 13:50, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Philosophy and Psychology. Darcyisverycute (talk) 13:50, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:13, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Well, nom is right that we could possibly redirect this, were there anything worth saving here, but there really isn't. The sources are marginal and deletion is clearly the best option. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:03, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to eliminative materialism - couldn't find many secondary sources which give revisionary materialism much depth - there are some uses by Patricia Churchland and uses of "revisionary physicalism" by John Bickle but these are really more primary sources providing original arguments. The term does have some mentions in the context of eliminative materialism in secondary sources though, including in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy ([46], see also [47][48]). Probably worth a mention at eliminative materialism at least. Shapeyness (talk) 20:41, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to List of Guyana women's international footballers. Star Mississippi 18:50, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Chantal Lynch

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

Redirect to List of Guyana women's international footballers. I am unable to find sufficient coverage of the subject to meet WP:GNG. All I found in my searches were passing mentions (1, 2, 3, etc.) No indication of notability, either. JTtheOG (talk) 06:33, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, Canada, Caribbean, and South America. JTtheOG (talk) 06:33, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:40, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as above. Giant Snowman 18:14, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 06:58, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Odaliana Gómez

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

The subject earned a couple of caps for the Dominican Republic women's national football team, but I am unable to find sufficient coverage of the subject to meet WP:GNG. The closest thing to WP:SIGCOV I found in my searches was this; everything else was passing mentions. JTtheOG (talk) 06:25, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, Dominican Republic, and New Jersey. JTtheOG (talk) 06:25, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:40, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:12, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 06:58, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sensorimotor psychotherapy

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

Classified as a complementary and alternative medicine [49], which sets a high bar for notability without undue weight. I cannot find reliable sources providing significant coverage independent of its main author, Pat Ogden. Note that Ogden frequently co-authors with Janina Fisher, ideally there would be review material or robust studies without either of them as listed authors. Sources need to meet WP:MEDRS also. The article history has had multiple attempted insertions of copyvio and advertising/promotional material since creation. Darcyisverycute (talk) 06:02, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Psychology-related deletion discussions. Darcyisverycute (talk) 06:02, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nom. Owen× ☎ 16:29, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to List of Santos FC seasons. ✗plicit 06:59, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

1921 Santos FC season

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

The article contains one sentence and no references. 1keyhole (talk) 05:18, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and Brazil. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:40, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:41, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Out of a whole series of these articles, there are loads like this, why nominator this one? Did you not look at or nominate others like 1920 Santos FC season or 1950 Santos FC season? I am confused here by this single nomination. Govvy (talk) 08:56, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Santos are one of the most notable football clubs in the world, so their individual seasons are definitely notable, but there is no value in article which consist of a single sentence and no real content, so I suggest that this and any other similar ones get redirected to List of Santos FC seasons until such time as someone feels like creating actual articles..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:07, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Santos FC seasons as suggested by Chris. Giant Snowman 18:12, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Santos FC seasons There is information about the seasons of Santos FC both online and mainly offline in Brazilian literature. Redirect per above. Svartner (talk) 02:55, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Te Unuhanga-a-Rangitoto / Mercer Bay. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 20:34, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mercer Bay

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

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Disambiguations. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:43, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A redirect does not require deleting an edit history first, and could have been done with 1⁄3 the number of edits that an AFD nomination takes. This is not an appropriate use of Articles for deletion. Uncle G (talk) 10:23, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- To clarify, I intended to propose a redirect; I agree that the edit history doesn't need to be deleted.
  However, AfD can be used to propose redirects; I expected that if I made this boldly it would be reverted or otherwise objected to and so I wanted to get consensus for it, and this is the appropriate venue for that. BilledMammal (talk) 11:11, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  - No, that would be Talk:Mercer Bay. You are utterly wasting people's time, everyone who even looks at this, with a simple disambiguation fix that you could have just done. Uncle G (talk)

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 05:33, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Cheap Seats (American TV series)

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Sports, Baseball, and United States of America. Let'srun (talk) 04:00, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. The show is mentioned in the articles for Chris Rose, Brian Wilson, etc. This article doesn't really provide any additional information. Lack of reliable sources confirms it's not notable. Fnordware (talk) 16:27, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Moot‎. Deletion is not being contemplated. Moves can be handled editorially. Star Mississippi 18:49, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Shag River

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

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

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

It also appears to be primary by long term significance; a search on Google News and Google Scholar shows that the vast majority of results are for the river in Otago. BilledMammal (talk) 03:53, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. BilledMammal (talk) 03:53, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Disambiguations and New Zealand. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:44, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A redirect does not require deleting an edit history first, and could have been done with 1⁄3 the number of edits that an AFD nomination takes. This is not an appropriate use of Articles for deletion. Uncle G (talk) 10:22, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- To clarify, I intended to propose a redirect; I agree that the edit history doesn't need to be deleted.
  However, AfD can be used to propose redirects; I expected that if I made this boldly it would be reverted or otherwise objected to and so I wanted to get consensus for it, and this is the appropriate venue for that. BilledMammal (talk) 11:11, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  - No, that would be Talk:Shag River. You are utterly wasting people's time, everyone who even looks at this, with a simple disambiguation fix that you could have just done. Uncle G (talk)

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

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

The result was keep‎. Sourcing has been IDed that addresses both the nom and delete !votes. Star Mississippi 18:46, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A Bride of the Plains

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

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

~~Delete: I also could not find any RSes about this novel. voorts (talk/contributions) 03:16, 10 December 2023 (UTC)~~ [reply]

Keep - Articles on books are are formatted differently. I added a source for the first paragraph. No sources are required for the Plot section. I added an external link to the book on Project Gutenberg, which provides many online links to this book. — Maile (talk) 04:35, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but you need something that talks about the book, a review or a scholarly study. Simply existing isn't enough for a wikipedia article. Oaktree b (talk) 04:55, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Maile66: Can you explain what you mean when you say, "Articles on books are are formatted differently"? I understand that the plot section does not require a source. However, books still need to meet certain notability requirements, as explained in WP:NBOOK. I do not see those requirements being met for A Bride of the Plains--at least not as the article is currently written. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 05:13, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: no critical notice of the book, no scholarly discussion of it; [50] briefly mentioned here. Nothing in Jstor, no sort of critical reviews found. Delete for lack of sourcing Oaktree b (talk) 04:54, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature, Hungary, and United Kingdom. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:45, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete lack of sourcing that meets WP:RS, aka also fails WP:SIGCOV

Cray04 (talk) 08:06, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: An LOC newspaper search only brings up one ad in NY newspaper for the book when it was for sale [51], trivial coverage Oaktree b (talk) 16:44, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Meets WP:NBOOK, reviewed in NYTimes, Boston Evening Transcript, The Courier-Journal (All via TWL). ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 17:12, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Changing to keep per ARandomName123. voorts (talk/contributions) 17:43, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Despite difficulty, sources with sufficient coverage to meet WP:NBOOK were eventually identified. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 02:02, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A Child of the Revolution

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature and United Kingdom. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:46, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm a little surprised how little I'm finding. Two things so far:
- Accordng to the index, Baroness Orczy's The Scarlet Pimpernel: A Publishing History mentions A Child of the Revolution on p. 146 and p. 248; it's possible there is significant coverage there but I can't access it.
- This article mentions "A Child of the Revolution, seul opus non traduit de la série" ["the only work not translated in the series", presumably meaning not translated into French] as an example of a Pimpernel novel with an important love story, there's no significant coverage.

I want to look for reviews from 1932 but haven't found a good database yet. It's an unfortunate gap where things are copyrighted but not widely popular/accessible. The one source in the article is so good it feels like a WP:NBOOK pass should be possible...! ~ L 🌸 (talk) 00:06, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

OK, checking ProQuest Historical Newspapers I found a surprising amount of "not much":

NYT "Book Notes" Dec 23, 1931, says only "Other works of fiction to be issued during February under the Doubleday, Doran imprint include ... "A Child of the Revolution" by Baroness Orczy." (fun historical coincidence, the first book in this list is A Brave New World!).
A half dozen lists of books available in China in the 30s, this one listed also
"Meet the Baronness Orczy", 1934 says only "I did ask what books she had written lately. 'Well, you see, so many of my readers wrote to me and implored me to write more about the same characters in The Scarlet Pimpernel series, so I wrote A Child of the Revolution to please them. You would not believe how many people write to me from all over the world.'"
The only actual review I can find traces off is one by Jerry Siegel (the creator of Superman) in his high school newspaper. I find this quite intriguing and it would certainly be sigcov but of course a high school paper is not an RS.
- Men of Tomorrow: Geeks, Gangsters & the Birth of the Comic Book "He wrote occasional book reviews for The Torch, breathless advertisements for the most socially acceptable of the books he loved. “The Reign of Terror— the guillotine descending swiftly on innocent and guilty alike. The only hope lies in the aid of the ‘Scarlet Pimpernel,’ a mysterious Englishman who risks his life to save . . . the unjustly condemned.” Surely no one else on the wise-ass Torch staff would have gushed so over Baroness Orczy’s Child of the Revolution, but Jerry loved the Pimpernel and Zorro and all those secret heroes who masquerade as mild-mannered citizens." (65-6)
- "Looking for Lois Lane": "It soon became clear Siegel was the mysterious author behind certain pieces that appeared in the Torch. One was a review of the Baroness Orczy's "A Child of the Revolution" (1932), the last in a series of novels about an English nobleman who dons mask and costume nights to fight for the oppressed . . . as the Scarlet Pimpernel."

I can't shake the feeling that this is the sort of book which ought to have gotten some reviews in 1931, but the evidence is really against me! ~ L 🌸 (talk) 03:00, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

~~Merge~~. Okay, after having done a bunch of digging and checking out some of the other Pimpernel novel articles, I'd like to propose that actually an appropriate outcome here would be the creation of List of Scarlet Pimpernel novels, structured as a prose list (with headings) which provides brief plot summaries of each novel. The series overall certainly gets all kind of coverage! There can be links out to 'main' articles for the subset of these novels which have more substantial independent coverage. If the consensus is to create this list article, I volunteer to make it (please ping me). ~ L 🌸 (talk) 03:07, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I agree with @LEvalyn that there seems to surprisingly little coverage, especially compared to the other books in this series, but after a bit of digging, I was able to find three reviews in The Liverpool Daily Post, The Charleston Daily Mail and The New York Times (final page, under the header "Paris and the Terror"), which is sufficient to meet WP:NBOOK. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 16:44, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for these finds!! I agree that this now an NBOOK keep, and frankly this raises my confidence that the other currently-unsourced Pimpernel novels will have enough coverage too. For my own personal improvement, would you mind sharing where/how you looked in order to find these? (Maybe on my talk page if it's too off topic here?) I tried the Wikipedia Library but I must not have been using the right queries or trying the right places, so I'd love to know what worked for you. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 21:19, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've responded on your talk page. Thanks, ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 00:25, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. It would be great if some of the sources brought up in this discussion could be added to this article. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:43, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nael Eltoukhy

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors and Egypt. Bearcat (talk) 14:35, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I honestly want to save this article but BEFORE doesn't help, most sources are just passing mentions, mentions mostly about his book (Women of Karantina). Vanderwaalforces (talk) 08:53, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. To me the subject dose not meet neither the WP:BIO nor the WP:GNG. Micheal Kaluba (talk) 12:04, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Salvage. I agree the 'article' can't be called an article. However his work is very popular in Egypt and the Arab world, and so I started an attempt to salvage it. Ypedia1 (talk) 00:21, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Comment there is an ar.wiki article at ناءل الطوخي but I can’t connect it in Wikidata because of things that make my head explode. Mccapra (talk) 22:00, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep there are loads of reliable independent sources e.g. 1, 2, 3 and many more. Mccapra (talk) 22:03, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Mccapra Keep with its current state or keep if the sources you mentioned "and many more" can be added to the article to expand it? I mean, I wouldn't mind striking my previous !vote, just not with its current state. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 10:45, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Comment ok I will start on this and add as I find more.

1. Review of his work in a chapter of a book on contemporary Egyptian literature here. Mccapra (talk) 09:06, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

2. multiple references to his writing as a blogger in this scholarly work on contemporary Egyptian writers

3. independent in depth review of one of his novels in a major international newspaper

4. independent in depth review of another one of his novels in a major newspaper

5. another independent in depth review of the same novel

6. independent in depth review of a third novel

7. Independent in depth review of the same novel as no.6 above. I’ll stop here but if more is needed I’ll keep looking. Mccapra (talk) 09:41, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I’ve also managed to connect it to the ar.wiki article on wikidata. Mccapra (talk) 09:50, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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