Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 March 31

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< March 30	April 01 >

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 CJ-10 (missile)#Variants. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:14, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Changfeng (missile)

AfDs for this article:

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

Entirely non-notable. All listed sources appear to be primary or simple databases. Wikipedia is not a database. QuicoleJR (talk) 20:34, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military and China. QuicoleJR (talk) 20:34, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have realized that a discussion has already occurred, but I did not know when making this nomination. Despite that, I stand by this deletion. QuicoleJR (talk) 20:48, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That AfD was closed as no consensus with no prejudice against renomination, so that outcome won't affect this AfD, though some of the arguments presented there may be of use to participants. Curbon7 (talk) 18:36, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to CJ-10 (missile)#Variants. I think this is a nn variant of the target (let me know if I'm wrong). Nothing sourced in article so nothing to merge. I found no IS RS for notability, but I did find information in footnotes (eg: [1] there are a few more) that led me to this. If I'm wrong this should be deleted, because it fails GNG. // Timothy :: talk 14:38, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 23:58, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not seeing the sourcing that would establish notability. I'd also be happy with a redirect per TimothyBlue, if we can conclusively associate this to the target, but I'm having a hard time figuring out what is going on with all these acronyms and reporting names. -Ljleppan (talk) 07:55, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Many additional references are missing, and parts of the article require documentation to verify their accuracy.YE SIQI (talk) 08:21, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lack of notability. I am not opposed to the proposed redirect though. SignificantPBD (talk) 12:31, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:15, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Buyer listing service

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

from searching this seems to be touting a particular company Chidgk1 (talk) 17:44, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Products-related deletion discussions. Chidgk1 (talk) 17:44, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting since this AfD is ineligible for soft deletion
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, $Salvio giuliano$ 23:09, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete agree with nom based on my searches as well. Skynxnex (talk) 23:54, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, agree, there is little merit to this article and can't find any reasonable sources. Sargdub (talk) 12:09, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:16, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

J. Denis Bélisle

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

Ambassadors are not inherently notable. No significant coverage to meet WP:BIO. LibStar (talk) 03:19, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:45, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:45, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:46, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:29, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As Bélisle has been Canadian ambassador to four French-speaking African countries, there are sure to be good sources for this page available, largely in French. I see LibStar is still putting much effort into getting pages about ambassadors deleted, but I do not see him making a positive contribution to any of them. Moonraker (talk) 00:55, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
WP:MUSTBESOURCES, WP:ADHOM. LibStar (talk) 01:32, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not ad hominem, LibStar, just a comment on your unwillingness to look for sources and improve the pages you target when you find them. Moonraker (talk) 03:56, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:29, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 11:49, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep I think he just squeaks by NPOL status as the director of a UN agency. I will look for more sources though to see if article can be improved. Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 19:24, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete After searching, I cannot find any independent sources with significant coverage to meet GNG unfortunately. (Gscholar and Gbooks turn up several hits, but they all seem to be published or have significant ties to the International Trade Centre which he led). Since NPOL is a secondary requirement, I withdraw my keep !vote. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 23:00, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: One more try...
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 23:08, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unsourced BLP. fails GNG and BIO. BEFORE showed nothing that meets IS RS with SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth. The keep didn't supply sources or arguments based in policy and guidelines, so the only response is an offer of cheese for the whine.

BLPs need clearly IS RS with SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth for both content and notability to avoid abuse per well known core policy (WP:V and WP:BLP) and guidelines (WP:BIO and WP:IS, WP:RS, WP:SIGCOV). // Timothy :: talk 13:25, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:17, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dominic Schroeder

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

Ambassadors are not inherently notable. 2 of the 4 sources are primary. The other 2 are not indepth coverage of Schroeder and do not meet WP:SIGCOV. LibStar (talk) 06:03, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Bilateral relations, Denmark, and United Kingdom. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:25, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: another drive-by Afd. The sources were all right, but a little thin, I have improved on them. There are other good sources available, as we would expect. Schroeder's part in the removal of Craig Murray is not his finest hour, but it does show the usefulness of having good coverage of senior diplomats here on Wikipedia. Moonraker (talk) 05:36, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:23, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 11:49, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete but actually with a heavy heart because the article actually reads well and does a great job of making a case for Schroeder's notability but there are guidelines and yes, ambassadors aren't inherently notable and no, diplomatic or civil service posts also confer no notability. Interviews are not considered as contributing to WP:SIGCOV. Ultimately, a spat in Uzbekistan and another in Europe don't add up to a clear pass of WP:GNG and that's where we are. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 12:23, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable diplomat. Along with the current sources in the article there's a substantial feature on the Ambassador in Børsen 15 October 2019 (cover & pages 22-25) Piecesofuk (talk) 14:37, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: One more go...
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 23:06, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: There is significant coverage in Murray, C. (2011). Dirty Diplomacy: The Rough-and-Tumble Adventures of a Scotch-Drinking, Skirt-Chasing, Dictator-Busting and Thoroughly Unrepentant Ambassador Stuck on the Frontline of the War Against Terror. United States: Scribner. ISBN 9781416569862 CT55555(talk) 03:38, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Also in this book, but I think by the same author: Murray, C. (2013). Murder in Samarkand: A British Ambassador's Controversial Defiance of Tyranny in the War on Terror. United Kingdom: Mainstream Publishing. CT55555(talk) 03:39, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This report talks about him a lot, but I don't know how to assess this as a source: Current Developments in European Foreign Policy: Report with Evidence; 43rd Report of Session 2005-06. (2006). United Kingdom: Stationery Office. CT55555(talk) 03:41, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep, Murray above is writing an autobiography, which has a lot to say about Schroeder, but it was written independent of Schroeder, I assume, as they are essentially at odds with each other, I think. So I think that is independent and gives us a WP:BASIC pass, considering all the other sources. "weak" because it's not the most compelling keep, but still a keep in my assessment. CT55555(talk) 03:46, 1 April 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 Administration of territory in dynastic China. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 04:23, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

History of the administrative divisions of China before 1912

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

This is essentially an unsourced version of Administration of territory in dynastic China. If deleted, links and disambiguation pages will be changed to point to that article instead. SilverStar54 (talk) 23:04, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and China. SilverStar54 (talk) 23:04, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Administration of territory in dynastic China per nom. It's not clear that the pre-1912 article contains enough separate and distinct info to warrant a separate article. Patr2016 (talk) 23:09, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Patr2016. SignificantPBD (talk) 12:30, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or redirect. The two articles are covering substantially the same subject and we only need one of them. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:35, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:19, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

John Parker (activist)

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

Delete: This article clearly does not meet Wikipedia's general notability guideline, nor its more specific guidelines for politicians. While I believe this article was created in good faith, this minor political candidate does not have enough citations, nor do so many reliable sources exist online about him. PickleG13 (talk) 07:17, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Discussion was not properly transcluded to the log until now.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:50, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, I spent a fair amount of time looking for significant coverage and found very little. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:56, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Politicians, California, and New Jersey. Skynxnex (talk) 23:48, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:20, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Teresa Gutierrez

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

Delete: This article, which covers a minor political candidate from nearly two decades ago, is backed by only a single source. Online, I cannot find any major journalistic publication writing about her, with only the communist party she belongs to writing about her. While I am an inclusionist, especially for pages about politicians, this does not meet the notability guidelines for General or Political. PickleG13 (talk) 07:21, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Discussion was not properly transcluded to the log until now.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:49, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The name is too common to filter out political candidates from a decade ago. I find nothing for this person. Oaktree b (talk) 22:53, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The one source also happens to be primary. QuicoleJR (talk) 22:57, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Women, and New York. Skynxnex (talk) 23:51, 31 March 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. $Salvio giuliano$ 22:06, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Lahore (1764)

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

This page confuses the Battle of Qarawal for "a battle at Lahore" here. See [2]

Sources point to this battle being at Qarawal, and I had already made a page for the Battle of Qarawal. The infobox also has incorrect information saying that it was inconclusive, and that both the Sikhs and Afghans withdrew, to which, one of the main cited sources of the article says that the Sikhs were routed, and affirmed an Afghan victory, see here: [3] Noorullah (talk) 23:17, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and Military. Shellwood (talk) 00:55, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

For some reason, user @Javerine attempted to log a deletion request on the Battle of Qarawal itself without responding to anything here, or mentioned on the former talk page. (They also did not attempt to discuss it on the talk page either, or even open a deletion discussion). See here: [4] Noorullah (talk) 01:16, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

SHouldn't you have discussed the matter before submitting my article for deletion without even properly studying the sources? Why didn't you have discussion in the first place before submitting my article for deletion? You article is Battle of Qarawal is clearly problematic, even the title itself.Javerine (talk) 01:21, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I..did study the sources, I pointed it out to you in the talk page of the article you created, I linked it multiple times and even said what the issue was here. So I am not sure why you are accusing me of not pointing that out.

You saying "the article is clearly problematic" does not refute any of the things said, especially with whats said in the source which you still for some reason tried to summarize it as "inconclusive", when the source clearly stated that the Sikh forces were routed.

I listed it for deletion because it is effectively the exact same page as Battle of Qarawal, except the page you created pushes forward that the battle was inconclusive, which is contradicted by the sources. Noorullah (talk) 01:26, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I will come back to the problems with your article. Give me few mins. Javerine (talk) 01:32, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to furthermore add the second source for Singh does not mention that the Afghans withdrew as of nightfall either? And instead leaves the results vague and just after leads to Ahmad Shah Durrani congratulating Nasir Khan and warning him to stay away from frontline of battle.

This, meaning you completely made up the inconclusive remark. As none of the sources you had in the article mentions the Afghans withdrawing, and only Ram Gupta's mentions that the Sikhs were routed.[5] (Singh's account on the battle, is vague and doesn't mention the Afghans withdrawing) [6] (Ram Gupta's account, mentions the Sikhs being routed)

Alongside this, the "battle" according to Singh isn't even at Lahore itself, which you named the article. The source says "a battle near Lahore"[7] Noorullah (talk) 01:37, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

So with this, the main two sources on the article clearly don't allign with what the page is attempting to potray. The battle can clearly be seen as not being inconclusive, but rather, an Afghan victory as the Sikhs were routed (See Ram Gupta's source). Noorullah (talk) 01:39, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This article Battle of Lahore (1764) is completely reliable compared to Battle of Qarawal which has issues starting with the title itself as Qarawal is not even a location. I will defend article Battle of Lahore (1764) based on this mistakes on Battle of Qarawal.

MISTAKES ABOUT THIS ARTICLE

MISTAKE 1: The source on the article Battle of Qarawal, clearly states that "When the army went to the battle-field, their camps, kitchens, families and servants known as Bahir-o~Bungah .were left in charge of a strong contingent, which was called Qarawal. * Jang Namah, 83." This is mention at the bottom on page number 201 [8].
MISTAKE 2: The article is strictly is based on one source which is basically a translation of various contemporary sources such as Jang Namah, written by Nur Muhammad who was brought along with his masters to record his master's campaign. And historian have called his source, though valuable, but bias, prejuidice, discriminatory, very one-sided and based on personal observation.
MISTAKE 3: Noorullah keeps repeating that the reliable sources on my article by accredited historians do not claim that "The battle ended with both parties retired at nightfall. Here are the source links for anyone to verify: Page 216 [9] by historian Hari Ram Gupta and here is another source, Page 299 [10] by historian Ganda Singh (historian).
So based on all above information, article Battle of Qarawal is completely problematic and errors, including the outcome of the battle, which I have clearly stated as "Inconclusive" on Battle of Lahore (1764). User Noorullah clearly didn't study the sources on his article Battle of Qarawal and didn't make effort to study the sources on my article either. Also according to Noorullah, to discredit my article by the reliable source by historians, he states that "Historians make mistakes",[11]. A pointless reason. Javerine (talk) 02:08, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry but your point about the "Jang Namah" being an unreliable contemporary source also applies to every source you just listed? It is within the bottom of all the books you just posted that they follow the Jang Namah. As you can see with the following: [12] [13]

Also the same account is of Hari Singh Nawla's writing, though you are saying it as if it was another source, when it was the same writer. Noorullah (talk) 02:13, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are not understanding. Its what the historians analyze that is considered reliable by studying such contemporary sources. Jang Namah is considered valuable as it sheds light on events but you can see that historians when giving their own analysis, ignore the brava and prejudice observations, of a source, serving the master. Such as historian Ganda Singh said, "lts true that the Jang Nama, presents only one side piccture and that too from a bigoted crusader’s angle of vision. But that does not detract much from its historical value. In spite of his strong prejudice against the Sikhs, whom he remembers in no better words than dogs, dogs of hell, accursed infidels, unclean idolaters, fire-worshippers, etc., his description of the character of the Sikhs of the eighteenth century is invaluable to the students of history. And its value is immeasurably enhanced when we know that it is from the pen of one of their worst enemies, who prayed to God and appealed to the crusaders to destroy them root and branch. In short, the book has a great significance as a comtemporary historical document for the history of Ahmad Shah and the Sikhs". So that we is why instead of directly drawing from contemporary source, we have to use secondary sources written by historians who based their findings, study and analysis of such contemporary sources to draw conclusion.Javerine (talk) 02:31, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Where does this "quote" come from? You have completely made this quote without any citation? If you are also jumping between arguments about the Jang Nama.. calling it firstly "one-sided" and implying that it could not be trusted, then to now it could be because of its historical value?

Furthermore.. in those other sources it was just the Jang Nama cited? So how does that prove anything other then the contemporary source was used? The other part of Ram Gupta's source was a 1908 British Gazetter.

Regardless, I am not gonna respond further and let whoever handles the deletion requests to deal with this. Noorullah (talk) 02:37, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Why aren't you trying to make an effort as I already provided the link before. Historian Ganda Singh's opinion on Jang Namah is on page 420 [14]. Yes its better for others to make decisions. Javerine (talk) 02:46, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You did not provide the citation or link to that page whatsoever during the course of this dispute. Noorullah (talk) 02:48, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I provided the link before in the discussion with Ganda Singh's book. All you had to do was run a search. Javerine (talk) 02:52, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Run a search", for what? That's not the purpose of the argument, your supposed to back up what your saying with citations. Noorullah (talk) 02:54, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Noticed something very sneaky while the above discussion was going on. So Noorullah copied the source from article written by me Battle of Lahore (1764) and falsely attributed it on the article written by him Battle of Qarawal where it states that Qarawal is a location and where it states that "As the rest of the Durrani reinforcements came into battle, The Sikhs were routed from the battlefield, and fled from the battle at night." Here is the change he made [15] and here [16], when its clearly mentioned in the source that "It was a bitter contest and came to close only by nightfall". Here is for everyone to verify the source [17]. Also no where does the source mention Qarawal as a location, so why falsely attribute the source during this above discussion. I rest my case. Javerine (talk) 04:17, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't "copy the source", you complained about there not being enough sources on the page of Battle of Qarawal, as a result I added Singh's citations in the appropriate areas, including the area where it said about a nightfall. The former was Ram Gupta's.. and then Singh's SFN for the battle concluding at nightfall. I'm not sure why you are pretending this is something sneaky to slip in?

It says "A Place Near Lahore" in the article, while Ram Gupta mentions reinforcements were sent to Qarawal, how is this falsely attributing? You are meant to assume good faith rather then put out accusations to such matters. Noorullah (talk) 04:32, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
And so I quote "As the rest of the Durrani reinforcements came into battle, The Sikhs were routed from the battlefield, and fled from the battle at night." The then cited sources were Ram Gupta and Singh. Noorullah (talk) 04:34, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: There are numerous problems in both articles. I'm actually inclined to delete both since they are both so biased; the authors that do not have the experience to write articles about controversial subjects.

Both authors are obviously POV pushing for their chosen side. That these articles were created at the same time (~40mins) shows a battleground mentality the closing admin should note for AE subject.

@Noorullah and Javerine: can you list the best two sources (per WP:RS, WP:V) that show what you believe the name of the article should be? No need to explain, I can read and just need the reference. Battleground is definetly a part of this so there is no need to respond to the other parties two sources. I intensely hate walls of text and POV refbombing. // Timothy :: talk 13:04, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Noorullah, your two sources are:
Javerine, your two sources are: Page 299 [18] by historian Ganda Singh (historian) and Page 216 [19] by historian Hari Ram Gupta. Javerine (talk) 15:39, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

User:TimothyBlue, replied with two sources you asked for. Javerine (talk) 15:41, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 05:16, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge (with the usual redirect). The consensus above seems to be that the two battles are one and the same. If so, there should be a single article on it. I know nothing of the subject, but an AFD is not the right place for WP editors to seek to resolve conflicts as to precisely what happened. That is a matter to be resolved by reference to published historical works (being RS). Peterkingiron (talk) 14:38, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Needs more comments regarding merging (and if so to what?), redirecting, or simply deleting.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Onel5969 ^{TT me} 22:17, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: As per prior relist comment.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 22:36, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment TimothyBlue thank you for intervening. I agree that it sounds like we are talking about two versions of the same battle as Peterkingiron noted. I suggest Dispute Resolution, or failing that that the two editors work on one disputed item at a time starting with the name of the battle. That is going to be a DUE weight question where the NPOV.board could be helpful.
Keep both articles for now, until this is resolved. Draftify if necessary, then merge Elinruby (talk) 10:33, 2 April 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. $Salvio giuliano$ 22:06, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Qarawal

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

The article Battle of Qarawal is on the same topic as Battle of Lahore (1764). The article Battle of Qarawal is completely problematic which relies on only one source which basically is a translation of a contemporary source. Even the title of the article is incorrect as Qarawal is not a location but a strong contingent as mentioned in the source of the article itself. Also there are reliable sources by accredited historians that claim that the battle ended with both parties retiring at nightfall. Therefore, there was no victory for either party. Rather the battle was inconclusive. Javerine (talk) 01:27, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

User @Javerine has went on a spin-off argument from the main deletion page request for his page at [20], Please read there for whoever handles this deletion request. Noorullah (talk) 01:41, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Both sources do not mention what User Javerine is trying to potray with his page of Battle of Lahore (1764), further explained on the talk page of the Battle of Lahore itself,[21] and the deletion request I put up for it. Noorullah (talk) 01:42, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and Military. Shellwood (talk) 01:56, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

MISTAKES ABOUT THIS ARTICLE

MISTAKE 1: The source on the article Battle of Qarawal, clearly states that "When the army went to the battle-field, their camps, kitchens, families and servants known as Bahir-o~Bungah .were left in charge of a strong contingent, which was called Qarawal. * Jang Namah, 83." This is mention at the bottom on page number 201 [22].
MISTAKE 2: The article is strictly is based on one source which is basically a translation of contemporary source Jang Namah, written by Nur Muhammad who was brought along with his masters to record his master's campaign. And historian have called his source, though valuable, but bias, prejuidice, discriminatory, very one-sided and based on personal observation.
MISTAKE 3: Noorullah keeps repeating that the reliable sources on my article by accredited historians do not claim that "The battle ended with both parties retired at nightfall. Here are the source links for anyone to verify: Page 216 [23] by historian Hari Ram Gupta and here is another source, Page 299 [24] by historian Ganda Singh (historian).
So based on all above information, article Battle of Qarawal is completely problematic and errors, including the outcome of the battle, which I have clearly stated as "Inconclusive" on Battle of Lahore (1764). User Noorullah clearly didn't study the sources on his article Battle of Qarawal and didn't make effort to study the sources on my article either. Javerine (talk) 02:01, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry but your point about the "Jang Namah" being an unreliable contemporary source also applies to every source you just listed? It is within the bottom of all the books you just posted that they follow the Jang Namah. As you can see with the following: [25] [26]

Also the same account is of Hari Singh Nawla's writing, though you are saying it as if it was another source, when it was the same writer. Noorullah (talk) 02:14, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are not understading. Its what the historians analyze that is considered reliable by studying such contemporary sources. Jang Namah is considered valuable as it sheds light on events but you can see that historians when giving their own analysis, ignore the brava and prejudice observations, of a source, serving the master. Such as historian Ganda Singh said, "lts true that the Jang Nama, presents only one side piccture and that too from a bigoted crusader’s angle of vision. But that does not detract much from its historical value. In spite of his strong prejudice against the Sikhs, whom he remembers in no better words than dogs, dogs of hell, accursed infidels, unclean idolaters, fire-worshippers, etc., his description of the character of the Sikhs of the eighteenth century is invaluable to the students of history. And its value is immeasurably enhanced when we know that it is from the pen of one of their worst enemies, who prayed to God and appealed to the crusaders to destroy them root and branch. In short, the book has a great significance as a comtemporary historical document for the history of Ahmad Shah and the Sikhs". So that we is why instead of directly drawing from contemporary source, we have to use secondary sources written by historians who based their findings, study and analysis of such contemporary sources to draw conclusion.Javerine (talk) 02:29, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Where does this "quote" come from? You have completely made this quote without any citation? If you are also jumping between arguments about the Jang Nama.. calling it firstly "one-sided" and implying that it could not be trusted, then to now it could be because of its historical value?

Furthermore.. in those other sources it was just the Jang Nama cited? So how does that prove anything other then the contemporary source was used? The other part of Ram Gupta's source was a 1908 British Gazetter.

Regardless, I am not gonna respond further and let whoever handles the deletion requests to deal with this. Noorullah (talk) 02:37, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Why aren't you trying to make an effort as I already provided the link before. Historian Ganda Singh's opinion on Jang Namah is on page 420 [27]. Yes its better for others to make decisions. Javerine (talk) 02:46, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You did not provide the citation or link to that page whatsoever during the course of this dispute. Noorullah (talk) 02:48, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I provided the link before in the discussion with Ganda Singh's book. All you had to do was run a search. Javerine (talk) 02:51, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Run a search", for what? That's not the purpose of the argument, your supposed to back up what your saying with citations. Noorullah (talk) 02:54, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Noticed something very sneaky while the above discussion was going on. So Noorullah copied the source from article written by me Battle of Lahore (1764) and falsely attributed it on the article written by him Battle of Qarawal where it states that Qarawal is a location and where it states that "As the rest of the Durrani reinforcements came into battle, The Sikhs were routed from the battlefield, and fled from the battle at night." Here is the change he made [28] and here [29], when its clearly mentioned in the source that "It was a bitter contest and came to close only by nightfall". Here is for everyone to verify the source [30]. Also no where does the source mention Qarawal as a location, so why falsely attribute the source during this above discussion. I rest my case. Javerine (talk) 04:15, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't "copy the source", you complained about there not being enough sources on the page of Battle of Qarawal, as a result I added Singh's citations in the appropriate areas, including the area where it said about a nightfall. The former was Ram Gupta's.. and then Singh's SFN for the battle concluding at nightfall. I'm not sure why you are pretending this is something sneaky to slip in?

It says "A Place Near Lahore" in the article, while Ram Gupta mentions reinforcements were sent to Qarawal, how is this falsely attributing? You are meant to assume good faith rather then put out accusations to such matters. Noorullah (talk) 04:32, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
And so I quote "As the rest of the Durrani reinforcements came into battle, The Sikhs were routed from the battlefield, and fled from the battle at night." The then cited sources were Ram Gupta and Singh. Noorullah (talk) 04:35, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This is just an observation but this AFD discussion has only existed for a couple of hours and it's already preoccupied with you two bickering. The more you argue with each other, the less likely that other editors will want to participate in this discussion. You need to offer your opinion and then step away and let other editors look over the content and sources and weigh in with their opinions. You need to make space for other participants. If this "discussion" just becomes you two talking to each other, it's likely to close with no decision being made at all. So think of what your goal is and act accordingly. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:02, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'd redirect to the 1764 battle as mentioned. No comment on the above "discussion", but please keep it related to the AfD being reviewed. Oaktree b (talk) 15:36, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment since both articles don't need duplicate discussions, I have commented at Battle of Lahore (1764). // Timothy :: talk 13:00, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:42, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Needs more comments regarding merging (and if so to what?), redirecting, or simply deleting. Same as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Battle of Lahore (1764).
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Onel5969 ^{TT me} 22:19, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: As per prior relisting comment.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 22:35, 31 March 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. Aoidh (talk) 15:00, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Paul A. Singh

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

Subject appears not to meet WP:GNG. Previously prodded, and draftified and returned to mainspace without substantial improvement in source quality, so per WP:DRAFTOBJECT taking to AfD. All currently-cited sources comprise passing or trivial mentions. I was unable to find additional coverage of Paul Singh in academic sources or in news coverage (e.g. the British Newspaper Archive). Despite plentiful sources on the history of dashcam adoption, the subject appears not to have received significant coverage in those sources. Suriname0 (talk) 01:48, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Engineering, and United Kingdom. Suriname0 (talk) 01:48, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Suriname, Happy to help out with your cutting research. I've just been over press cuttings in the Press Reader system, and there are several more press cuttings on Paul Singh which couldn't be included to the wikipedia references because they were print only.
1. Yorkshire Post, Sept 2015 in an article entited "Footage Admissible in Court Due to Special Software" refers directly to Singh's SmartWitness camera footage which was now admissible in court as proof of fault in accidents and in insurance disputes. This was a major breakthrough for motoring disputes.
2. Western Mail, May 2016 - reports on Singh's call for cameras to be compulsory for autonomous vehicles.
3. Daily Star, reported Singh's findings that British trucking firms had been fined £60m in fines for having stowaways onboard coming back into the UK from the continent.
4. Daily Express, July 2018 reported on Singh's findings that July 21, would be the busiest day on British roads and that motorists should be careful to avoid accidents.
5. Daily Express, Oct 2018, reported on Singh's evidence on growing incidents of commuter road rage, especially between motorists and cyclists. I am happy to send you copies of all of these print cuttings if you like, or you can see them in the Press Reader search here - https://www.pressreader.com/search?query=%22paul%20singh%22%20smartwitness&in=ALL&date=Anytime&hideSimilar=0&type=2&state=2 So as you can see Singh's work on road safety goes back over years, and these sources are independent, varied and all refer to Paul Singh in person.
Sean Matthew Obrien (talk) 12:09, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Sean Matthew Obrien, unfortunately, none of those sources constitute significant coverage. The Yorkshire Post article doesn't mention Singh at all, and the other newspaper articles are trivial mentions. Per WP:SIGCOV: "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material." Sources 2-4 would be perfectly acceptable reliable, secondary sources for verifying that Singh was CEO of SmartWitness, but don't meet the significant coverage required to meet WP:GNG. Suriname0 (talk) 15:20, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Please note these five print newspaper sources are in addition to the other 12 digital sources cited. Also road safety and dashcams are seldom the topic of national newspapers so it's remarkable that there is this much coverage. Sean Matthew Obrien (talk) 13:06, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
All of the currently-cited digital sources have the same problems: not addressing Singh directly, or being trivial name-checks. One common piece of advice at AfD is WP:THREE: much less impressive than many low-quality sources are 2-3 high-quality sources with a depth of information. You're more likely to persuade commenters to vote Keep by giving them a small list of high-quality sources that demonstrate the subject meets WP:GNG. Suriname0 (talk) 14:00, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:42, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Daily Star and Express aren't RS. Yorkshire post is meh. I don't see much more for sourcing we can use. Oaktree b (talk) 13:42, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Here are some more sources for you. The Independent ran a piece on the SmartWitness campaign for children's road safety in 2016 . [31] AutoExpress ran a story about how SmartWitness was helping motorists with the steep rise in cash for crash incidents in 2014.[32] Another cash for crash incident was reported in Surrey Live in 2014.[33] Paul Singh also did research into how cash for crash hotspots were affecting car insurance premiums which appeared in Daily Mail. [34] and Fleet News [35] in 2014. I'm happy to add these to the wiki entry.

There are quite a few stories in Daily Mail online also about road safety, but I believe Wikipedia does not recognise DM online as source material. [36] Sean Matthew Obrien (talk) 14:24, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

These would be great, if they discussed Paul Singh directly and in depth. (Singh is not mentioned in any of the linked sources.) Are you aware of other reporting that directly discusses Singh and his role in this important research? Suriname0 (talk) 14:42, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Suriname0, all the work and campaigns of the SmartWitness company were driven by Paul Singh and were created by him. Some pieces quote him by name, but not all. That's journalistic style unfortunately but the company and everything that it did was driven by him. Sean Matthew Obrien (talk) 10:23, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Sean Matthew Obrien left an additional argument in favor of keeping the article on their user page. See here: User talk:Sean Matthew Obrien#Nomination of Paul A. Singh for deletion. Suriname0 (talk) 15:24, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:06, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 22:33, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree with Oaktree b's assessment. It's not a matter of "journalistic style", significant coverage by reliable sources is very common for notable subjects. Best, GPL93 (talk) 15:01, 3 April 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. $Salvio giuliano$ 21:23, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of Malaysian football transfers 2010

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

Not notable, sourced only to facebook and a blog Avilich (talk) 23:54, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and Malaysia. Avilich (talk) 23:54, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, there's a whole category of these articles: Category:Lists of Malaysian football transfers. Ajf773 (talk) 08:40, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 09:55, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - this topic of football transfers can be notable, but this one doesn't look to be. Giant Snowman 10:05, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:15, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 22:28, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unreliable sources, one being a blog, the other Facebook. LibStar (talk) 09:30, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - if WP:RS aren't covering this specific topic, neither should we Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:08, 7 April 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 undeletion of these articles. $Salvio giuliano$ 21:22, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

2008 Claxton Shield team rosters

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

Follow up on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2007 Claxton Shield team rosters. Delete per WP:GNG, WP:NOTDIR, and WP:NLIST. Non-notable list of players. –Aidan721 (talk) 20:53, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Baseball and Australia. –Aidan721 (talk) 20:53, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not only is this a non-notable list of players with zero sources cited, it includes a long list of DOB (date of birth) information for non-notable individuals, which violates their privacy and does not belong on Wikipedia. (The "External links" may suggest that that is where the information comes from, but this is also not easily verifiable when you look at those sites; in any case, the team rosters themselves aren't notable, and I would also note that the parent page 2008 Claxton Shield lacks sources as well and have tagged it as such.) Cielquiparle (talk) 08:46, 7 April 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. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 04:24, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Andrzej Mazurkiewicz (footballer)

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

Another draft objection. Thought he might be notable, as the one obit is of nice length and from a secondary source. The other 3 sources consist of a primary source and 2 database entries, so doesn't come close to meeting WP:GNG. As I said, was sent to draft, but returned to mainspace without improvement. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 20:18, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep 90minut.pl isn't a database (although it has one), its a news website, sport.pl is also a notable source. Abcmaxx (talk) 20:30, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Poland. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:08, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:31, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per Abcmaxx. Also definitely has offline sources, having played 10+ years for one of mosts successful Polish teams in the fully pro Polish top flight. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 20:24, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Offline, perhaps. I looked for Polish online sources (mentions in Google Books) and got nothing. Also, no pl wii article? (There's a draft, worse than ours: pl:Wikipedysta:Brudnopis gościnny/Andrzej Mazurkiewicz (piłkarz)). Current sources are stat pages and obituaries. I am not impressed. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 15:03, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep there is sufficient coverage to show notability. Giant Snowman 10:04, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, coverage is significant and passes GNG.--Ortizesp (talk) 19:29, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:51, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of games containing time travel

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:LISTN, a really poorly cited list of trivial WP:CRUFT. Recent discussion at WT:VG. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:13, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:13, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science fiction and fantasy, Games, and Lists. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:14, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Pure overlistification, time travel is too common a trope to keep a comprehensive list of games featuring it. Pointless lists with a scope this large put a drain on Wikipedia editors' time and resources, when a category can accomplish it better. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 05:06, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, covered in reliable sources, meets WP:LISTN, per the first nomination, and lists and categories should never be "put up" against each other but officially complement each other. Randy Kryn (talk) 09:08, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
On what grounds are you asserting it meets LISTN? You've got to advance a rationale in how or this is just a WP:ITSNOTABLE stance. Sergecross73 msg me 15:17, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
WP:LISTN: "Lists that fulfill recognized informational, navigation, or development purposes often are kept regardless of any demonstrated notability.", which this list fits well. And removing this list does not maintain Wikipedia, a policy requirement. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:08, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is not the normal application of LISTN. I do not find it persuasive. Sergecross73 msg me 12:21, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What? The application is one of the recognized routes listed in WP:LISTN. There is no "normal" and "not normal" application of these routes, they are all normal. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:08, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Usually LISTN is proven by providing reliable sources that cover the list grouping in significant detail, not just super-focusing in on the subjective claim that "it's useful" for navigation. And if vague allusions to "you can't delete this because deletion goes against maintaining the encyclopedia, which is policy" (or whatever you were trying to say at the end there) were valid, it'd be conceptually impossible to delete anything on Wikipedia. You could say that about virtually anything that isn't blatant vandalism. It's simply not how it works. Sergecross73 msg me 15:44, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure why editors are repeating the claim that this list topic is not covered in significant detail by reliable sources. Gamerant, CBR, TheGamer and ScreenRant are unquestionably RS, as far as I know, though I am less sure about Game Informer and Gaming Scan. In any event, the assertion that the topic of the list doesn't meet WP:LISTN seems to me not to be based on the actual deadline.

(If editors are misunderstanding LISTN as saying that sources contributing to the Notability of the list topic must all be listing exactly the same set of entries as the WP list article - well, that just isn't the way Wikipedia list articles actually work.) Newimpartial (talk) 16:33, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well, context matters - I was asking Randy to clarify his stance in this conversation thread, where, despite multiple responses, he's yet to present any examples. As for your sources, well, define "unquestionably reliable". See WP:VG/S. Game Informer is good, but many of the are tagged as "cannot be used to demonstrate notability" (GameRant/TheGamer) for churnalism/ low quality issues. Not exactly a batch of sources you want to write an article around. Sergecross73 msg me 16:52, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I would think that Game Informer and CBR represent suffficient sourcing all on their own to meet WP:LISTN. I am curious to what extent either the nominator or any of the Delete !voters actually complied with WP:BEFORE. Newimpartial (talk) 19:51, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ScreenRant is generally speaking fine when it comes to pure facts about entertainment (release dates and so on), but pretty much garbage when it comes to analysis. ScreenRant has never been a source to base an article on. TompaDompa (talk) 20:43, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as not meeting the requirements of Wikipedia:Notability#Stand-alone lists. — Fourthords | =Λ= | 11:16, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Incorrect. LISTN states "Lists that fulfill recognized informational, navigation, or development purposes often are kept regardless of any demonstrated notability.", and this one also has independent notability (everyone, please read the first deletion attempt, thanks). Randy Kryn (talk) 11:22, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You are suggesting that this serves a navigational purpose. I don't see it. Generally speaking we are talking about lists of things that would be too large for an article on a specific subject to include in that article. For instance, a list of games released on a video game console would be fine mostly because it has a defined notable tie between these items. If we include items in a list that are just items in a list like this, we might as well have list of video games with eggs in them or similar. Things having a similar plot device might be suitable for a category, but not a standalone list.

Whats more, we all "travel through time" every day. I get that we are talking about having the ability to manipulate time in some way, but even the title doesn't make sense. Even if this were a navigational list (which it isn't), LISTN only says we can retain such lists - not that we should. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:54, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Once again, categories and lists are two complementary ways of navigation on Wikipedia, and are mandated by policy to stand together and not be either-or (please read Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and navigation templates). The navigational purpose is obvious - games which contain time travel (and you know what this means, not that we travel through time every second but moving from one recognizable point in time to another by skipping other points in time). Randy Kryn (talk) 11:08, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What you say is true; they are complementary. However that doesn't mean that there must be a list for every category, only that there can be one. LISTN says "The entirety of the list does not need to be documented in sources for notability, only that the grouping or set in general has been." and the notability of the grouping (ie "games containing time travel") still has not be demonstrated IMO. Nigej (talk) 12:56, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - obviously anything unverifiable should be stripped off the list (and I believe it has) but the topic itself meets LISTN and represents a good use of standalone list functionality. Newimpartial (talk) 11:35, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
what sources actually talk about this as a group for it to meet WP:LISTN?

Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:45, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I am not seeing the relevant references in the current version of Time travel in fiction but I have read them before, so they exist. Newimpartial (talk) 14:01, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

But every entry in the list is currently unsourced...? Sergecross73 msg me 15:20, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's possible that Newimpartial saw the version of the article that'd been culled of uncited claims, which were replaced by Randy Kryn as an April Fools?. — Fourthords | =Λ= | 12:26, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

My point was that unverifiable claims needed to be excluded. Uncited != unverifiable. Newimpartial (talk) 14:04, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
They are sourced at their links. If every blue-linked item on Wikipedia had to be sourced there would be few lists - Wikipedians are volunteers not employees and on blue-linked lists do not have to work to move a source from each entry to the list page. WP:COMMONSENSE. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:14, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails NLIST. No indication that the topic (games containing time travel) "has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources". Seems too general a topic to me. We could have all sorts of other daft "List of games containing ..." articles. What about ""List of games containing mentions of quantum physics". The list is endless. Nigej (talk) 14:05, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:OR / WP:SYNTH, noticing a kind of theme or trope in media, non actual WP:SIGCOV. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 19:04, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well, except for the actual WP:RS on the topic of this list (such as the Game Informer and CBR sources I linked above), which do establish list notability. Newimpartial (talk) 19:54, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nomination. A video game Wiki would be a better home for such a list. TH1980 (talk) 00:16, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Speaking only for myself, I recognize and appreciate that this list has a description column that explains exactly how time travel figures into each game's plot. This helps me distinguish between games that use time travel solely as a plot device, compared to ones that incorporate them into game mechanics. This is barefacedly an "WP:ITSUSEFUL" line of thinking, but it's also something that gives this list an advantage over a category. It's also completely true that most of the descriptions are WP:JUSTPLOT and virtually all unsourced to boot. Thus, I'm conflicted and uncomfortable falling on either 'keep' or 'delete'. I don't see a path forward for this list unless the 'keep' side is willing to put in some elbow grease to actually find sources that discuss time travel in games as a concept, rather than simply gesturing around and declaring that they exist (and y'know, also adding sources to each entry too, per WP:V, can't skip that either). I don't really have the bandwidth right now to do an in-depth search so I suppose here's a start: Critical Distance had time travel as the theme for their January issue. The rest I found are of the "listicle" type, although from quite reputable publications: RPS, VG247, Paste Mag, Inverse. Hope this helps someone. Axem Titanium (talk) 02:35, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Agreed with the arguments above that this fails WP:LISTN as there are no reliable sources that discuss the concept as a group or set. I am also unconvinced that the number of blue links means its a valid navigation list, as argued in the No Consensus AFD from 15 years ago - you can essentially make any kind of "List of X that contains Y" that has a bunch of blue links, but that doesn't mean that it should be done or that such lists actually serve any actual navigational use. As the information here is extremely poorly sourced, then merging any information to any other related topic, such as Time travel in fiction, would not be recommended. Rorshacma (talk) 06:25, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There are literally several links to sources that cover the topic in the sentence preceding your comment. Of course this serves a navigational purpose, for readers interested in video games about time travel. How else do you define "navigation" than providing links to similar topics? Randy Kryn (talk) 14:06, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The only link to an actual valid source that isn't a listicle or a literal game guide is the first one, which contains two articles on two very specific games - that is not a discussion of the concept as a group or set. Rorshacma (talk) 15:45, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I see a category fulfills this role. In this case, no source elaborates this topic as a whole, and the list just reads like a cherry-pick of the pages in this category, omitting a lot. Milky Defer 14:59, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, sources exist and are linked above. Categories and lists officially complement each other on Wikipedia and in discussions shouldn't be set against an either-or atmosphere. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:06, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Neither useful as a navigational tool nor informational. I believe it might be possible that an article about time travel mechanics in video games could be built, and then having a list atop that prose may be possible, but that prose-based article needs to exist first. --Masem (t) 15:00, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It is both useful and informational for people interested in games about time travel. How is it not useful for those readers? (seriously, please explain, I don't get that mindset) Deleting a good list page because a prose article could also be written throws out the baby without bathwater even being in the bath. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:19, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-defining. Time travel is common in fiction, and even more in games where the player might repeat sections. Maybe there are sources for an article about time travel in video games, but the list would be far too long, subjective, and indiscriminate. Shooterwalker (talk) 15:13, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as overly broad. Also, I politely suggest that Randy Kryn reads WP:BLUDGEON. QuicoleJR (talk) 16:15, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the politeness. In this case I've addressed specific reasons people are using to delete the page which, if they had read this page, the sources found during the discussion, and the important comments present in the first deletion attempt, they may not have used their particular lines of argument which, I believe, have been adequately countered. Sometimes, not always or even often, that approach is needed in a deletion discussion in which a point-of-views exists that believes that maintaining the encyclopedia would be better served by keeping a page and, if so, that policy instructs us to do so. Randy Kryn (talk) 03:03, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with List of time travel works of fiction: While this list doesn't currently seem viable as a standalone entry, I think it would be better served as a section of that article. A prose article about time travel as a game mechanic may be viable, and for that reason I believe this list's contents should be kept around in some form. At the very least, I would support draftifying it. silvia (BlankpopsiclesilviaASHs4) (inquire within) 23:21, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 01:06, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

One more comment and then I'll leave this page to its fate. RadioactiveBoulevardier, please, in good faith, come back and re-read the page (unless you read it all, understood the flow of the discussion, noticed that sources had been found and cited, read the first deletion discussion which were pointed to within this discussion, and typed your comment within a two-minute window). Editors at deletion discussion are the jury of pages which fellow Wikipedians created and worked upon. Deletion juries should really take the time needed to study the viewpoints and evolving discussion before going on to the next deletion discussion. Okay, I'm outta here. Randy Kryn (talk) 03:13, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, I’ve read it.

By the way, I’m only an occasional visitor to AfD and generally don’t go through the lists one by one and “move on to the next”.

The no-consensus AfD is from fifteen years ago, and since then, perhaps a clearer community consensus has developed about notability and other things. The arguments there seemed ever so slightly amateurish in how they were phrased.

As for the articles you cited, I don’t see how they’re different in purpose from “The 20 Best Games Containing Princesses/Knights/Castles/Whatever”.

I think that subjectively this is a borderline case of WP:NOTDIRECTORY. I also agree with Masem, Milkydefer, and Shooterwalker. RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 04:08, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per my above comments on NLIST. Sergecross73 msg me 13:04, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for a variety of reasons. I don't feel like the sources provided are ideal to demonstrate grouping games this way (as Randy put it, it tends to come off as listicles or just articles about time travel as a game mechanic). Another issue is that the article is likely going to be gigantic, as the parameters allow for many games that aren't already listed. Off the top of my head, there are two Yoshi games with time travel, Tracer from Overwatch can time travel as a core mechanic, and basically any DBZ game that has Future Trunks deals with time travel. It's about as notable as "List of video games featuring princesses." It's a good category, but not a good list. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 02:40, 7 April 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. $Salvio giuliano$ 21:37, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Eurasian (mixed ancestry)

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

Article makes a strong start by getting the definition for Eurasian wrong in the very first sentence and never recovers from there. I don't think this article is worth saving. --Licks-rocks (talk) 18:25, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:37, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
delete this article is at best a wp:synth disaster—blindlynx 19:22, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Synthesis-laden article about an archaic term, which was not notable even in the era when it was in common use; nothing substantive to be found. --Orange Mike | Talk 19:49, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with a note to preserve some sort of version to be used as a textbook example of when TNT is appropriate. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:02, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
should i revert my blanking of the disastrous Central Asia section of the article so we can keep it as an example? —blindlynx 20:50, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
we can just grab the version from prior to your salvage attempt if we want to, so I don't think that's neccesary. --Licks-rocks (talk) 21:44, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:TNT. Galobtter (pingó mió) 21:52, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as absurd. A bizarre concoction of multiple unrelated topics, laced with the remnants of racist pseudoscience, thrown together by contributors (sadly, there seems to have been more than one) who have taken Humpty Dumpty's approach to the alleged topic: When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, `it means just what I choose it to mean--neither more nor less.' AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:35, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt. "Bizarre concoction" indeed sums it all up. And there is nothing salvageable even in the case of genuine social groups that formed as a result of racist colonial policies in the past (e.g. Filipino mestizos or Kristang people), because we a) already have useful articles about them, so there is no need for pisspoor content forks (those galleries!) plus b) assembling them here into a broad article only works under the POV of racial essentialism, as these groups are not "biologically" linked. –Austronesier (talk) 10:02, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The premise of the article (The term has been used in anthropological literature since the 1960s.) can't be supported by a source from 1960. It seems bizarre and inappropriate to list all of these living people with their photos as examples of what appears to be a long-obsolete racial category, Rjjiii (talk) 23:53, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There's too much inherent WP:SYNTH in the premise of this article for it to ever be coherent. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:57, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Asia and Europe. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 03:57, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

User-draftify and salt There is no way this exact page should exist, but there is a lot of sourced information that may be useful at one of the many articles noted as main articles for subsections of this one, such as Anglo-Indian people or Multiracial people. Sennalen (talk) 18:45, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- That's an interesting variation of "Merge", since it means to distribute the salvageable material to various articles. I don't disagree with that if there's really something that is still lacking in the main articles. I only looked at the SE Asia part and couldn't really find anything, but it might be different in other sections. Draftifying without the option of restoring the page might help to prune through it without haste. –Austronesier (talk) 19:26, 4 April 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 Bangladeshi cuisine. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 04:26, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sylheti cuisine

AfDs for this article:

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

WP:SYNTH and WP:OR. None of the sources in this article point towards a distinct Sylheti cusine; rather they talk about certain dishes which originate from the Sylhet district or happen to be popularly eaten in Sylhet. There is no source which mentions Sylheti cuisine to be notable in its own right. The article is also poorly written, and mentions unrelated content such as pop culture and information about nutrition. This article should be deleted. UserNumber (talk) 17:33, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: @Guffydrawers: has also noted the numerous issues with the article, particularly the vague phrasing and inappropriate and misrepresentative usage of sources. A similar article by the name of Chittagonian cuisine was also deleted for similar reasons here. UserNumber (talk) 17:33, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge: I propose that any valid, relevant & sourced information be merged into Bangladeshi_cuisine#Sylhet_Division and that the article Sylheti cuisine then be trimmed to only contain a redirect to the Bangladeshi cuisine article (not the subsection, as that may change). Regards Guffydrawers (talk) 15:55, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per norm. Mehedi Abedin 21:59, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 March 14 and Bangladesh. UserNumber (talk) 17:33, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:51, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bangladesh and Assam. Skynxnex (talk) 17:57, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Can those who have !voted discuss their positions further? @UserNumber: Are you okay with merge as an WP:ATD? @Guffydrawers: Any input about which information might be valid, relevant & sourced? @Mehediabedin: What "norm" did you mean, or did you mean "nom" (although they recommended delete)? --Worldbruce (talk) 18:00, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Worldbruce (talk) 18:00, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The google translation from Bengali of the title of the second ref is "Fisphas Kitchen - Sylhet Cuisine," so There is no source which mentions Sylheti cuisine to be notable in its own right is false. I haven't checked the translations of the other Bengali refs, but I've fixed a few of them because there's quite a lot of link rot. small jars tc 21:07, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the fixes. To be fair, the title you mentioned[37] is of a self-published blog by a non-expert, so not a reliable source. I've removed it from the article. --Worldbruce (talk) 15:46, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Worldbruce: Sorry for my mistake. Actually I told to merge it because what the nominator suggested. And yes it is "nom" but I wrote "norm". But I didn’t suggest delete because maybe many pages have link with this article. Mehedi Abedin 02:46, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Worldbruce: "input about which information might be valid, relevant & sourced" I'm gradually working my way through the article, checking refs, simplifying and correcting. What remains when I'm done should be worth considering for retention. I'm trying not to throw out the baby with the bathwater, so care rather than haste. Regards Guffydrawers (talk) 14:09, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have completed a rework of the article to remove junk, dead or irrelevant refs, enforce encyclopedic tone, translate relevant text from Bengali sources into English and more. The article is a lot thinner, so I continue to propose that what is left be merged into Bangladeshi_cuisine#Sylhet_Division in order to make this article a redirect to there. Sylheti cuisine is IMHO worthy of a section within the article on Bangladesh, but not so different to merit a separate article on English WP. Regards Guffydrawers (talk)
- ...but I see the Bangladeshi cuisine article has some of the same issues that will need addressing before we have a rounded and robust treatment of the subject.Regards Guffydrawers (talk) 07:02, 4 April 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. $Salvio giuliano$ 21:48, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Rozalia Sultangareeva

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

Can't find enough in-depth sourcing from independent, reliable, secondary sources to pass WP:GNG, and does not meet WP:NSCHOLAR. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 11:00, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There isn't an article in Russian? No, but there is one in Bashkortian! I didn't know the place, or language existed, let alone that it had a WP! Now I do - and I also know that outside very specific limited interest to a Bashkortian audience, the subject is not notable and does not pass WP:GNG. But interesting, nevertheless... Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 13:08, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already PROD'd, not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:04, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Women, and Science. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:29, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Bashkir folklore appears to be a very low-citation subject, but if you search Google scholar for Султангареева rather than Sultangareeva you will see 185 citations for "Семейно-бытовой обрядовый фольклор башкирского народ" and 116 for "Жизнь человека в обряде: фольклорно-этнографическое исследование башкирских семейных обрядов" (as well as many less-cited works). I think in this subject that may be enough for WP:PROF#C1. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:29, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 13:21, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the article would certainly benefit from some cleanup, but generally I do not have any problem. The subject seems to have an impact in their field, got some coverage on the state level, some media coverage, got an article by an academic publisher entirely covering her activity, looks good enough for me.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:22, 2 April 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 Richard Marazano. Aoidh (talk) 15:01, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

S.A.M. (comics)

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

This comic is not notable, and the article does not include any source. The page is also barely unorphaned, with only the author and the disambiguation page Sam linking to it. BenzoAid (talk) 10:14, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. BenzoAid (talk) 10:14, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to author’s page, which admittedly doesn’t look that great either. If there are any sources for this they’re probably in French which makes improvement difficult and unlikely even if they’re found. Dronebogus (talk) 10:30, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. BenzoAid (talk) 11:05, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know why I was asked to give my view on this as I haven't been involved in the article. But according to WP:NBOOK it's notable if it's "has won a major literary award". According to the article it has won two awards. I don't know if they are notable or not. But there are no sources listed and that's a problem. // Liftarn (talk) 14:16, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently you were automatically invited to the AfD discussion because you made the 2nd edit on the page, back in 2004. Sorry for that BenzoAid (talk) 14:35, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

And the Angoulême International Comics Festival award, while the festival itself is major, the award is not, and shows 0 results on Google. The 2nd award does not give any results either, meaning the awards are likely very minor. They're both from the same year as well. So I can't find any sources, and original research is forbidden per WP:NOR. So yeah... BenzoAid (talk) 14:40, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Richard Marazano. I failed to find any suitable sources to support an article, only ones that confirm this existed. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 11:29, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Funny thing is that Richard Marazano is in AfD because Marazano wrote his own article. It also looks like a promotional article or phising scam. So if both AfDD's pass, then the redirect will be broken. // 💪Benzo💪 (Send me a message!) (Here's what I've contributed.) 09:56, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I'd redirect this article but the target article is now also at AFD so I'm relisting in case anyone has a Plan B.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:03, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Richard Marazano per above. // Timothy :: talk 04:44, 8 April 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 English cricketers (1826–1840)#L. $Salvio giuliano$ 21:48, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Lenton

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

I cannot find anything that pushes this person over WP:GNG. It's possible that sources are hard to find because he passed away in 1870 and played in the 1820s-1840s, but I can find little to attest to notability or to much of his life other than his playing cricket and some associated statistics. I would normally PROD, but I feel that there might be something out there that leads to this person being notable only because his playing a first-class cricket match in both 1828 and 1841 as attested to on cricinfo means he has a shot at notability as a 14 year playing career isn't normally for players who barely played, but cricinfo only has him playing 2 matches over those 14 years. TartarTorte 17:02, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Cricket. TartarTorte 17:02, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:28, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of English cricketers (1826–1840)#L Doesn't seem to be enough to pass GNG (although there may well be coverage in past papers). However there is a suitable redirect here per WP:ATD. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 09:18, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as per Rugbyfan22. RobinCarmody (talk) 12:42, 1 April 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 Indian Premier League. $Salvio giuliano$ 21:53, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Controversies involving the Indian Premier League

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

This is just a random collection of things that have happened, not a NPOV, encyclopedic article. The "Other scandals" is in violation of WP:BLPCRIME, by accusing people of things that they haven't been charged for, the "Rule Break" section is just a couple of minor, arbitrary incidents, "Incidents of physical assaults on players" section is about players and not really related to the IPL itself. Any encyclopedic content can be added to other IPL articles, but we don't need this article with tons of absolutely non-encyclopedic content. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:11, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports, Cricket, and India. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:11, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose How can you say that the assault and bullying controversies are individual and not related to IPL? The player's sequrity is IPL's responsibility amid IPL, It was happened during IPL. If you don't agree with sub-headings you can change it. main article already too lengthy and if we merged this stuff in it, it'll be more lengthy.Rock Stone Gold Castle (talk) 14:42, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A selective merge of a very small amount of encyclopedic content would be fine. Must of this article is WP:NPOV junk that should be deleted. WP:NPOV and WP:BLPCRIME override WP:ILIKEIT. Joseph2302 (talk) 20:16, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Very selective merge to Indian Premier League. There's some information here that can be merged, but most of it is excessive and violates WP:NPOV. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 10:01, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:57, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, Hi, If anyone feeling that something in this article breaking WP policy, then you should open a discussion here on talk page. We'll remove or alter it after reaching analysing. I think the intrested editors do not that someone is trying to delete or merge this article in IPL. You should paste notices at 'Wikiproject IPL, Cricket, IPL article about it. Let them know, many of them will discuss, vote here.Rock Stone Gold Castle (talk) 08:25, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It has been appropriately listed in Sports, Cricket, and India, and appears in the article alerts for WikiProject Cricket: Wikipedia:WikiProject Cricket/Article alerts. Hi, If anyone feeling that something in this article breaking WP policy, then you should open a discussion here on talk page. We'll remove or alter it after reaching analysing. is not how AFD works. The article has to demonstrate the need to exist, as per WP:GNG and WP:SPLIT, and the WP:BLPCRIME issues in this article are also unacceptable. Joseph2302 (talk) 21:09, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support Liz's suggestion of a very selective merge to Indian Premier League. This article has no good reason to exist. By shoving all the "controversies" over here, we give undue weight to smaller ones, and may keep larger ones from receiving proper coverage in the main article. Also relevant to this discussion may be the guidelines on point-of-view forking. Wracking ^💬 22:26, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support, Now I also think it should be de deleted or merged.Rock Stone Gold Castle (talk) 05:52, 7 April 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. $Salvio giuliano$ 21:57, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

3D Control Systems

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

Company doesn't seem to meet WP:NCORP - lacks in-depth coverage of the company itself (rather than its product called 3DPrinterOS). MrsSnoozyTurtle 07:51, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and California. Shellwood (talk) 10:30, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:55, 31 March 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. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 04:27, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of aftershocks of the 2023 Turkey–Syria earthquake

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

The aftershocks listed in this article are not notable as a group as required by WP:NOTESAL, a few individual events are but the vast majority are not and neither is the group being discussed in sources, apart from mentions in passing of the sort "there were x aftershocks in the first y days after the mainshock". All earthquakes that are at least moderately large have aftershocks, so nothing unusual about that. The project has only two such lists, List of foreshocks and aftershocks of the 2011 Tōhoku earthquake and List of aftershocks of the April 2015 Nepal earthquake, both much shorter than this one and their notability has been questioned. The notability of any such lists was considered in the RfC in 2018, Talk:Lists of earthquakes/Archive 2#Are lists of earthquake aftershocks ever notable?, the result of which was summarised as "Lists of aftershocks selected by any arbitrary criteria are deemed to be WP:INDISCRIMINATE collections of trivia and generally discouraged, unless the list itself, as established and discussed by a reliable source, is notable" Mikenorton (talk) 16:43, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists, Syria, and Turkey. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:27, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of aftershocks of the April 2015 Nepal earthquake

List of foreshocks and aftershocks of the 2011 Tōhoku earthquake

If we're gonna delete that, then lets delete these too and any other aftershock lists for any other articles.

Lets just delete every list page too while we're at it. DarmaniLink (talk) 21:45, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Anyway, my stance is as follows:

The aftershocks always got significant media attention.

Significant information is being lost by removing this.

WP:INDISCRIMINATE can be invoked to justify deleting Wikipedia or any other page.

A person could read this and get a bigger picture or y'know, if you think it needs more info, then add it.

The other articles are precedent and that they have not been deleted despite numerous "questionings" of their notability by minimalists is proof in and of itself of its notability.

Information is being lost by removing this, or the others, and significant information at that.

Strongly oppose. DarmaniLink (talk) 21:56, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but limits to 5.0. I think the 7.5 and the 6.3 aftershock are notable in its own right as the 6.3 aftershock in February 20 has some RSs covering it. However, most of the aftershocks (4.0->5.0) are not notable, and the 43 aftershocks which is 5.0+ is enough to be notable for the article. Thingofme (talk) 23:33, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Lets change it to 5.0+ then DarmaniLink (talk) 00:10, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. [1] meets NLIST by amount of coverage in the press. [2] Legitimate SPINOFF of 2023 Turkey–Syria earthquake. [3] Do limit to magnitude 5.0 and greater, as Thingofme suggests. This way something good will roll out of the nomination. gidonb (talk) 20:00, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Coverage establishes that WP:NLIST is met, and splitting this content from the large article about the earthquake itself is worthwhile. MrsSnoozyTurtle 03:43, 7 April 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. $Salvio giuliano$ 22:00, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Registered Accessibility Specialist

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

Not notable. A stub since it was created in 2005, probably a permastub. It was apparently an orphan from its creation until 2018, and the only incoming links now are from a "see also" section and the disambiguation page Ras.

No plausible redirect target. Un assiolo (talk) 15:15, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture and Texas. Un assiolo (talk) 15:15, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All I find are articles that use the title when describing a person. Nothing for notability. Oaktree b (talk) 15:43, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disability-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:25, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete it's basically just a dicdef, there's simply not much to say about the subject beyond "it exists". Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 17:39, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Essentially a run-of-the-mill dictionary definition of a job title. --Kinu ^t/_c 06:56, 6 April 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. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 21:58, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Brigitte Secard

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

Despite her admirable efforts beginning at the age of 8 to solve human suffering, Secard seems to have almost entirely avoided receiving in-depth coverage to meet GNG, with the possible exception of one article in an iffy paper that seems to have ceased publication by 2008. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 14:50, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and California. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 14:51, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Skynxnex (talk) 15:15, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I cast a large net for sources on EBSCO, Newsbank, and Newspapers.com. She comes up in a number of passing US newspaper mentions as "She's hosting a book signing" with zero commentary about herself, basically just advertisements for her appearances. She also appears as a passing mention in this article about how she lobbied the local arts district in her town to paint some stairs ([38]). A clear !delete. Nomader (talk) 15:25, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can't find any sources other than those already discussed. (Which is a shame, because I really wanted to find out what she hoped to accomplish with the lions.) Sojourner in the earth (talk) 15:43, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as promo. Large blocks of unsourced text and flowery wording, I can't find much of anything about this individual. The name is too common to find anything for her alone. Oaktree b (talk) 15:45, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete since the text is nothing more than a promotional piece of work, with a sprinkle of vanity prose. Whence notability? Nowhere. It certainly does not grow in monoculture trees. -The Gnome (talk) 18:10, 5 April 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 14:49, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hugh Bulkeley

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

Despite the "entry" in the Dictionary of Welsh Biography, I cannot find any significant coverage of this authorthat would establish GNG. Even the DWB provides minimal information, suggesting all we know is "Two poems bearing his name will be found in NLW MS 832E and one in Sotheby MS B2 ." We can't build an encyclopedic article based upon that. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 14:39, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Poetry and Wales. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 14:40, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Skynxnex (talk) 15:16, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for lack of sourcing. Only hits I get are for the US Navy. Oaktree b (talk) 15:46, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It doesn't bode well when the only sourced sentence is contradicted by the only source. In any event, I can't find any sources at all besides the DWB entry, either for Hugh Bulkeley or for the Welsh Huw Bwlclai. Sojourner in the earth (talk) 15:59, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Lightburst (talk) 22:29, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Passes third criteria of WP:ANYBIO as his name is in Dictionary of Welsh Biography. 𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐕𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐭𝟕𝟐𝟖🧙‍♂️^{Let's Talk !} 12:55, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@LordVoldemort728, while I would generally agree, I think this is one of the few instances where such an entry does not directly equate notability. Here, all the DWB tells us is that a male poet wrote two poems in the 17th century. We fundamentally can't write a substantive encyclopedic entry on that, and nobody yet has been able to find further coverage. Note the disclaimer above ANYBIO ("meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included.") Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 13:08, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Due to a lack of sources. Happy to reconsider if more are found. MrsSnoozyTurtle 01:26, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I have completed a fairly exhaustive search and cannot find that the person is notable. The entry in the dictionary refers to the person but links to two pieces which were not even authored by the person. Lightburst (talk) 20:47, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Some sources have been added to the article, but at least two of these, and probably the third as well, are talking about a different person of the same name. The Loomis source says that Hugh Bulkeley's father was constable of Beaumaris castle in 1440, so this Hugh can't be from the 17th century. Williams & Kenyon mention two poems, not by Hugh Bulkeley, but addressed to him; these are the same poems mentioned here, from which it can be seen that this is again the 15th-century Hugh. As for the Advertiser source, it doesn't give enough context for a firm identification, but it's talking about the Bulkeley family of Macclesfield, who have not been in Wales since the reign of King John, so it seems unlikely that a 17th-century member of the family would be included in the Dictionary of Welsh Biography. Sojourner in the earth (talk) 05:44, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not to mention that Loomis is self published, and entirely unreliable as a result. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 10:34, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@7&6=thirteen: Please read the sources you're adding. Carr 2017 says that a 15th-century poet, Lewys Môn, "praised the military virtues of Hugh Bulkeley, deputy constable of Conway". You've used this to source the claim that the poems of 17th-century bard Hugh Bulkeley are "noted for their martial themes". There is more than one person in history called Hugh Bulkeley. Sojourner in the earth (talk) 16:51, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete on account of lack of sources supporting notability. I do not mind that the text was uploaded by a terminally blocked contributor. But the cavalier attitude towards guidelines and policies does grate. -The Gnome (talk) 18:15, 5 April 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 14:49, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sagcy

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

Non notable. Does not pass GNG. Sources are PR-stuff. See related AFDs Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aiona Santana, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Farandula Records, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rafael McGuire, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Clemente Romero Bedivere (talk) 14:10, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Women, and Venezuela. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:24, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete "Sagcy" since subject fails the criteria for inclusion. A non-notable singer of very young age attempting a Wikipedia "profile", through the help of a music producer Jésus Villareal aka ChuchoVCJMuzik who created and curated the text. All we have is an avalanche of Advertorials masquerading as sources. -The Gnome (talk) 18:23, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per reasoning in the nomination statement. MrsSnoozyTurtle 03:47, 7 April 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 procedural close - persistent vandalism reverted, protection added. --Joy (talk) 12:42, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Vipnet

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

Contested redirect - single source is primary. Fails WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:39, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Croatia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:16, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
An anonymous user removed the redirect to A1 Hrvatska... why is this simply not reverted, what do we need AFD for? --Joy (talk) 17:17, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As per recent discussions at ANI, any contested redirects cannot simply be redirected again. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 17:40, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Is there actually contesting if the person is not leaving any edit summary or any talk page messages explaining what they want to do? Most of their edits over the course of the last month are already simply reverted already. If there's no objections, I'd just do the same here and protect the redirects for a month or two. --Joy (talk) 18:18, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I was told there were no ifs ends or butts, the revert gets challenged, the only option is AfD. That is, of course, it hasn't been altered so as to meet GNG, at that point, I'd mark it reviewed. But that was not the case here (it rarely is). Feel free to have at it. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 20:11, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support deletion of article, Support reinstatement of redirect, Supported suggested PP. The IP's creation should be deleted, the stable redirect reinstated, and this page, as well as Vip Mobile (for same disruptive reasons) should be PP so the redirects would stay in place.
Full story as I know it: This one editor (same IP range of 5.39.159.xxx) keeps messing with both this page and Vip Mobile claiming that Vipnet is still Vipnet, despite clear sourcing (and heck, the company's website) clearly stating the company renamed to A1. This page, (Vipnet) had been stable as a redirect for about 5 years redirecting to A1 Hrvatska (and Vip mobile going to A1 Srbija). I have had both pages watched since March 3rd due to this IP range's repeated creations and have reverted these false claims each time. It had been too slow and manageable for me to think a PP request would have been accepted, but I think since this has continued, PP might be accepted now. Essentially the created pages have appeared to be lookalike copies of the pages they had redirected to, just with a scrubbing of anything calling it A1 and reverting to the old names. The IP has consistently failed to prove that the company still uses the old name (or that it reverted to the old name). Zinnober9 (talk) 21:18, 31 March 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 Jesus Camp. ✗plicit 13:19, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Becky Fischer

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

Not finding coverage independent of Jesus Camp-- even the 2011 article I added is follow up from the documentary. Suggest redirection there Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 12:03, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Religion. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 12:03, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Christianity and North Dakota. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:15, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Jesus Camp - All of the coverage in reliable independent sources is related to her role in the documentary; everything of encyclopedic value can be included in that article. WJ94 (talk) 15:40, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Notability is largely WP:INHERITED from Jesus Camp. MrsSnoozyTurtle 03:49, 7 April 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 13:11, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Shalini Kapoor

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

NN business person. Mostly just a CV. UtherSRG (talk) 11:58, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Business, Companies, Computing, India, and Uttar Pradesh. UtherSRG (talk) 11:58, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:15, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete I fail to see anything notable here. Each and every sentence reads out like promotional lines (peacock). The company 'IBM AI' mentioned and the wikilinked makes no sense to me. It makes me laugh how did the author used LinkedIn profile as a reference. Most of the references seems like paid PR inlcuding Yourstory.com and others. Clearly doesn't pass WP:GNG, WP:BASIC and WP:ANYBIO.Khorang 20:42, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Promotional article. Fails WP:GNG. Charsaddian (talk) 05:22, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NOTPROMOTION. MrsSnoozyTurtle 03:50, 7 April 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 XOJET Aviation LLC. ✗plicit 13:13, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

XO (aviation company)

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

Private jet company doesn't seem to meet WP:NCORP - lacks in-depth coverage meeting the WP:CORPDEPTH thresholds. MrsSnoozyTurtle 11:31, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Aviation, and Florida. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:08, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with XOJET Aviation LLC. XO appears to be a continuation on XOJET. - ~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by ZLEA (talk • contribs)
Merge per User:ZLEA. These do appear to be the same company. BD2412 T 18:36, 31 March 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 13:14, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lisa Ch'ng

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

Fails GNG and BIO. Sources in article are not about subject. BEFORE showed promo, database entries, nothing that meets SIGCOV from IS RS addressing the subject directly and indepth.

Source eval table:

Comments	Reference
About Miss Hong Kong Miss Cheung Sau Man,. Promotional. Nothing about subject.	1. "Choose Miss Hong Kong to get rid of poverty, the king of the city, Zuxian, and several jobs" . Hong Kong Apple Daily . Archived from the original on 2019-06-04 . Retrieved 2017-11-18 .
Nothing about subject	2. ^ "[Start Filming "Super Messenger"] Zhuang Siming was arrested for stealing a handbag in a production minibus and then using a credit card - Sky Post - Entertainment - China, Hong Kong and Taiwan" . Retrieved 31 March 2023 .
Obit for Malaysian businessman Datuk Bill Ch'ng Chong Poh, nothing about subject	3. ^ "Malaysian-born actress Jacquelin Ch'ng's businessman father, Bill Ch'ng Chong Poh, dies at 83" . Retrieved 31 March 2023 .
Nothing about subject	4. ^ Zhuang Siming was bruised and sunburned to protect Chen Sihan and denied being beaten. Template: Wayback , Apple Daily Entertainment, August 13, 2014
Nothing about subject	5. ^ "Yang Ming's shop buried waiter Zhuang Siming "Wanfu" attracting people" . on.cc东网(in Chinese (Hong Kong)). Archived from the original on 2020-06-21 . Retrieved 2020-01-08 .
Interview about another person. Not IS RS with SIGCOV about the subject.	6. ^ "Lisa Ch'ng says Mat Yeung is fine following DUI charges". Retrieved 31 March 2023.

BLPs need clearly IS RS with SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth for both content and notability to avoid abuse. // Timothy :: talk 11:23, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete failed notability was the reason I CSD tagged this article in the first place while New page patrolling. Quoting from my own talk page: "She was the runner up (not the winner) of a decade old pageant. Even her filmography doesn't have any well known dramas/movies.". Thank you for the thorough reference analysis OP. ❯❯❯ Raydann ^(Talk) 11:51, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Overall speaking, I feel disappointed for your efforts of finding every single reason to reject others' effort. Yes, I never denied the existence of the problem, but I wish you will take a more collaborative approach, especially the problem are indeed addressable. If you put your focus on collaboration instead of criticism, I believe it will be beneficial for the development of Wikipedia. Universehk (talk) 13:09, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If there are no sources to prove notability, collaboration won't help. I'd rather clean it out while it's fresh than to let a non-notable article linger her for a decade. Oaktree b (talk) 20:12, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Women, Beauty pageants, Hong Kong, and Malaysia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:12, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete She visited her boyfriend and was having issues with him, that's about the extent of the fluffy celebrity gossip coverage for her. Nothing for GNG that I can find. Oaktree b (talk) 20:13, 31 March 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 13:15, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of General Motors factories (detailed)

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

I don't think we need List of General Motors factories and List of General Motors factories (detailed), just agree on what level of detail appropriate for the main list and stick to that. Having a proliferation of lists for the exact same subject but with different levels of detail is not helpful IMO, it's just a case of Wikipedia:Content forking. Fram (talk) 10:41, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business, Transportation, Lists, and United States of America. Fram (talk) 10:41, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Ironically, this appears to be around the same length as List of General Motors factories. This is an unneeded fork of another list which is already way too long. This list appears to have been created in response to efforts to trim excessive detail from the main list. The extreme level of detail that was removed shouldn't be in the encyclopedia anywhere, per WP:NOTDIRECTORY and WP:NOTEVERYTHING. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 13:08, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unneeded content fork. There isn't anything beneficial about having this list that the main list doesn't already provide. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 19:48, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Maybe it wouldn't be necessary to have 2 versions of the list if some people were more respectful of others edits. Unfortunately, there are some "editors" around who have made it their job to troll and harass others on the sole basis of invented reasons. So, in the interest of maintaining peace, I felt it was better to have 2 editions: one abridged and one more detailed. Those that prefer abridged can use that page. Those that prefer detailed can use this page. I don't see anything wrong with that. Different strokes for different folks. Everyone is satisfied. Nobody and nothing is hurt because of it. Peace is maintained. Seems like a win-win all around. And, as mentioned, it's about the same length anyway even with the additional details. And it is beneficial to be able to see what was made where all on one page. It's a lot easier than going to each individual factory's page. This is a "one-stop shop" for information on GM factories. For example, you can search the page for a particular vehicle model and see all the places where it was built and at the same time, also see what else was built in that same factory along with some information on each plant. You would not be able to easily do that anywhere else. This may not interest some people but that's fine. Not every wikipedia page must be of interest to every person in the whole world. Different people have different interests. Nothing wrong with that. Let's try to be more tolerant of one another and not be so quick to tear everyone else down.--JustTheFacts33 (talk) 20:33, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is a "one-stop shop" for information on GM factories. No, this is an encyclopedia. It is not a General Motors factory fanpage.

Unfortunately, there are some "editors" around who have made it their job to troll and harass others on the sole basis of invented reasons. I'm sorry you're offended by others who are following Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, even if you think they don't apply to you. You don't get to say "Let's try to be more tolerant of one another" literally right after making personal attacks towards others. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 20:45, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to have misunderstood me so please allow me to clarify: 1. I'm sorry if you thought the trolling and harassing comment was directed toward you Trainsandotherthings but it was not. I didn't identify who it was aimed at in the interest of "not naming names" and trying to not escalate any further. That doesn't mean it's aimed at everyone. 2. What you are identifying as "personal attacks" is in actuality only self-defense. People don't get to attack others and then hide behind "policies" as a cover. There are some people around who seem to do that here. As in the physical world, a person has a right to self-defense in the digital world as well. 3. "This is a "one-stop shop" for information on GM factories." This never referred to wikipedia as a whole, only this particular page. And you're right - this is an encyclopedia. An encyclopedia is supposed to provide factual, detailed information on many different topics. This page meets that criteria. It is not intended to be a "fanpage" as you put it. I did not put in opinions, only facts. And there is no fawning over anything as a fan might do. 4. The concept here of an abridged page and a detailed page on the same topic has precedent. Encyclopædia Britannica was arranged under precisely this concept. The Micropædia set of volumes had shorter, less detailed articles while the Macropædia set of volumes had longer, more in depth articles for those that wanted to go in more detail. And Encyclopædia Britannica predates wikipedia by a long way. And, yes, it was an encyclopedia. I encourage all not familiar with this encyclopedia and this concept to learn more about it. JustTheFacts33 (talk) 08:58, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is a WP:POVFORK. POV forks generally arise when contributors disagree about the content of an article or other page. Instead of resolving that disagreement by consensus, another version of the article (or another article on the same subject) is created to be developed according to a particular point of view. This second article is known as a "POV fork" of the first, and is inconsistent with policy: all facts and major points of view on a certain subject should be treated in one article. As Wikipedia does not view article forking as an acceptable solution to disagreements between contributors, such forks may be merged, or nominated for deletion. We are not Brittanica, and operate quite differently, we have no need for a Macro and Micropedia considering we have nearly unlimited ability to store articles and do not need to worry about fitting everything in physical books (this is discussed at WP:DETAIL). You and other editors need to come to a consensus at the original list regarding how much detail is appropriate; you can't just create your own version filled with excessive detail. Many of the factories are likely notable themselves, and that is where significant detail should go. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 14:49, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"we have nearly unlimited ability to store articles and do not need to worry about fitting everything in physical books". If this is the case, and I do believe that it is, then why do some people keep acting like there is only limited space and if there is, in their view, too much detail, then wikipedia will run out of room or something like that? If there is nearly unlimited space, as you just stated, then it shouldn't be an issue how much detail there is on a given page. As always, those who are not interested don't have to read what they are not interested in. However, just because some people don't find it interesting does not mean that no people find it interesting. Bear in mind also that not every wikipedia reader is going to comment on a certain page's talk page so when a handful of opinions are stated, that is not necessarily a true measure of the opinions of every reader of that given page. JustTheFacts33 (talk) 08:59, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If there is nearly unlimited space, as you just stated, then it shouldn't be an issue how much detail there is on a given page. - That is in direct conflict with the policy WP:NOTEVERYTHING, which states: A Wikipedia article should not be a complete exposition of all possible details, but a summary of accepted knowledge regarding its subject. I think TAOT was saying that we're not Britannica not because of any size limitations, but because we typically don't have both simple and detailed articles on Wikipedia. – Epicgenius (talk) 12:56, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It has nothing to do with it being or not being interesting, it literally violates policy in multiple ways. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 13:32, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The reason for this content fork is this discussion that did not go the author's way. Making a second list does not change consensus. All of that excess detail belongs on the pages for individual facilities. --Sable232 (talk) 23:52, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This is an unnecessary content fork of List of General Motors factories, which seems to have been split specifically for the purpose of retaining excessive details. I would have !voted to redirect the detailed list to the simpler list, but it turns out that the simpler list already had a lot of unnecessary detail, and the removal of said detail is what prompted the creation of the detailed list. – Epicgenius (talk) 21:49, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per everyone else. XtraJovial (talk • contribs) 01:40, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - A "one stop shop" is missing the point of a list and an encyclopedia. A list is a summary, not a dumping ground for any and all related info. You are more than welcome to move that info to the pages for each line item on the list (i.e., each factory) if it (and the factory itself) is notable and verifiable enough for that page. Otherwise, you should find a different website or create your own if you want it all in one location. --Vossanova ^o< 21:45, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete G5 - deleted by @Callanecc:.. Giant Snowman 10:15, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Roman Angot

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

Repeatedly recreated infobox-only article on an amateur footballer playing in the 4th tier of Germany. Draftified twice previously in the exact same state. Taking to AfD to establish consensus. See history of Draft:Roman Angot for more context on the situation. Searches, including this German search included no significant prose coverage of this footballer, which is unsurprising given the level that he plays at. Database profiles like Kicker seem to be the best sources. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:11, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, Laos, and Germany. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:12, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:58, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per nom. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:49, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:56, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fourth tier football is so far down the minors, I wasn't expecting to find anything. I found 4 mentions of him on websites, basically just confirmation of matches he's played in. Nothing we can use for GNG. Perhaps if he gets promoted to the German national team, we'll find something. Oaktree b (talk) 20:17, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. 〜 Festucalex • talk 10:51, 1 April 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 Selkirk transmitting station. ✗plicit 13:16, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Eyemouth transmitting station

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

This (and the others nominated in the same group) are non-notable television and radio relay stations, all relaying the signal from Selkirk transmitting station. The articles cite no sources and give little information beyond the location and frequency of the transmitters. There is nothing unique or remarkable about these stations - they are just minor infill transmitters to cover homes unable to receive the main signal from Selkirk. WP:NOTDIR of radio/TV transmitter locations and frequencies - we do not have an article about every cell site or amateur radio repeater station, for instance. These articles should all be redirected to Selkirk transmitting station. Flip Format (talk) 18:46, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio, Television, United Kingdom, and Scotland. Flip Format (talk) 18:46, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages for the above stated reason:

Redirect all per above. RobinCarmody (talk) 18:55, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:01, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect all to Selkirk transmitting station per nom. SBKSPP (talk) 22:43, 31 March 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 13:20, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Polska (internet celebrity)

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

article about an non-notable influencer backed by poor quality sources. lettherebedarklight 晚安 08:49, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and France. lettherebedarklight 晚安 08:49, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:13, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: My WP:BEFORE was a bit hard since many things are called "Polska", but I was able to scrounge up some results by adding "influenceuse" to the end. However, I could not find any reliable sources with significant coverage. There is some coverage of her after the Quotidien columnist made certain remarks about her and then some about being refused into a restaurant, but these are one-time events that themselves are not encyclopedic at all. Purely clickbaity drama sources can not be the basis of a Wikipedia article. No actual coverage of her or her career was found. Why? I Ask (talk) 10:49, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep : poor quality sources ???

=> New York Post, CNews, Le Parisien, 20 minutes, BFMTV... and the list goes beyond ... CassiJevenn (talk) 13:53, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

New York Post is currently considered generally unreliable. The other sources are not significant coverage. She was a victim of sexism on a television. Is that worth an entire article? Why? I Ask (talk) 14:12, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I was notified of this AFD as a "significant contributor" to the article, but that's likely because I used RevDel on most of the previous revisions to redact personal information. I think it is possible that sources exist in French that would demonstrate adequate notability, but what's in the article currently appears to fail WP:SIGCOV. Given the borderline notability and the fact that we've already had serious BLP issues, we should err on the side of deleting.

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 2006 Pacific typhoon season#Severe Tropical Storm Bopha (Inday). $Salvio giuliano$ 13:31, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Tropical Storm Bopha (2006)

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

Tropical Storm Bopha (2006)

This storm is not sufficiently notable to justify a stand-alone article. It was submitted to Articles for Creation in November 2022, and the reviewer said to discuss at the parent article talk page, Talk:2006 Pacific typhoon season. It was then resubmitted by an unregistered editor (122.*) without discussion. It was then rejected due to the lack of discussion. The 122.* editor then copy-pasted the content of the draft to Tropical Storm Bopha (2006), which had previously been a redirect to the season article, and redirected the draft to the new storm article. The weather notability guide states:

In order to be split off, the basic rule of thumb is that a system should have had a significant impact on land.

. This article, to the extent that it is intelligible, does not describe a significant impact on land.

Robert McClenon (talk) 08:49, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Philippines, and Taiwan. Robert McClenon (talk) 08:49, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as nominator to 2006 Pacific typhoon season, and lock the redirect if necessary. Robert McClenon (talk) 08:50, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep not Redirects 122.52.66.207 (talk) 08:52, 31 March 2023 (UTC) [reply]
Redirect per nom. Chlod (say hi!) 09:16, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per nom to 2006 Pacific typhoon season#Severe Tropical Storm Bopha (Inday), as to guide readers to the correct section. CycloneYoris ^talk! 09:32, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@CycloneYoris has correct section of bopha ok 122.52.66.207 (talk) 10:34, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect pre nom. The draft for this article was created by an IP on 25 March and at no point has it been intelligible English nor properly referenced. The IP addresses keep changing, but same person, most recently 122.52.66.207, has been persistent. The storm is competently described at 2006 Pacific typhoon season. David notMD (talk) 11:26, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete: Copy-paste from draft, an improper move. Restore the redirect and restore the draft. UtherSRG (talk) 11:50, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per nom. 122.52.66.207 (talk) 12:34, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to 2006 Pacific typhoon season#Severe Tropical Storm Bopha (Inday). The prose at the proposed redirect is understandable, while the standalone article is very poorly written. David10244 (talk) 07:41, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per nom. Hansen Sebastian^Talk 17:36, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Not Redirect add ref ok vote a Keep 122.2.115.1 (talk) 02:11, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Poor English and not notable. I stopped editing this when it was still my version of the draft because it wasn't a notable subject. Songda Talas 02:56, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@SongdaTalas edit the draft Bopha 112.209.16.229 (talk) 04:03, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
How am I supposed to know what 'first storm with the PAGASA means'? Besides, there were no damages, and I can't change it because then it would be inaccurate. Songda Talas 12:18, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --112.209.26.43 (talk) 02:34, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Please Keep my draft is done 112.209.26.43 (talk) 02:37, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect? Usually, if a storm caused enough damage to properties and loss of life in the Philippines, then that's what would make me argue in favor of a keep (like in the case of Typhoon Haiyan). But this one barely registered any damage or death for it to deserve its own article. --- Tito Pao (talk) 07:28, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
[Revised] Weak support for redirect or delete. Delete as per WP:NWEATHER statement above. Yet noncompliance to the same statement is also insufficient to make this article a redirect, having this can make further confusion as there's an article on a tropical cyclone with the same international name that caused much significant impact six years later. In this article, i found no any significant point(s), aside from poor editing.—Raider000 (talk) 19:47, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Additional comment. It's better for the article creator (or even for everyone) to make edits on the parent article (2006 Pacific typhoon season) rather than on this one, given the aforementioned criteria for making such.—Raider000 (talk) 23:58, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to 2006 Pacific typhoon season#Severe Tropical Storm Bopha (Inday). Per reasons above by other participants. Infinity (talk - contributions) 22:40, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep --112.209.28.10 (talk) 02:38, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Keep it 119.94.58.16 (talk) 02:24, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to 2006 Pacific typhoon season#Severe Tropical Storm Bopha (Inday): per nom. SeanJ 2007 (talk) 04:33, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --112.209.16.229 (talk) 02:02, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --119.94.37.168 (talk) 02:20, 7 April 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. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 08:51, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

David McIlroy

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

Ambassadors are not inherently notable. No significant coverage to meet WP:BIO. The supplied sources include a primary source and small routine mentions. LibStar (talk) 02:30, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:33, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:34, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:34, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:31, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as sources are available. The comment "Ambassadors are not inherently notable" is too sweeping, there are some postings which are sure to lead to notability, although Guinea is not one of them. Moonraker (talk) 01:17, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
WP:MUSTBESOURCES. LibStar (talk) 01:33, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Another two ambassadors article I started, Carole Crofts and James Lyall Sharp, were deleted for the same vague reason. Moondragon21 (talk) 18:04, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:30, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agree with nominator, found no additional coverage to pass WP:GNG and have sent his predecessor, Catherine Inglehearn to AfD for precisely the same reason. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 09:53, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable under WP:ANYBIO #3 for entry in Who's Who (UK). NB, I have also started a discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_deletion#Ambassadors to clarify whether my interpretation here is correct. --Mgp28 (talk) 13:08, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Who's Who is apparently not a national biographical dictionary so I withdraw that !vote --Mgp28 (talk) 17:40, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:50, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable diplomat. Additional sources include The Belfast Telegraph NI diplomat David McIlroy tells of shielding from gunfire and explosions during Guinea coup and The Irish News Co Derry-born ambassador tells of violence in Guinea as military coup took place Piecesofuk (talk) 14:54, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:41, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. I see a consensus that Who's Who isn't good for verifiability, but is good for notability, therefore helping with a WP:BASIC pass. CT55555(talk) 03:48, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Quite the opposite - Who's Who is no good for notability, it's not a national biographic dictionary. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 08:58, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails GNG and BIO.

Source eval table:

Comments	Reference
	From article
Who's Who entry, not IS RS with SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth	1. "McIlroy, David Thomas, (born 3 March 1968), HM Diplomatic Service; Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, since 2022" in Who's Who, online edition, 01 December 2022, accessed 10 March 2023 (subscription required)
Government announcement, Not IS RS with SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and in depth	2. ^ Jump up to:a b "Change of Her Majesty's Ambassador to Guinea in June 2019". GOV.UK. Retrieved 13 November 2020.
Failed V	3. ^ "Meet the British Ambassadors – Francophone Africa". Invest Africa. Retrieved 13 November 2020.
Government announcement, Not IS RS with SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and in depth	4. ^ "Foreign Secretary Confirms Appointment of New Ambassador to the Republic of Guinea – UKPOL.ORG.UK". Retrieved 13 November 2020.
Government announcement, Not IS RS with SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and in depth	5. ^ "Change of Her Majesty's Ambassador to Guinea in June 2019 – Africa Arbitration". Retrieved 13 November 2020.
	From above
Interview as the source title clearly states, interviews do not show notability	The Belfast Telegraph NI diplomat David McIlroy tells of
Interview as the source title clearly states, interviews do not show notability	The Irish News Co Derry-born ambassador tells of

BEFORE showed nothing that meets IS RS with SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth.

BLPs need clearly IS RS with SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth for both content and notability to avoid abuse per well known core policy (WP:V and WP:BLP) and guidelines (WP:BIO and WP:IS, WP:RS, WP:SIGCOV).— Preceding unsigned comment added by TimothyBlue (talk • contribs)

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:29, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ella’s Bubbles

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

Likely to fail WP:NCORP. Sourced to advertorials. KH-1 (talk) 03:21, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. KH-1 (talk) 03:21, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:28, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, just out curiosity, how many days are given to this tag before the page gets deleted. I am a new editor and trying to learn a few things. Simonriley1994 (talk) 23:02, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Generally 7 days, or until a consensus is reached.-KH-1 (talk) 00:29, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:39, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete An OEM manufacturer of bubbles? I can't find any listings for the company, only on people with her name and bubbles. Oaktree b (talk) 15:49, 31 March 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. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) LibStar (talk) 00:32, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Amanda Davies (scientist)

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

Fails WP:PROF as an academic. This source is a bit more indepth but it's a primary source by her employer. LibStar (talk) 03:12, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Australia. Shellwood (talk) 10:30, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
comment: their GS shows 3 papers with 95+ citations they are very close to the bar as a professor but probably still WP:TOOSOON; however this is presumably a low citation field. I did find this piece in Mashable [39] but that is also a bit little for GNG. --hroest 13:50, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. According to ORCiD [40], the Curtin University senior lecturer described in our article is now at University of Western Australia, where she is full professor and head of school [41], neither an automatic pass of WP:PROF but both suggestive of a pass. She should not be confused with a different Amanda Davies who studies the hospitality industry at Charles Sturt University in Australia. Her book Geographies of Aging has at least four published reviews: Can. Stud. Pop., Ageing & Soc., Geog. Res., Pop. Space & Place. Her Google Scholar profile shows two publications with triple-digit citations, one of them this book. She is also coauthor of a second book Pandemic Cities: The COVID-19 Crisis and Australian Urban Regions but I didn't find any reviews of it. So this is all very borderline. What pushes me towards the keep side of the fence is that another of her UWA profiles [42] lists her as "Fellow of the Institute of Australian Geographers (2017)" (see also fellow commendation). That might be enough for WP:PROF#C3. But the article is going to need a ground-up rewrite; nothing in the nominated version is worth keeping. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:02, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per David and WP:BEFORE. --NoonIcarus (talk) 11:31, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:38, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep because of the Google Scholar page at https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=2bntgSMAAAAJ&hl=en&oi=ao Eastmain (talk • contribs) 07:09, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No secondary sources contrary to WP:GNG. // GMH Melbourne (talk) 04:43, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:HEY following significant updating, clean up and addition of several reliable sources. She's not the strongest academic but in my view well passes WP:PROF. Cabrils (talk) 00:23, 5 April 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 13:18, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Farandula Records

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

Not notable. The author of this article also seems to have a COI with the label, as they have also created the article for Aiona Santana (currently up for deletion) and also the Latin Music Awards (basically, IMO, a pay-to-win award ceremony which is also non-notable). The label has received coverage, but these articles mostly look like PR, paid-for articles. I'm beginning to think the author is being paid or strongly motivated to create these articles. Bedivere (talk) 05:47, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is a second account, RyanAfton, who has uploaded on Commons (see talk page) some of the images ChuchoVCJMuzik has used to illustrate these articles. Too much of a coincidence?

Chucho has created articles about people of dubious notability, some of which have been already deleted. For example, Rafael McGuire was nominated for deletion (see here) and it was pointed out "Sources appear to be puff pieces/paid PR". Same applies here. Bedivere (talk) 05:49, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A third user, Guairahumber, has uploaded some obviously PR photos of artists related to Paisclo Solutions Corp (whose deleted article was also created by Chucho). Guaira uploaded on 19 February File:B Martin 3.png, especially for an article created three days earlier by Chucho (B Martin, also of dubious notability). Perhaps this should be reported somewhere else, but I'm leaving it up here for now for commenters to analyze. --Bedivere (talk) 05:56, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You're good at investigating, but slander is terrible. You don't have proof of what you're saying, so if you want references, I'll look for them for you, if you want them to be from important press, I'll look for them too; now, if you say that these notes have no value because they have been paid, find me an invoice, or evidence that the press releases are paid, find me evidence that by placing the name of the articles on Google, you do not return no results.

You know that they are articles that are not perfect, but they pass, in addition, they had already been reviewed and approved. ChuchoVCJMuzik (talk) 16:40, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

They were reviewed? Good. Does that make them immune from being nominated for deletion? Nope. Points were made and the community will now decide. Please refrain from making personal attacks, as you have repeatedly done here and in another nomination. One more and you get a report. Bedivere (talk) 23:33, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Companies, and Canada. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:36, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nom, sources in the article are promo, not SIGCOV from IS RS addressing the subject directly and indepth. // Timothy :: talk 12:08, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this blatant attempt at advertising. There is nothing to support notability there. For quite some time now, it has been decided that Wikipedia is not a promotional medium, nor a collection of random information. -The Gnome (talk) 18:30, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 08:54, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hoichoi

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

All news are PR Based on material. Fails WP:NCORP Lordofhunter (talk) 07:12, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business and India. Lordofhunter (talk) 07:12, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Hi Lordofhunter,

hoichoi is an renowned Bengali OTT platform with a userbase of more than 10M+ (According to Google's playstore).

All the PRs are based on content releases. For better understanding we can add more relevant PRs which tells more about the platform.

I hope this is fine with you. People do search "hoichoi" in wikipedia and they landed to this page to know the latest content available on the platform. Deletion of such a rich and contentful Wikipedia page is won't be a good option though. Bitwits (talk) 08:09, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Press releases are not acceptable per WP:ORGIND Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:19, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Spiderone, we can add more relevant details if Press releases are not acceptable. Bitwits (talk) 05:14, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Entertainment, Companies, and West Bengal. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:17, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bitwits Could you please explain, what do you mean by "WE"?Lordofhunter (talk) 05:37, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"WE" means me you and other Wikipedia writers like Lordofhunter. Or other writers who contributes to the same type of pages on Wikipedia. Bitwits (talk) 05:43, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Would you happen know any of these wikipedia "writers"? btw you have an interesting talk page history re: article creation. // Timothy :: talk 12:54, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A search on Google news shows in depth coverage in independent reliable sources such as Variety (magazine)^{24 Sep 2021, 19 Jan 2023} and Mint (newspaper)^{24 Sep 2021} Google scholar also shows coverage in studies of the video streaming industry in Bangladesh (though some of these have backlisted URLs). Clearly the company and its activities are notable. -- Toddy1 (talk) 08:04, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Number of Google searches are not the criteria. Please read WP:GSNR. Variety source is just an announcement of launch in Bangladesh and the reaction of it by Company's founder. How is it independent? 2nd source Livemint heading itself says, it's an announcement, nothing more than PR Material. Lordofhunter (talk) 05:02, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As suggested some of the articles which are intend to be promotional or containing launch details have been removed. I hope this is fine now. Bitwits (talk) 10:01, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is the main concern, which is still not addressed. It's okay to have launch detail in a page, however, those are not the sources which defines notability. Lordofhunter (talk) 10:30, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If you had done the WP:BEFORE process you would have never have submitted this AFD. Step D in the process is: "search for additional sources, if the main concern is notability". You did not do it. As mentioned above Google news and Google scholar show that the the company is notable.-- Toddy1 (talk) 10:41, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WP:GSNR Lordofhunter (talk) 04:50, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I hope these articles published on multiple Indian leading news websites prove the platform's notability:

Response You need to read WP:NCORP, especially WP:ORGIND and/or WP:CORPDEPTH. The India Times reference relies entirely on information provided by the company, fails ORGIND. It is also not in-depth, fails CORPDEPTH. This Business Standard reference is also *entirely* based on information provided by the company at their launch party, fails both CORPDEPTH and ORGIND. The Telegraph India reference is a puff profile that also relies entirely on information provided by the company, also fails both CORPDEPTH and ORGIND. HighKing⁺⁺ 12:26, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I removed promotional unreferenced material and program listing. The rest of the article is supported by promotional materials, mentions, nothing that meets SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth. Fails GNG, SNGs. // Timothy :: talk 13:10, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Timothy, can you please guide me how I can get it fixed? Bitwits (talk) 13:42, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 17:05, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep It's covered in Variety, doesn't seem to be a contributor piece [43] and the Dhaka Tribune [44]. They seem like ok-ish sources. Oaktree b (talk) 23:26, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If you read [45] properly, then it is about future plans and movies. The bottom content is again a statement given by the company. In the whole content, it is hard to find independent analysis by the journalist about the company. While the 2nd source is a clear announcement of 5 new series.Lordofhunter (talk) 10:54, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Oaktree b, the Variety piece *and* the Dhaka Tribune piece rely entirely on an announcement of future plans made by the company on their 5th "birthday". For example, in or around the same time, similar article discussing the exact same topic can be found on Binged, The Times of India and (most telling) Media Brief (which is used for announcements). Because of that, those references fail WP:ORGIND. HighKing⁺⁺ 12:14, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the reference links have been removed. Hope the article is fine now. Bitwits (talk) 12:08, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand, the point. All are poor sources. Majority of them are show annoucement and launch, and half of them are not even reliable sources. If you think sources exist please share them here. Lordofhunter (talk) 03:53, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

And he/she evidently does not understand your point either. What he/she should be doing, is going through Google News and Google Scholar searches to improve the article - but you did not make that clear to him. What he/she thinks you are asking him/her to do is to delete some of the citations, so he/she did so.[46] -- Toddy1 (talk) 08:42, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Here are two references that can prove the credibility of hoichoi as a leading vernacular OTT platform of India. The digital landscape is extremely dynamic. But these two references from the last two years both mention hoichoi as a leading part of India's OTT landscape.

https://www.themobileindian.com/picture-story/top-10-regional-ott-platforms/9

https://www.vogue.in/culture-and-living/content/ott-platforms-for-regional-language-shows-and-movies-marathi-bengali-telegu Bitwits (talk) 11:26, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:ORG Both the references are generic about the Industry and not indepth about Hoichoi, only 1/10 content is written about it which itself is not a research based content. 1st source is not even reliable. Lordofhunter (talk) 20:55, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly, both the references are generic and discuss the whole industry proving that it is not self generated or material based. It is important to understand that the industry is itself a relatively new one. With a regional OTT platform introduced just six years ago, you won't get generic in-depth research. If you think every reference, and every detail that I am providing is not sufficient enough, I request you to help me with the same by providing the required details which can help to increase the notability of the platform. 27.131.209.133 (talk) 08:13, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

hoichoi details are also present on Over-the-top media services in India Bitwits (talk) 08:15, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:54, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is a company therefore GNG/WP:NCORP requires at least two deep or significant sources with each source containing "Independent Content" showing in-depth information *on the company*. "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. In plain English, this means that references cannot rely *only* on information provided by the company. What we have here are a number of such articles which rely *entirely* on interviews or quotations filled in with generic/common company descriptions with a tendency to not talk about the *company* but about the content and/or future plans or financial performance. There was also mention of an analyst report by RBSA which I've downloaded and read - the company gets a total of two mentions with nothing in-depth about the company. None of these sources meet the criteria for establishing notability. HighKing⁺⁺ 12:31, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Here is the platform based research article that totally describes the platform and company details in-depth: https://bootcamp.uxdesign.cc/hoichoi-tv-product-analysis-redesign-d2ebd48d0317 Bitwits (talk) 09:56, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't a reliable source - it is essentially a blog and does not have editorial standards - see WP:RS. HighKing⁺⁺ 10:22, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Article's subject fails WP:GNG and WP:NCORP. The Vogue piece isn't significant coverage, and the interview/churnalism/PR pieces aren't independent coverage. I couldn't find anything online that would warrant a Wikipedia article on this subject at this time. - Aoidh (talk) 14:42, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I just got two other articles with mentions of hoichoi that can be considered credible references. Here are the details for review - https://inc42.com/reports/indias-top-200-startups-financial-index-report-2023/

https://www.mica.ac.in/images/OTT/MICA%20Indian%20OTT%20Platforms%20Report%202021.pdf Tohishi Majumder (talk) 07:28, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Database entries like that are very specifically trivial coverage and do not contribute to the notability of the subject. - Aoidh (talk) 08:03, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'll also add that the mica report includes the sources of info as footnotes and it is clear that the data is garnered from PR and company information. That fails ORGIND, it is difficult to see what "Independent Content" if any exists. HighKing⁺⁺ 12:28, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Shawn Teller (he/her) (talk) 04:06, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom. All news are PR and promotional. As an OTT platform, the topic can be added in future with independent news. Don’t Get Hope And Give Up — Preceding undated comment added 09:52, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There are multiple articles which are not intend to be promotional, as I mentioned earlier, there are many independent news articles that talks about the platform, and overall OTT business in India. Bitwits (talk) 10:53, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Bitwits, judging from your various comments, you appear to be restating stuff from before even though others have explained why previous references fail the criteria for establishing notability. Here is how GNG/NCORP applies.

This is a company therefore GNG/WP:NCORP guidelines apply which requires references that discuss the topic (ie the *company*) in detail. There are some particular sections you should be aware of.
WP:SIRS tells us that *each* reference must meet all the criteria for establishing notability - at least two deep or significant sources containing "Independent Content" showing in-depth information *on the company*. "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject.
So references cannot rely *only* on information provided by the company such as articles that rely entirely on quotations, press releases, announcements, interviews, website information, etc - even when slightly modified. If it isn't *clearly* showing independent content then it fails ORGIND. Also, quantity of "coverage" isn't relevant - a million "mentions" or single-sentence descriptions does not meet the criteria, nor can multiple sources be combined. We just need two good quality independent sources that discusses the topic company in detail.

So you've said on multiple occasions that there are "many independent articles that talks about the platform" but you don't appear to understand why editors here are saying that they fail our criteria for establishing notability. You appear to mean "independent" to only refer to a lack of corporate relationship between the topic company and the publisher - but that fails to consider the *content* which must also be "independent". As a last attempt to ensure nothing is being missed, can you post two links here to the two references you believe meets GNG/NCORP as described? HighKing⁺⁺ 12:24, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bitwits What I think he/she is means is that some references are useful for building the article, but do not count towards establishing notability. That does not mean that the references should be removed from the article. It is just they do not count in a deletion discussion.-- Toddy1 (talk) 12:30, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes! Sorry if that wasn't made clear. Any reference from a reliable source may be used to support the content of the article but not all references meet the standards required for establishing notability. At AfD, we're only concerned with finding the second type of sources. HighKing⁺⁺ 13:57, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Its really helpful thanks! 45.64.237.85 (talk) 12:32, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for clearing the doubts. Bitwits (talk) 12:33, 4 April 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. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 07:47, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Shahryar Rashed

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

Unreferenced for 18 years. Only 1 gnews hit for English name. Could not find coverage in Urdu, although there may be some out there and I'd reconsider. LibStar (talk) 03:51, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Poetry, Bilateral relations, and Pakistan. AllyD (talk) 06:06, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Couldn't find anything in Urdu sources either. Fails WP:GNG. Insight 3 (talk) 07:27, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Uzbekistan-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:36, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nom, fails WP:NBASIC. M.Ashraf333 (talk) 06:04, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) asilvering (talk) 05:33, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Barry Biesanz

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

Non-notable artisan. NO coverage at all found, appears to be a working person only with no critical notice. Not at GNG. Oaktree b (talk) 03:26, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. Oaktree b (talk) 03:26, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I'm shocked too, to be honest -- really didn't expect anything but I should've because a lot of these are actually listed in the article (kind of weirdly, but they're there). Newspapers.com pulled a plethora of coverage, including a feature-length article from the Edmonton Journal and other papers from the same ownership company ([47]). He was mentioned in a paragraph of "Trip Coach" from an Arthur Frommer magazine ([48]), appears in the "Bring the Troops Home Now" newsletter on p. 15 as the catalyst for a student protest in a high school that also garnered some press attention where he was featured in it ("barry biesanz", [49], [50]), appears in the NYT in a feature about Costa Rican wood in a positive review in two separate paragraphs analyzing his work ([51]). Needs cleanup, but WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP and the article does seem to have at least a bit of a good (if un-referenced) base, so I'm not at WP:TNT. Nomader (talk) 04:05, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'll include references to the newspaper articles today; I think I have a dozen or so articles. Most of the newspaper articles are pre internet tho, except for the two New York Times articles. I'll also add categories today. You are right, he was interviewed for the anti vietnam war protest in Time or Newsweek and Playboy, another reference to add today. Cortez amarilla (talk) 12:50, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
For what it's worth, normally when I go to clip Newspapers.com stories, I do it myself -- most of these, it looks like you found them already (I'm assuming they're yours). If so, really good work pulling all of these together. Nomader (talk) 15:19, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! Still looking for citations for the other articles and exhibitions. Cortez amarilla (talk) 22:56, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Costa Rica and Louisiana. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:35, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Citations will be added today - there's quite a bit of news coverage. Cortez amarilla (talk) 13:14, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I checked the Edmonton Journal article and the nyt article. Both of these are easily sigcov. — hako9 (talk) 02:29, 9 April 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 03:40, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Chet Jablonski

AfDs for this article:

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

Non-notable wrestler, search brings up Fandom, Linkedin and a few fan sites. Appears to be in the "minor leagues" of WWE wrestling, hasn't earned much critical notice from the press. Oaktree b (talk) 03:23, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Oaktree b (talk) 03:23, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Wrestling and New York. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:34, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

He many have not been as well known but he was a two time OVW Heavyweight Champion and a seven time HWA Tag Team Champion. He was originally supposed to debut in WWE in early 2008 but was suspended by them for violating the Wellness program and was released. That was the beginning of the end of his career. He retired young at 29 years old in July 2010, a month and half away form his 30th birthday. If he had not been suspend and let go who knows where he would have gone and would have lasted longer.Kingzwest (talk) 01:42, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete career minor leaguer. "What ifs" don't really contribute to notability. Twopower332.1938 (talk) 16:43, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree that he might have been more famous if x didn’t happen isn’t a valid rational to keep the article.--70.24.249.205 (talk) 22:29, 1 April 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 03:41, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

AMA Fight Club

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

Non-notable club. Gsearch's first hit is this article, then their own website, then various blogs and such. Nothing in Gnews. This is likely PROMO for some sort of MMA club. Oaktree b (talk) 03:09, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Oaktree b (talk) 03:09, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I see interviews with the club's owner, passing mentions ("fighter x trained at AMA"), and some blog mentions. None of these is sufficient to show that WP:GNG or any SNG is met. There's a definite lack of significant independent coverage in reliable sources about this gym. Papaursa (talk) 03:33, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Martial arts and New Jersey. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:33, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The references that do mention the gym appear to mostly be blogs of dubious reliability. Others have no mention of the gym and a few are deadlinks. Best, GPL93 (talk) 13:15, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:FIGHTCLUB: Welcome to AMA Fight Club. The first rule of AMA Fight Club is: you do not talk about AMA Fight Club. The second rule of AMA Fight Club is: you DO NOT talk about AMA Fight Club! Third rule of AMA Fight Club: if someone yells "Delete!", fails to provide in-depth reliable and verifiable sources establishing notability, or taps out, the article is over. The first two rules are violated in that AMA Fight Club is being discussed here. Rule three is not met as there are no such sources here. As the WP:FIGHTCLUB standard is not met, the article should be deleted. Alansohn (talk) 18:50, 31 March 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 03:42, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Seyyed Mohammad Reza Saeedi

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

Fails general notability. Cleric that has done nothing except being a cleric (which does not automatically make the subject notable). JoseJan89 (talk) 09:38, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Does not meet WP:GNG, and has zero notability apart from being a cleric. ImperialMajority (talk) 14:16, 23 March 2023 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE. ✗plicit 03:50, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Islam, and Iran. Shellwood (talk) 16:14, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 03:05, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete since clerics are not inherently notable, and that is all he seems to have going for himself here. WP:GNG does not seem to be met in this article. Fad Ariff (talk) 12:07, 6 April 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 03:41, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Gil Filar

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

Fails WP:NACTOR. Mr. Filar is a former child actor. While he has a substantial number of film and television credits, these appear to have been minor parts. I looked for sources and found various mentions in cast lists, plus some more recent interview comments by a Canadian restaurateur who may or may not be the same person: [52][53][54][55]. gnu 57 02:22, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Authors, and Canada. gnu 57 02:22, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't think the restaurant person is him. These are bit parts, nothing for ACTOR. Oaktree b (talk) 03:20, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, ditto reasons above, his page reads like an IMDB page, rather then an encylopedic article, -I.R.B.A.T^{(yell at me) (The IRBAT Files)} 13:16, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As always, actors are not "inherently" notable just because the article lists roles — having acting roles is literally the job description, so every actor would automatically get a Wikipedia article if just listing roles were all it took. Rather, the notability test hinges on the extent to which the actor can or cannot be shown to have reliable source coverage in real media about at least some of his roles, but absolutely none is being shown here at all — this is "referenced" entirely to primary sources (the self-published website of his own publishing company and his own MFA thesis being circularly cited as metaverification of its own existence) that aren't support for notability at all. It's impossible to know for sure whether the actor is the same person as the restaurateur or not, since absolutely none of the restaurateur's sources say anything about a prior acting career at all — but precisely because we can't verify that, it can't be used to build the notability of the actor (especially since there isn't even enough of it to really secure passage of our notability criteria for restaurateurs either). Considering that he doesn't seem to have had an acting role in 15 years now, I also did a ProQuest search to check for older sourcing that wouldn't have Googled, but I still just got glancing namechecks of his existence in cast lists rather than GNG-building coverage about his performances. Bearcat (talk) 16:30, 5 April 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. Greshthegreat (talk) 05:02, 1 April 2023 (UTC) (non-admin closure)[reply]

E3 2023

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

Event did not occur, and thus does not meet notability. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 01:26, 31 March 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 March 31. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 01:47, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

However, The seeming end of E3 is the signal of a massive shift in the gaming industry due to the fact developers and manufacturers all have their own conferences. 184.180.10.2 (talk) 02:37, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The yearly hype around E3 makes this still a notable event, and as stated above, the event being cancelled for a second year in a row marks a shift in the gaming industry as we currently know it. MauveDash (talk) 03:08, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Agree wtih the previous comments. A planned event not happening does not mean the article is no longer notable; for example, the page for the Morgenthau Plan is still available despite it having not happened. This event is especially notable because it is a major international conference in the gaming industry, and numerous gaming news outlets have covered its planning and cancellation. Also, previous E3 events have been cancelled and the pages for those events have been retained without discussion, so I believe this page should also be retained based on precedent. ByteMega (talk) 03:21, 31 March 2023

Keep the last cancelled event was E3 2020, and it was kept anyway. Yes, end of an era, which if anything makes this more notable than typical cancelled events. E3 2024 probably would not need creating though. Juxlos (talk) 03:31, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. DecafPotato (talk) 03:53, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I'd argue that even in its cancellation, it's still receiving coverage (randomly pulled examples, including [56], [57]). It's a cultural touchstone and its cancellation could make for a very interesting article with already existing sources if someone was up for expanding it. Nomader (talk) 04:09, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Nomader (talk) 04:10, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep "Didn't happen" is not a policy based argument for deletion. If it was notable last week, and then surprising news was covered by major sources, surely its notability could not have decreased. ApLundell (talk) 04:29, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – No reason it can't be summarised on the E3 article. --Pokelova (talk) 05:19, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The cancellation of this event isn't like E3 2022 where it was just another event being pulled casually, this one has been both getting alot of coverage leading up and after cancellation because of the bigger notability of what this means for E3 and the gaming world. - K-popguardian (talk) 05:56, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. --Wow (talk) 07:20, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unlike E3 2020, where everything was set in place and then cancelled in the last "minute", there was never really anything big announced for 2023. Any after-effects of the cancellation can and should be covered in the main article, as it affects E3 and not (really) this year's plans, as there really weren't any to begin with. – sgeureka ^t•c 08:03, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Added: This is not about (lack of) notability, but about the amount of 2023-specific stuff to say. "Yes, the 2023 event was planned, but no one wanted to participate, no one else pre-announced anything, then the event was cancelled, bye" is not a good basis for an article. – sgeureka ^t•c

@Sgeureka: I'd argue that per the consensus established at the planned presidential transition of Mitt Romney AfD back in 2016 (where I ironically argued to redirect and disagree with today), "That something didn't happen doesn't mean it isn't notable, and this is clearly a well-documented topic." So it is with this one. Nomader (talk) 15:27, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Similar to E3 2020, it's notable despite its cancellation. There was significant coverage of the event up to when it was cancelled. The rationale makes no sense in light of the existence of E3 2020. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 09:23, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The delete votes above argue that it can be covered in the main article. If it is not kept, then a merge would be preferable to deletion. Why? I Ask (talk) 10:26, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with E3: Whilst the nomination is flawed (we don't delete simply because something didn't happen), I don't see the above certifications that there was plenty of coverage about this event. Citations talk about E3 not putting on a show; which I don't see how it is indepently notable from the main E3 article, and could be summarised in a paragraph. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:13, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOTPAPER - the other E3's have a page and got significant coverage, this E3 clearly got significant coverage in the months-long run up to its cancellation, the only real reason to merge is some notion about preserving space that is not relevant in a digital encyclopedia. It ultimately doesn't really matter if it didn't happen, because for a while there was serious and legitimate preparation for it as an event. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 11:48, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Ironically, it cancellation will probably create more coverage about the event itself (and not just the things announced at it) than most years. Sergecross73 msg me 12:23, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The cancellation was very notable. "It didn't happen" is not a valid deletion rationale, per ATA. QuicoleJR (talk) 13:45, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Notability is not temporary. Even if a notable event is cancelled, it is still notable. looking at the already existing sources, this event definitely meets WP:EVENT as most of the sources are independent and reliable. Pizzaplayer219^Talk_Contribs 16:33, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - A poor reason by nominator. Just because the event has been cancelled doesn't dismiss the article's notability with the significant coverage this E3 got leading up the event and it's eventual cancellation, as well any possible significant post-cancellation coverage. TheDeviantPro (talk) 04:35, 1 April 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 03:43, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Scene & Heard

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

Could not find significant coverage to meet WP:ORG. 2 of the 3 sources are its own website. Having notable patrons does not confer automatic notability. LibStar (talk) 01:34, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and United Kingdom. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:31, 31 March 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 03:44, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mirchi (restaurant)

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

Fails WP:CORP. Created by a single purpose editor so possible WP:PROMO. Hardly any articles link to this. A number of provided sources are dead links and tripadvisor can't be considered a reliable source. LibStar (talk) 00:45, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink, Companies, and United Arab Emirates. AllyD (talk) 06:10, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Rejected at AfC 4 times, but then moved to mainspace by the WP:SPA WP:COI article creator, without substantial change. I agree with the reviewers in the 2 AfC reviews on 1st Nov 2015 that the local business awards are insufficient here. Searches are not finding better than listings confirming that this is a company going about its business; fails WP:NCORP. AllyD (talk) 11:01, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:32, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Leibowitz

AfDs for this article:

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

As noted by User:Gobonobo, who added an advert maintenance tag in 2020, the text of this article reads incredibly suspiciously like a paid advertisement. I completely concur. Additionally, the main contributor to the article, User:Metalduky54, was highly suspiciously inactive on Wikipedia aside from this article a few select others, which points to this article being an advertisement created by a paid editor. Google searches do not seem to indicate the subject of the article is notable. Based on all these factors, I believe the article should be deleted. CeltBrowne (talk) 19:25, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Did some digging and it looks to be an advertisement. ImperialMajority (talk) 20:14, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:44, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable and promotional. I also see this article’s creator has been involved with Domenica Leibowitz which I think could be nominated for the same reasons. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 22:17, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Discounting the comment by the blocked sockpuppet, there should ideally be more input to establish a consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Aoidh (talk) 00:39, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Plenty of photo shoots he's done for GQ and Esquire, but nothing about the person. Appears promo. Oaktree b (talk) 02:54, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Advertising. Athel cb (talk) 09:25, 31 March 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 University of Manitoba. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:34, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Asper School of Business

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

Does not meet WP:ORG. This reads as a promotional brochure. I considered proposing a merge with its parent school, but I don't think there is content worth merging. Also seems to be a target of school personnel, one of whom was blocked, but will not engage with us. 331dot (talk) 21:07, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business, Education, and Canada. 331dot (talk) 21:07, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to University of Manitoba. LibStar (talk) 23:39, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:19, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Aoidh (talk) 00:29, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - to University of Manitoba per ATD as this subject fails GNG. 69.92.163.38 (talk) 14:42, 1 April 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.