Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 September 19

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< September 18	September 20 >

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 delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:17, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

From Nsukka With Love

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

Non-notable track by non-notable artist. Gjs238 (talk) 23:50, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs and Nigeria. Skynxnex (talk) 00:31, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete: Perm nom, and listed sources are some weak "download/listen" links which clearly does not pass WP:RSMUSIC. ihateneo (talk) 02:23, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note - See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Son Of The Sun, another release by the same singer and created by the same WP editor, who has done nothing outside these articles and a draft article for the singer. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 13:26, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That other album article has now been deleted. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 22:16, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This EP has only been noticed by the usual Nigerian self-promotion sites that repeat publicity announcements from managers. I can find no reliable coverage or reviews. At the time of this writing, the same WP editor is in the process of getting a draft article for the singer reviewed: Draft:Mofizzay. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 13:27, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:17, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kingsbury Family

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Kingsbury Family

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

unsourced 15 year old stub. As far as I can tell, this family is not notable enough to have its own Wikipedia page Pecopteris (talk) 23:45, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people, History, England, and United States of America. Skynxnex (talk) 00:40, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: This article doesn't even say anything, so trying to find sources only based off the non-uncommon surname and the fact they were colonial is impossible to ensure you're discussing the right one. Nothing would be lost with deletion, even if the family was notable. Why? I Ask (talk) 03:00, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Pecopteris is an old IRL friend of mine. He told me today that he had gotten back into editing Wikipedia, and that he was deleting an article I made back in the day. Surprisingly I remembered my old password and got into this account again. I agree with deleting the article, because it's garbage, and I made it when I was 11 years old. Chesslover96 (talk) 03:33, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's tough to beat an explanation that compelling. I too endorse the delete. Suriname0 (talk) 04:00, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete. This article was only twice since its creation back in 2009. Clearly not notable. 🛧Midori No Sora♪🛪 ( ☁＝☁＝✈) 06:02, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 10:57, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. AryKun (talk) 15:04, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Just in case consensus was not already rock solid — MaxnaCarta ( 💬 • 📝 ) 02:35, 25 September 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!} 23:16, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Efthalia Siakalli

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

The subject has appeared for the Cyprus women's national football team. I am unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage from third-party sources, failing WP:GNG. This was the most I found. JTtheOG (talk) 23:10, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and Cyprus. JTtheOG (talk) 23:10, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 19:02, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 19:03, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:15, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Glo music

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

doesnt exist - FMSky (talk) 10:47, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. FMSky (talk) 10:47, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with trap music, which needs some work but is at least fairly well-sourced and comprehensive. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 14:54, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

its not mentioned anywhere in that article (other than the link that the glo music article creator added to the infobox). --FMSky (talk) 16:53, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete couldn't find any use of the term in WP:RS. Probably could be redirected somewhere... -KH-1 (talk) 06:38, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 15:52, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep Seems to be mentioned in Nigerian news sources [1], [2], neither one is extensive coverage, but it exists. Oaktree b (talk) 20:04, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:09, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Yet another sub-sub-sub genre of Chicago house; no significant coverage.JSFarman (talk) 16:57, 20 September 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!} 23:14, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Volume of Self

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

The band itself is not notable, this recording less so. No chart placement, no record of notability. Fails WP:NALBUM: "All articles on albums or other recordings should meet the basic criteria at the notability guidelines, with significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." Redirect as ATD unlikely as band article is itself at AfD. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 15:53, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music and United Kingdom. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 15:53, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:08, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article about the album's author was soft deleted, but had a vote saying that there was "no coverage for this musical group". I assume the same logic can be applied to this article. The first reference provides a list of songs in this album, and the second appears to be an article about this album on Blabbermouth, which is a heavy metal news site. As far as I can tell, that is the only source I could find for either of these articles, so this article doesn't meet the WP:GNG or WP:NALBUM.

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 ISO 8583. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:06, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

AS 2805

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

Fails WP:GNG. TarnishedPath^talk 11:31, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and Australia. TarnishedPath^talk 11:31, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete My PROD was removed with no improvement. No indication this generic standard is notable – there's a lot of standards out there and would need sources and explanation beyond statement of existence. Reywas92^Talk 13:46, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Standards Australia - Follow-on to AS3959. Even with good sourcing (which this does not have), the subject does not pass WP:GNG. It clearly fails WP:SIGCOV and nothing else points to notability. This is an individual standard that, as important as it may be in specific circumstances, is simply not that notable. Cheers, Last1in (talk) 14:19, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into ISO 8583 as much of the content in that article also applies to AS 2805. Icd (talk) 10:53, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:11, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Two different Merge targets proposed here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 15:53, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:08, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Slightly prefer the merge to ISO 8583. (Redirect) Suriname0 (talk) 04:04, 20 September 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 Hydrostatic test. RL0919 (talk) 23:50, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

AS/NZS 3788

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

Fails WP:GNG. TarnishedPath^talk 11:34, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and Australia. TarnishedPath^talk 11:34, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete My PROD was removed with no improvement. No indication this generic standard is notable – there's a lot of standards out there and would need sources and explanation beyond statement of existence. Reywas92^Talk 13:46, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Standards Australia - Follow-on to AS3959. Even with good sourcing (which this does not have), the subject does not pass WP:GNG. It clearly fails WP:SIGCOV and nothing else points to notability. This is an individual standard that, as important as it may be in specific circumstances, is simply not that notable. Cheers, Last1in (talk) 14:19, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Many standards, including this one, are adopted by government agencies and therefore have the force of law. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 14:25, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The result would be identical if it were an actual law. On its own, it is simply not notable. The Standards Australia article is the right home for this info. Cheers, Last1in (talk) 14:43, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This does not make them notable in and of themselves. Please refer to WP:KITCHENSINK. Wikipedia is not a random collection of information. TarnishedPath^talk 00:09, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I could not find any coverage that would meet GNG. The fact that many standards have the force of law is irrelevant to satisfying GNG. LibStar (talk) 04:48, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge maybe into Hydrostatic test NealeWellington (talk) 10:14, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Multiple Merge targets proposed here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 15:54, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:08, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. We are just trying to settle on one Merge target article here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:14, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to hydrostatic test, seems the more appropriate redirect. Deus et lex (talk) 05:50, 27 September 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!} 23:13, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Emile Jansen

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

Fails WP:NACTOR can't find any independent sources that cover him in depth an autobiography that has been tagged for 13 years.Theroadislong (talk) 14:26, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Netherlands. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:01, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:51, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep Seems to have coverage in Dutch sources [3] and [4]. Gtranslate of the articles say he's won an acting award, I'd assume that would imply notability. The Dutch and German wiki articles are about as source-less as this one... Oaktree b (talk) 19:48, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:07, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Most "local" newspapers in Holland are actually regional. Not the ones used by my AfD friend above. These items are not independent either. The subject is a professional actor who has participated in an impressive (!) amount of media series and units. The problem for encyclopedic notability is that he nowhere led. He remained a professional at work, even where the units in which he acted became famous. That's fine yet moves him to the group of professional actors who are NN for Wikipedia. He is still a great fit for IMDb. gidonb (talk) 07:50, 23 September 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!} 02:57, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Roman Aramian

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

Boxer of unsure notability. It appears that he did ~~win~~ contend for some international title fights according to his BoxRec profile (BDB International Middle, EBU European Super Middle, WBA Inter-Continental Super Middle), but don't know how notable those are. Natg 19 (talk) 18:37, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

He didn't win an EBU or WBA title, although he did fight for them. Papaursa (talk) 00:57, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Whoops, thanks, struck and edited. Natg 19 (talk) 01:11, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Boxing, Armenia, and Germany. Natg 19 (talk) 18:37, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Soft Keep- Some of those awards are notable (especially the European Super Middle). I'd support a soft keep if the article could be improved/expanded further with other notable information. Archives908 (talk) 21:32, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NBOX says to be notable a boxer must be ranked in the top 10 in the world. Aramian was never close, the article says he was 174th. He lost every round and finally had to retire from his fight for the EBU Super Middle title--and even if he'd won it wouldn't show WP notability. He did win the inaugural EBF middleweight title, a much more minor title that he never defended. He also won (and lost) some BDB (German Professional Boxer Association) title bouts, but those are also minor. The only sources I can find are either fight reports or database entries, so WP:GNG doesn't appear to be met. There might also be COI issues given that the creating editor only made a total of 8 edits to WP. Papaursa (talk) 00:57, 14 September 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, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm not finding extensive coverage about him, one match recap in Gnewspapers, this [5] is a passing mention. I don't think we're at notability. Oaktree b (talk) 00:28, 20 September 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!} 02:42, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Philip Wilkinson (entrepreneur)

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

Non-notable entrepreneur. There are reliable sources that mention him such as Forbes (staff written), TechCrunh, and The Guardian, but these are mainly mentions of him founding the companies. A lot of quotes and directly listings as well but nothing that adds up to notability. CNMall41 (talk) 19:06, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Businesspeople. CNMall41 (talk) 19:06, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:07, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm not finding sources to support notability, although the "serial entrepreneur" title does seem to be apt. The article is out of date and he has added a few more enterprises, like this, but that is as much of a source as I can find, and that's just a name check. Lamona (talk) 04:17, 17 September 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!} 23:06, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:06, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No sources beyond PR items found for this individual Oaktree b (talk) 00:33, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. No further input since initial disagreements, despite two relists. RL0919 (talk) 22:53, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Malik ibn al-Nadr

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

No indication whatsoever of importance or notability. Wikipedia is WP:NOTGENEALOGY. WP:BEFORE shows no indication whatsoever of historical importance. Notability is also WP:NOTINHERITED, but even if it were, this subject is 14 generations away from Muhammad. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 22:49, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Islam, and People. A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 23:30, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NOTGENEALOGY. Goes for Al-Nadr ibn Kinanah, his equally non-notable father, too. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:31, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Being a distant ancestor of someone notable does not equate to notability. FatCat96 (talk) 23:48, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:
- Family tree of Muhammad is a potential redirect page
- Comments similar to those above about notability could be made about Jesus’s ancestors, however articles about minor Biblical figures are usually retained in AfDs (sometimes “keep”, sometimes “no consensus”).

—A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 00:23, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I could go for it as a potential redirect (it borders on clutter, but redirects *are* cheap, and it'd make it easier for someone to rebuild the article if it ever acquires any sort of actual notability). Regarding minor Biblical figures, I can't say I know much about that. I would definitely still disagree with keeping a Bible figure of similar notability, but at the very least with a lot of obscure Biblical figures, I imagine there's been extensive, citable theological research about them (if not, then again I'd heavily disagree with keeping them on notability grounds). With this one, it's 1) some random person fourteen times removed from Muhammad 2) whose only source is a non-profit that 3) frankly doesn't even seem to mention him one time, let alone in any detail. Truthfully, I have no idea why the creator of these (I'll note previously deleted) articles even used this source when it doesn't mention the relevant subjects. Update: found him in another chapter. He's dedicated approximately 10 words in this entire thing. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 04:11, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I’m not Muslim; I hope we’ll get Muslims joining this discussion.

As I understand it, Muhammad was created before other humans and then his Nūr was implanted in Adam. Adam in Islam is a bigger deal than in Judaism; he’s a prophet and not just some schmuck who ate the wrong apple. Muhammad’s nūr was carried down from Adam through multiple descendants to Muhammad. So Malik is important - not just some guy but the carrier of Muhammad’s nūr.

However, even if Malik’s important, is he notable if we don’t find something comprehensive written about him?

I’m no scholar; this is just what I’ve found since deleting the speedy tag.

—A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 04:41, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@A. B.:, all figures of ancestor line of Muhammad are (not very, but average) a little bit important issues in Islamic studies, see my comment below, and the term nur is risky to use in case of Muhammad because of the important islamic basic ideology of Shirk (Islam), because calling him God's light (Nur of Allah, sometime being extreme and too much liberal in emotion) is an extremely controversial issue, because it can associate him in the part and power of God in Islam or Allah, which is prohibited in Islam as Shirk (Islam), you can study it on Sufi–Salafi relations, also search the topic in google, many contents related to it are available in english. 202.134.8.130 (talk)

Keep, ar wikipedia has an entry ar:مالك بن النضر with 6 more language entries. If مالك بن النضر is searched in google, a lot of important entries are found in google and google books. As a family ancestor of Muhammad, an important figure. Suggest to verily keep and improve the article, google translate can be used to translate the contents found in arabic while searching in google, in arabic, google translate really works nice. Btw, I added the article to the respective interwikilink of the rest 6s. The most important islamic academic database maqtaba shamila (ar:المكتبة الشاملة) has also 2 entries when searched in google (see here). And for help, if anyone wants to learn Arabic they can follow 3 minute lessons of lesson b's of this video series on youtube. And to know Muhammad's life, english translation of Ar-Raheeq Al-Makhtum is suggested, available in google as free pdf. 202.134.8.130 (talk) 14:52, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per 202.134.8.130. Thanks for explaining this to us! It was fascinating to read about this last night.

—-A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 15:38, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:04, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:07, 26 September 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 Draftify‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:09, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kyrgyzstan at the 2024 Summer Olympics

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

Draftify again. This is unreferenced, and was returned to mainspace unedited as the next edit post draftification. Simply WP:TOOSOON, apart from lack of references. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 22:48, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Olympics and Kyrgyzstan. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 22:48, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 23:18, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
DRAFTIFY for the reasons laid out above. I'd also recommend a speedy close per snowball clause . —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 05:18, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think 2 two votes are enough for snowball clause, especially at a venue as chaotic as AfD. Ca ^{talk to me!} 07:29, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Definitely not. It should run longer, even all the way to its end date. I see very little chaos, though. 👀 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 07:33, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well, there is no minimum number of !votes that is required before invoking SNOW. I consider this a pretty clear-cut case, as there were very valid concerns for the first move to draftspace, none of which were addressed before the page was moved back. Especially due to the TOOSOON situation, I think this article really has a snowball's chance in hell of being kept, hence the call for a speedy close. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 18:19, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify obvs; per nom. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:41, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify - The added reference that is in English is not significant coverage. (I haven't machine-translated the other two.) It is still too soon. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:28, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment to User:TechnoSquirrel69 - I do not recommend early closing AFDs as Delete if the originator is actively pushing the article, ever. The benefit of an early close is small. The risk of early closing an AFD with an active originator is that they may request a Deletion Review. (They always can request a Deletion Review, but we sometimes see a concern that an AFD was early closed. You may save five days from the AFD, but then the DRV runs for another seven days. The risk outweighs the benefit of an early close when the originator is pushing the article. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:28, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Robert McClenon: Good to know, thanks! —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 03:31, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify per above. AryKun (talk) 15:05, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 00:18, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wendy Maree Wilkins

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

PROD removed by article creator. PROD rationale was: "Non-notable performer/creator. Sources do not indicate independent SIGCOV. Notability is not inherited to her from her (non-notable) movie from its co-stars."

The best possible source in the article is an interview, which generally are not weighted very heavily for notability claims. Other than that, I was not able to locate any appropriate sigcov. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:39, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, and Australia. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:39, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Skynxnex (talk) 00:26, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:ACTOR and WP:BIO. LibStar (talk) 06:30, 23 September 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!} 22:10, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 22:33, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Reads like a resume and more to the point fails WP:ACTOR and WP:BIO. TarnishedPath^talk 01:46, 9 October 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. Stifle (talk) 15:46, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sellindge Music Festival

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

I have carried out WP:BEFORE and added three references to this article about a music festival, but coverage is mostly local or brief and I do not think it meets WP:NEVENT, WP:NMUSIC or WP:GNG. It has been tagged as possibly not notable since 2020. Tacyarg (talk) 22:30, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, United Kingdom, and England. Tacyarg (talk) 22:30, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Skynxnex (talk) 00:26, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:10, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unless sustained coverage is found - I agree with the nom. An article on a small music festival that went ahead only twice, with minimal coverage, is not needed. ResonantDis_tortion 08:19, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Selective merge and redirect to BBC Radio Kent per WP:ATD. Given that one of the stages was operated by BBC Kent I see no reason not to include some content on the festival in the history section of that article.4meter4 (talk) 18:34, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:32, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I did not find the significant coverage available to justify passing WP:NMUSIC nor any other notability guideline. Jacona (talk) 00:20, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist to see if there is more support for a selective Merge.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:31, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: References fail to provide WP:SIGCOV so fails WP:GNG. - UtherSRG (talk) 11:12, 11 October 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!} 22:14, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

*H₂eryo-men

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

TL:DR - this is all WP:OR. The opening of this page makes the claim that this is the name of a reconstructed proto-indo-european deity, but only one of the page sources even has the word, and that is Mallory & Adams, which says, inter alia, Another possible mythic reflection of a healing deity may be seen in the Indo-Iranian Aryaman-Airyaman and the Irish Eremon « *h₄erjo-men-). So one source conjectures a possible common root for a healing deity, and suggests derivation from a PIE word, but does not reconstruct the deity. In any case, the deity reconstructed in this article is WP:OR and WP:SYNTH because it uses sources that describe the derivative deities and imputes those functions (e.g god of roads, of welfare etc.) back on the purely conjectural root. This goes beyond the sources. The only source that says any more is a self published one. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/H₂weh₁yú for a similar issue. I have today reviewed all the sources on the page and marked up issues, but have not modified any page text. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 20:19, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language and Mythology. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 20:19, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. The article's sources don't support the claim that a god of this name existed in PIE mythology. Sojourner in the earth (talk) 12:01, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 00:16, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Eniac Ventures

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Eniac Ventures

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

This company exists, but has not received enough significant coverage to merit a page on WP. All the coverage just mentions the company, but does not discuss it. Angryapathy (talk) 19:13, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance, Companies, California, and New York. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:09, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:14, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:32, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The company raises funds and invests in various start-ups is about all I gleaned from the article despite its multitude of sources. Don't see how the WP:CORPDEPTH part of WP:NCORP is satisfied from brief mentions based on company press releases and interviews with the owners. Lack of analysis of the business. The essay WP:Wikipedia is not Crunchbase comes to mind in that the sources merely cover routine business transactions. Rupples (talk) 02:56, 9 October 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!} 22:14, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

2023 Liga 3 West Sumatra

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

Fails GNG and NEVENT. Refs in article and BEFORE showed nothing other than stats and game recaps. Nothing meets independent reliable sources with significant coverage addressing the subject directly and indepth. // Timothy :: talk 18:12, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and Indonesia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:55, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. — Jkudlick ⚓ (talk) 21:13, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment and delete Per nom, however, @TimothyBlue: Can you attached 2022 Liga 3 West Sumatra to this AfD also. Thank you. Govvy (talk) 07:13, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Done :) group noms scare me usually. There are a good deal more of these. // Timothy :: talk 09:10, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable. Kante4 (talk) 13:17, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 19:01, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both - no indication that these gain enough media attention to warrant having individual articles for each season Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:55, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:32, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sirius 26

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

All the sources are routine coverage; they are indexes dedicated to raw information on sailboats. Search online reveals no sources good enough for Wikipedia. Bremps... 00:53, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This article should not have been brought for AfD as a first step, prior to any talk page discussion, or even article tagging for improvement. Please see WP:BEFORE for the correct sequence, especially item C3 If an article has issues try first raising your concerns on the article's talk page, with the main contributors, or an associated WikiProject, and/or adding a cleanup tag, such as {{notability}}, {{hoax}}, {{original research}}, or {{advert}}; this ensures readers are aware of the problem and may act to remedy it. The article has now been expanded with additional refs and text. - Ahunt (talk) 01:23, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - there is a whole sailing project: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Sailing with very similar articles. I fail to see where the majority of articles might find sources good enough. If they have not been challenged as well, maybe the other 6,000 + articles of low importance are in the same boat.JarrahTree 01:34, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's a completely disingenuous argument. GNG is universal. Shall we say that anything that falls under at least one WikiProject cannot ever be deleted??? Trainsandotherthings (talk) 21:07, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You bring up a good point, JarrahTree. I went to the Sailing projects and picked 3 boats at random and all 3 had MAJOR sourcing issues. There needs to be a huge undertaking of improving/deleting/draftifying these articles. -- Mike 🗩 18:10, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Notification of the existence of this AfD has been made at WikiProject Sailing, within whose scope this article falls. - Ahunt (talk) 01:42, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Products and Transportation. Skynxnex (talk) 15:35, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the clear inability of the keep voters to show any coverage in sources besides databases. "The article has been expanded" with exclusively primary sources, failing to show any secondary source coverage. I don't know what sort of local consensus sailboat fans think they have, but GNG applies to them just as it does to everyone else. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 21:07, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I think you are confused. WP:PRIMARY sources would be references such as the manufacturer's website. WP:SECONDARY sources would be sources, such as a class type club, analysis and reviews. All the sources cited in the article are WP:TERTIARY sources, unrelated to the manufacturer and certainly not primary sources. The links explain the distinction. WP:GNG states A topic is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list when it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. All the ten sources currently cited meet that criteria. - Ahunt (talk) 22:59, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  It is the group of sailboat fans including yourself who consider GNG and notabililty optional that are confused. If you consider TWO SENTENCES (and several of these are literally just two sentences) to be significant coverage, you clearly are dealing in alternative facts. It's rather clear you're throwing shit at the wall and seeing what sticks, which is why all you've been able to gather are database sites like the appropriately named sailboatdata.com and sailboat.guide. Wikipedia is not a database, and all you've done is scrape databases. These do not meet GNG and do not contribute to a claim of notability. If this sailboat is notable, why are you unable to locate a single example of a substantive review, analysis, commentary, or story involving it?
  
  Do me a favor and reread WP:GNG. I will highlight the relevant sentence for you: Sources should be secondary sources, as those provide the most objective evidence of notability. Since we are in agreement that this article has no secondary sources, it logically follows the subject is not notable and does not merit its own article. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 02:35, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I think you need to read WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL and remove your personal attacks above. This is not how we conduct AfD. - Ahunt (talk) 13:03, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I was expecting such a reply as you are unable to refute my arguments. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 21:16, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, specific assessment of new article expansion and sources would be useful here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:55, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the sources only show that the boat exists. I see no significant coverage from reliable sources that indicate notability. -- Mike 🗩 13:44, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I did a quick source assessment, there just isn't anything that would remotely pass WP:GNG. If this is the quality of sources, most sailboat articles have, a huge undertaking needs to be performed of cleanup and removal.

Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Source assessment table:
1	sailboatdata.com claims to use brochures from the manufacturer	sailboatdata.com uses a mixture of plans, brochures, and user submissions	Just a database entry	✘ No
2	sailboatdata.com claims to use brochures from the manufacturer	sailboatdata.com uses a mixture of plans, brochures, and user submissions	Just a database entry	✘ No
3		Community curated and also claims to gather information from Wikipedia	Database entry	✘ No
4		Community curated and also claims to gather information from Wikipedia	Database entry	✘ No
5		Community curated and also claims to gather information from Wikipedia	Database entry	✘ No
6		No statements of editorial independence, just 'sailing passionates'		✘ No
7		? No indication of how facts are gathered	Just basic facts	✘ No
8	sailboatdata.com claims to use brochures from the manufacturer	sailboatdata.com uses a mixture of plans, brochures, and user submissions	Just a database entry	✘ No
9	sailboatdata.com claims to use brochures from the manufacturer	sailboatdata.com uses a mixture of plans, brochures, and user submissions	Just a database entry	✘ No
10		Community curated and also claims to gather information from Wikipedia	Database entry	✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

-- Mike 🗩 14:14, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - You can note that the vast majority of sailboat class articles have multiple reviews from magazines and books. Most new production sailboats end up with multiple third party reviews published, as there are dozens of industry magazines that cover new product releases, conduct sailing trials on them and naturally manufacturers are keen to provide new-production demonstrator boats for magazines to write about. As the text describes, this particular boat was a short production run, as the company went out of business shortly after its introduction and only six were produced. The inclusion of the article is for purposes of completing the story of this manufacturer. Because it was an established manufacturer, the boat class probably was reviewed in magazines at the time, but this was the pre-internet year of 1987 and these paper publications have been hard to locate. I should also add that all third party reviews, book references and similar will use technical data provided by the manufacturer, as they are sole source of information like the boat's displacement. This is true of reviews done of almost every type of product, including cars, railway locomotives, airplanes and similar; reviewers have no means of independently determining much of the data used. There is always use made of manufacturer's data in third party reviews. - Ahunt (talk) 14:43, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You bring up locomotives as an example. Here's one source on a locomotive model that gives more information than all of yours combined: [6]. And, it is published by a reliable secondary source. I am still waiting for you to show us sources that even come close to this level of coverage. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 21:22, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I can't yet see a consensus on whether the sources cited in the article are enough to show notability. Input from new participants would be appreciated.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Joe (talk) 17:46, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG due to complete lack of WP:SIGCOV. Only sourced by database sources. Alvaldi (talk) 18:51, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I did find this article from The Sun Times (Owen Sound) on Newspapers.com. The publication is from the same town as the company that made the boat. Regardless, WP:GNG requires multiple sources of SIGCOV so even if it wasn't so hyper-local the article would still need more sources to pass. That said, a redirect to Vandestadt and McGruer Limited is also perfectly fine by me if no SIGCOV is found. Alvaldi (talk) 21:41, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Darth Mike @Trainsandotherthings Would you support a redirect to Vandestadt and McGruer Limited instead of deletion? Alvaldi (talk) 09:46, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think there's any reliably sourced information to merge. -- Mike 🗩 19:30, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I am in concurrence with Darth Mike. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 23:25, 3 October 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! 04:59, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. All the sources I can find appear to be WP:ROUTINE, Fails WP:GNG and I don't see any WP:SNG guideline that would apply. Jacona (talk) 15:20, 2 October 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) Maliner (talk) 15:46, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lists of Star Wars species

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

These lists are all WP:CRUFT. The sources are mostly primary sources, being the actual novels these creatures appear in and the Star Wars website. There is nothing to demonstrate that these species meet WP:GNG. The notable members of these species are all at List of Star Wars characters.

I am also nominating the rest of these lists:

Nathan121212 (talk) 17:43, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:52, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:52, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:52, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:53, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Instead of having a discription for a species in every single article for the films, books, shows, video games, and whatnot, its just easier to have them in one place to link to. Valid spinoff articles and information list. List of Star Wars species (A–E) has 21,399 pageviews in the past 90 days. [7] List of Star Wars species (P–T) has 35,037. Dream Focus 18:16, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Dream Focus makes a good point. This is a reasonable alternative to having a huge number of individual articles. At one point, we had individual articles for practically every pokemon leading to the phrase [[WP:POKEMON]|Pokémon test]] being made. Graywalls (talk) 18:32, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Appears to pass WP:NLIST. "Star Wars species" is a subject of both scholarly and popular discussion. See, e.g., [8], [9] (examples of non-primary discussions of various species from a pop culture perspective), and [10] (a scholarly analysis of Star Wars including its various species). Note also that one of the common selection criteria for lists is that Every entry in the list fails the notability criteria. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 19:48, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I do not see how these do not violate WP:INDISCRIMINATE. It's possible that a single list of THE most notable species in Star Wars would be suitable for Wikipedia, but these numerous totally indiscriminate lists violate WP:NOT and would need to be redone from scratch. WP:TNT applies in this case, as it would be very difficult to clean this up. Wikipedia =/= Wookiepedia. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 03:45, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Lists of Star Wars species, neutral as into how many sublists this gets divided. I have no doubt that "Star Wars species" passes WP:NLIST (Star Wars is one of the very few franchises where one could say that), lists are better than subnotable stand-alone articles and better than nothing, and the rest seems to be a matter of organizing knowledge. – sgeureka ^t•c 09:06, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This meets WP:NLIST. Here are a few books that discuss the grouping. [11][12][13][14]. Here's a PhD dissertation [15]. This paper makes a short mention in a broader discussion [16]. There's a bit of tongue-in-cheek coverage in this Wiley book [17] (non-exhaustive search). —siro χ o 09:20, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Enumerable and useful in its specialized field. – SJ + 04:16, 21 September 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 Review of United States Human Space Flight Plans Committee. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:17, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Flexible path

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

this page does not pass the general guideline for notability Iljhgtn (talk) 22:31, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:07, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The concept does have recognition in the academic and space industry communities ([18], [19], [20], [21]). The article, however, is nearly unreadable and in need of WP:TNT. But deletion is not cleanup, etc., etc. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 23:35, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spaceflight-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 13:51, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:27, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect to Review of United States Human Space Flight Plans Committee. The concept originated in this Review, and the sources that WeirdNAnnoyed cites above generally discuss the term only in the context of that Review. The concept therefore lacks independent notability sufficient for a standalone article in my editorial judgment. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 02:06, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge to Review of United States Human Space Flight Plans Committee. I don't think the topic is discussed outside of the review enough to make it independently notable and there's not enough sourced material in the article to merge it. Suonii180 (talk) 14:58, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:26, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

redirect the article may be used in future MICHAEL 942006 (talk) 05:58, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Review of United States Human Space Flight Plans Committee per above. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:01, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: One more relist given the late momentum in favor of redirect.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, _signed,Rosguill ^talk 17:43, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Review of United States Human Space Flight Plans Committee: the sources cited above do not give individual notability to the topic itself but discuss it in the context of the proposed redirect target. InterstellarGamer12321 (talk | contribs) 17:43, 22 September 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 Instituto Ayrton Senna. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:18, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Viviane Senna

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

Doesn't meet GNG. Notability is WP:NOTINHERITED. Nswix (talk) 20:45, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Brazil. Nswix (talk) 20:45, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Everything mentioned about her is in relation to her brother, all Gnews and Gsearch points to him. She could perhaps be a brief section in his article. Oaktree b (talk) 23:06, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Viviane Senna founded a non-governmental organization focused on education with prominence in the media.[22][23] She is often interviewed about educational themes, not only about her brother's legacy.[24][25] In any case, if it is not possible to keep it, I suggest to merge the article with that of the Ayrton Senna Institute. DanGFSouza (talk) 21:25, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm ok with the merge. Oaktree b (talk) 14:54, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:24, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. DId you mean Merging with Instituto Ayrton Senna because the page you link to is a Redirect.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:10, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that was what I meant. I've added some sourced statements since the AfD nomination I think they can support the subject's notability; I leave the decision to the consensus. DanGFSouza (talk) 23:44, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, _signed,Rosguill ^talk 17:39, 19 September 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. While on a pure nose count this may seem like a "keep", many of the keep arguments are quite weak, either commenting on length of time since the last AfD (which has nothing whatsoever to do with a topic's suitability for an article), or, similarly, on page views and the like. However, some were not, and left substantial disagreement over whether the sourcing is or is not sufficient, so, no consensus it is. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 06:58, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ivan Katchanovski

AfDs for this article:

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

Subject is a non-notable academic with a part-time teaching appointment at a University and scant publication record, known mainly for a WP:FRINGE theory asserting that the Heavenly hundred were shot by Maidan protestors themselves in a false flag operation. This assertion has been repeated by Russian propaganda sources and is considered disinformation by the EU: to the extent that it is notable, it should be removed to the Maidan casualties article.

Renominated after two inconclusive discussions. Nangaf (talk) 18:30, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

EU considers the false flag theory of Maidan to be disinformation

EU also considers variants of the false flag theory of Maidan to be disinformation

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 September 11. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 18:44, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Politics, Ukraine, and Canada. XOR'easter (talk) 19:32, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, I think it respects WP:SCHOLAR as it is widely cited in academic studies. I show below the most cited:

Quoted in Google Scholar 1598 times (only a couple of months ago he was mentioned 1557 times, so there is great interest in his studies), with h-index 22 and i10-index 36.[26]

"The separatist war in Donbas: a violent break-up of Ukraine?" Cited 151 times.

"The paradox of American unionism: Why Americans like unions more than Canadians do, but join much less" Cited 133 times.

"Regional political divisions in Ukraine in 1991–2006" Cited 95 times.

"The future of private sector unions in the US" Cited 85 times.

"Divergence in growth in post-communist countries" Cited 84 times.

"Cleft Countries. Regional Political Divisions and Cultures in Post-Soviet Ukraine and Moldova. With a Foreword by Francis Fukuyama" Cited 80 times.

Widely quoted in Google Books.[27]

Widely quoted in Google News.[28]

Important Western sources quoted him:

Note 1: Regarding the arguments that his studies are "disinformation", I point out that the source used, Euvsdisinfo[50] quotes only Anton Khodza to "debunk" Katchanovski. Khodza talks about a third person quoting an alleged non-existent human rights group (IGCP) that has nothing to do with Katchanovski. The author of the article seems virtually unknown[51] and was released on the website "site.ua".[52] I invite you to read Khodza's text, it is full of unprofessional epithets and terminology. Moreover, to link Katchanovski to Khodza, Euvsdisinfo puts three links to websites that look like pro-Russian blogs. Two of which are offline and one online. Where would the debunking be?

Note 2: The previous AFD ended in July 2023. What is the point of repeating it after not even two months?--Mhorg (talk) 19:57, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Because it did not reach consensus. Neither did the nomination before that. Nangaf (talk) 01:24, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Which WP:NACADEMIC criteria is the subject claimed to meet? —Michael Z. 15:11, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's worth looking at the actual citations. The list for most heavily cited article includes a very high number of duplicates, citations by the author himself in other publications, or citations by fringe conspiracy theorists. BobFromBrockley (talk) 15:45, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. UPD Sep 19: Katchanovski is highly cited and thus satisfies the first criterion of WP:NPROF, see the detailed analysis based on Scopus author profiles below. Original response: The proposer has not demonstrated that the subject does not satisfy the WP:SCHOLAR criteria. Also, the proposer's implied reasoning "X is used by propaganda, therefore X is fringe/false" is logically incorrect: propaganda uses (selectively) both true and false statements to advance a certain agenda. Alaexis_¿question? 20:37, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This was discussed at length in the previous AfD nominations. Which WP:NACADEMIC criteria does the subject meet? Nangaf (talk) 20:50, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The first one (The person's research has had a significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources). His work has been cited a lot as shown by Mhorg above. I've looked at the scholars whose work is mentioned in History_of_Ukraine#Historiography_and_memory, and some of them have similar numbers of citations (Serhy Yekelchyk vs Ivan Katchanovski) and even the most well-known and prominent ones have 2-5 times more.
Furthermore, Katchanovski's work has been cited by such prominent scholars as David Lane (The International Context: Russia, Ukraine and the Drift to East-West Confrontation) and Richard Sakwa (Frontline Ukraine: Crisis in the Borderlands). Alaexis_¿question? 09:28, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Please see Lourdes (talk · contribs) comment below: It is important to understand what is meant by independent reliable sources. It doesn't mean citing papers from fellow scholars who are criticising or praising his work. It doesn't mean quoting Google Scholar citations or the number of books he has written. It means we need non-involved reliable sources that confirm that he has made a significant impact. Nothing you have mentioned constitute evidence of this kind. Nangaf (talk) 18:33, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This quote is not based on policy. WP:NPROF says that The most typical way of satisfying [Notability] Criterion 1 is to show that the academic has been an author of highly cited academic work. Some of Katchanovski's works have a comparable number of citations to the works of other prominent historians of Ukraine who are listed in History_of_Ukraine#Historiography_and_memory and have their own articles.

To preempt the otherstuffexists argument, I'm not arguing that Katchanovski is notable because Yekelchyk or someone else has a Wikipedia article, but rather establishing what "highly cited" means in this field. Alaexis_¿question? 20:08, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Alaexis, Nangaf for the comments. Alaexis, Google Scholar is not consider independent reliable source. You are mistaken on this, as are others who are quoting the same; the only sources that we should consider are Scopus and Web of Science. There is no reference of the author in these that have been mentioned. For your benefit, Wikipedia:Notability (academics)#Citation metrics (which is a guideline, and not policy that you mention), provides details of why Google Scholar is unreliable, and why only Scopus and Web of Science should be considered. Unless there are independent reliable sources mentioned, the concept of quoting Google Scholar Citations is not something our guidelines accept without caution, and any argument mentioning Google Scholar citations should be ignored as being without basis, as per guidelines. Thank you, Lourdes 07:25, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Scopus author profiles show the same picture. Again, I compared Katchanovski to authors that 1) are mentioned in History_of_Ukraine#Bibliography, 2) are active and 3) have Wikipedia articles in order to understand what "highly cited" means in this area. So here are the results
Serhii Plokhy: 362 citations, h-index 8 [53]

Magocsi, Paul Robert: 105 citations, h-index 5 [54]

Yekelchyk, Serhy: 254 citations, h-index 7 [55]

Kuzio, Taras: 1860 citations, h-index 23 [56]

Ivan Katchanovski: 279 citations, h-index 9 [57].

So only Kuzio has much more citations and indexed works, whereas other prominent scholars have similar numbers. Alaexis_¿question? 08:56, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Once again, thanks and I am glad you are using Scopus to support the argument for the first time. Let me link Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Suzy Styles (h index 8, 240 Scopus citations; deleted because of low citations; see comments). Or Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fatima Ebrahimi (h index 15, 598 Scopus citations; deleted because of low citations). Or Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Renad Zhdanov (h index 12; deleted because of low h index). And so on. The h index or citations you have quoted are too much below requirements. Ivan's Maidan paper, by the way, has zero citations on Scopus, showcasing how irrelevant it is to his profile. Finally, the reason the other professors (except Kuzio) are on Wikipedia are not because of their utterly bad Scopus citation numbers, but because of other NACADEMIC reasons, such as:
Serhii Plokhy: Director of the Harvard Ukrainian Research Institute

Magocsi, Paul Robert: Chair of Ukrainian Studies at the University of Toronto. Fellow of the Royal Society of Canada. Honorary Chairman of the World Congress of Rusyns

Yekelchyk, Serhy: President of the Canadian Association of Ukrainian Studies

Kuzio, Taras: 1860 citations, h-index 23, far above Ivan

To be honest, I suspect that the above academicians (except Kuzio) will have a hard time keeping their profiles here if we were to take them to AfD. So your logic of h index and Scopus citations is actually proving that we should delete this profile. Thank you, Lourdes 10:15, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

None of your AfD examples are historians or political scientists. The guideline says that the meaning of "highly cited" is different for different scientific disciplines. Alaexis_¿question? 11:11, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That is true. As a former academic, however I can vouch for the fact that the rule of thumb for getting tenure at a US university in the social sciences is that an h-index of ~20 is considered a good target. Katchanovski is nowhere near that. Nangaf (talk) 00:15, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I broadly agree with the notion that Katchanovski does not fulfill criterion #1 (if anything, I believe he fulfills #7), and with the scepticism regarding the use of Google Scholar (I disagree with focusing excessively on Scopus and WoS, though, but that's a different matter!). However, as a current academic I find the claim that the rule of thumb for getting tenure at a US university in the social sciences is that an h-index of ~20 is considered a good target to be beyond puzzling. John Mearsheimer, has been described as the most influential realist of his generation, has an h-index of 21. You can find plenty of examples of tenured American academics in the social sciences and humanities with h-indices barely in the 2 digits. These are low citation fields and universities can and very much do look beyond a person's h-index. Ostalgia (talk) 09:19, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep on the grounds that not enough time has passed since the previous AFD closed. ArcAngel (talk) 00:19, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It has been two months since a no consensus close, that seems like a sufficient timeframe. Curbon7 (talk) 02:43, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment leaning Keep. Considering him as a scholar, he appears to have respectable citations for a few works [58] (151,133,95,85,84), some of which are sole author, however the overall number of citations (1598) appears rather low. He has (co-)authored three books, for some of which the Ebscosearch finds multiple reviews:

The Paradox of American Unionism: Why Americans Like Unions More Than Canadians Do, But Join Much Less: Gilbert, Ellen D. Library Journal. 7/15/2004, Vol. 129 Issue 12, p107; Brooks, Clem. Social Forces. Jun2005, Vol. 83 Issue 4, p1789-1791; International Labour Review. 2004, Vol. 143 Issue 4, p400; Freeman, Joshua B. Dissent (0012-3846). Fall2004, Vol. 51 Issue 4, p101-103; Russell, James W. American Review of Canadian Studies. Sep2005, Vol. 35 Issue 3, p547-549; Fantasia, Rick. Political Science Quarterly (Academy of Political Science). Fall2005, Vol. 120 Issue 3, p525-526; Cepuran, Joseph. Perspectives on Political Science. Winter2005, Vol. 34 Issue 1, p56; and others (though that book seems to be 'with' him; not sure what his precise contribution was)
Cleft Countries: Regional Political Divisions & Cultures in Post-Soviet Ukraine & Moldova Dyczok, Marta. Journal of Ukrainian Studies. Summer2008-Winter2009, p548-549; Kuzio, Taras. Party Politics. Sep2009, Vol. 15 Issue 5, p662-664; Harasymiw, Bohdan. Slavic Review. Fall2007, Vol. 66 Issue 3, p546-547
Historical dictionary of Ukraine Browndorf, M. A. Choice: Current Reviews for Academic Libraries. Jan2014, Vol. 51 Issue 5, p812

Espresso Addict (talk) 02:11, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The brief review by Dyczok is online (p 548).[59] Nothing in it hints “The person's research has had a significant impact in their scholarly discipline” per WP:NACADEMIC, in fact the opposite. —Michael Z. 15:20, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Academics who publish books can also be notable under WP:AUTHOR, which is usually demonstrated by multiple reviews covering at least two authored books, which are available here. Espresso Addict (talk) 03:40, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WP:AUTHOR says The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews, or of an independent and notable work That's clearly not met in this case. BobFromBrockley (talk) 07:34, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Just noting the irony of Kuzio's review being used as evidence of notability here, while other editors on the article talk page are arguing that Kuzio should be removed entirely from the article because of his "beef" with the article subject. Unless the beef itself is notable (e.g. reported by independent RSs) then these two arguments seem incompatible to me. BobFromBrockley (talk) 07:36, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lean keep: Absolutely doesn't meet the specific WP:NACADEMIC criteria (as clearly described by multiple contributors to AfD 2), but I think he might meet WP:NBASIC criteria as a public commentator who receives some attention in the public sphere, as evidenced by the large number of page views.[60] BobFromBrockley (talk) 15:32, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I do agree that Katchanovski's efforts to appear in the public eye are his best claim for notability: it's hard to argue that he is notable as an academic or an author. However, WP:Wikipedia is not a reliable source, and these events are WP:RECENT. With the greatest of respect, the number of wikipage views seems like flimsy and transient evidence of notability. Nangaf (talk) 20:59, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep, we literally just ended AfD on this topic. It was proven that this figure is significant enough. Marcelus (talk) 21:36, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing was proven, as the AfD was closed as no consensus. Curbon7 (talk) 02:39, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The article does not note any accomplishments or influence that make the subject notable per WP:SCHOLAR. The Historical Dictionary of Ukraine is the only authorship that seems significant in my opinion, but there’s nothing encyclopedic referenced about it except the bare citation. The only reason there’s an article about this person is his Maidan sniper theory, which is arguably WP:FRINGE, and has only been taken seriously by a couple of scholars labelled pro-Kremlin by their peers, and countless conspiracy theorists, propagandists, and trolls. —Michael Z. 23:34, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. First of all, I agree with Bobfrombrockley that the subject does not meet WP:NACADEMIC. Some content of the page is well sourced, possibly notable and deserves inclusion somewhere. It is the False_flag_theory_of_Euromaidan. But it is better be included to other pages related to Maidan. My very best wishes (talk) 01:38, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: It's clear that the author writes on a controversial topic, which clearly generates some antipathy towards him and leads to a hostile environment in the talk page (something that is certainly not aided by the fact that the subject of the article himself has repeatedly tried to insert himself into the discussion). Some arguments in "defense" of Katchanovski by users on the tp are also less than stellar, such as stressing the number of citations, or name-dropping famous individuals who are not necessarily knowledgeable about the topic or area (note: based on what transpired later, many of these comments might have been made by Katchanovski himself). With this in mind, perhaps deleting the article would save us all some energy and potential headaches. Nevertheless, it is also clear (to me, at least) that the aforementioned antipathy should not trickle down to the article or the talk page, as it has (and both are covered by BLP). His views are evidently not the majority position (and the article should reflect that), but he has been cited approvingly by some respected scholars in the area and taken seriously by others. Some people are happy to point out that Putin has echoed some of those views as some sort of "gotcha" that would seal the deal, but I'm pretty sure Putin also believes in Newton's law of universal gravitation, so I would not suggest taking that argument to its logical conclusion! More to the point, I believe the subject complies with guideline #7 of WP:NACADEMIC, namely, The person has made substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity. Criterion 7 may be satisfied, for example, if the person is frequently quoted in conventional media as an academic expert in a particular area. Katchanovski has published, been quoted/featured and/or interviewed in media from different political orientations in both his home countries (Ukraine: Krytyka, translated from OpenDemocracy (2012), Kyiv Post (2014), RBK Ukraina (2016); Canada: Globe and Mail (2021), Canadian Dimension (2022), CBC (2022)) and internationally (Australia: Sky Australia (2022); Brazil: O Globo, ft. agencies (2014); Denmark: Jyllands-Posten (2014); South Africa: Mail&Guardian (2023); Spain: ABC (2022), La Razón (2022); UAE: Al Jazeera (2015); UK: openDemocracy (2013), Daily Express (2022); US: The Nation (2014), Washington Post's Monkey Cage (2014), Jacobin (2022); worldwide: Reuters (2014)). The list is non-exhaustive and includes everything from long pieces to quotations. Needless to say, this does not imply an endorsement of Katchanovski's ideas either by me or by any of the mentioned media, but to pretend that he's merely some crackpot featured only on RT and Sputnik, as OP maintains, is just wrong (and, ironically enough, we often do have Wikipedia articles for those, such as Daniel Estulin), as is the notion that a political entity's labelling of something as "disinformation" could be grounds for Wikipedia to delete an article, which on top of wrong is outright dangerous - can you even imagine what that would mean for .ru wiki?. I'm not going to cast a vote, I'm complete fine with either result, but the framing of the AfD and of the entire discussion around this individual is less than ideal. If we cannot be critical but balanced at the same time, then perhaps its for the best that we don't have an article at all. Ostalgia (talk) 09:10, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the subject has published articles, and he was cited and briefly mentioned in publications by others. No one disputes this. But does it mean that he "has made substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity"? And what is his "impact", exactly? This is presumably his the False_flag_theory_of_Euromaidan, nothing else really. Is it really a "substantial impact"? Looking at the sources, it appears that is was not he who proposed this "theory" [61]. I believe this "theory" would be better placed to Maidan casualties. My very best wishes (talk) 23:16, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There is a case that can be made under #7, but Katchanovski is not exactly a household name. Even people who follow events in Ukraine pretty closely in the mainstream media would be unlikely to have ever heard of him, because his theory is outside the mainstream. The *single* exception to this is a guest article he wrote for the Washington Post in 2014, although I suppose you could stretch it to include his fleeting appearance in the straight-to-YouTube Oliver Stone documentary "Ukraine on Fire". The "impact" of his work can be gauged by the fact that he proposed this theory in 2014 -- 9 years ago -- and he still hasn't got a full-time job. He hasn't even got a research position! He is an adjunct teacher, and crowd funds his publications. This is the career trajectory of a crank. Nangaf (talk) 04:51, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You're saying that he he proposed this theory in 2014 and it hasn't gained traction, ergo he is not notable. MVBW right above you states that is [sic] was not he who proposed this "theory", linking to some site that I have not checked (and probably will not check). The implication is that if he didn't propose the theory, then he should not have an article of his own, and the theory should be moved to another article. But here's the thing, you're both single-mindedly focusing on his Euromaidan theory when the article is not called "Ivan Katchanovski's whacky theories" but "Ivan Katchanovski". I'm not necessarily blaming you for obsessing over this theory, given that it's probably the issue he himself focused on the most in his talk page interventions, but one of the things I explicitly mentioned on the TP was that the article should be expanded beyond the coverage of his Euromaidan theory precisely because of this. Of the almost 20 links I posted above I would say the majority don't even mention his theories regarding who killed who when and where during anti-Yanukovych protests. Maybe when he goes on RT he does talk about that, but in mainstream "respectable" media he's just interviewed, quoted or invited to provide commentary as an academic focused on the study of Eastern Europe, which is why I believe he's covered by WP:NACADEMIC #7 - after all, a lot of frequent commentators of lesser academic standing both in terms of education and position have their own articles because of it. Still, I guess having to write this kind of proves the point I made earlier - deleting the article would save us a lot of trouble. Ostalgia (talk) 12:38, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus on whether the article should be kept or deleted should depend upon either GNG or NACADEMIC, and not on personal opinions of commentators here. I am attempting a summary of each qualifier and showcase the subject's notability (or non-notability) below:

WP:GNG - Not met. There aren't multiple sources, in fact not even one, where the subject has been discussed at length.

WP:NACADEMIC

"The person's research has had a significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources."

It is important to understand what is meant by independent reliable sources. It doesn't mean citing papers from fellow scholars who are criticising or praising his work. It doesn't mean quoting Google Scholar citations or the number of books he has written. It means we need non-involved reliable sources that confirm that he has made a significant impact. Not one exists.

"The person has received a highly prestigious academic award or honor at a national or international level.

Clearly not.

"The person has been an elected member of a highly selective and prestigious scholarly society or association (e.g., a National Academy of Sciences or the Royal Society) or a fellow of a major scholarly society which reserves fellow status as a highly selective honor (e.g., Fellow of the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers).

Clearly not met.

"The person's academic work has made a significant impact in the area of higher education, affecting a substantial number of academic institutions.

Clearly not met.

"The person has held a named chair appointment or distinguished professor appointment at a major institution of higher education and research, or an equivalent position in countries where named chairs are uncommon.

Not met.

"The person has held a highest-level elected or appointed administrative post at a major academic institution or major academic society.

Not met.

"The person has had a substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity.

Not relevant and not met.

"The person has been the head or chief editor of a major, well-established academic journal in their subject area.

Not met.

Per the above lack of meeting either GNG or even one clause of NACADEMIC, this BLP should be Deleted. If there are editors who can provide at least two reliable sources against even one NACADEMIC qualifier, I am ready to strike my comment. However, with significant research that I have undertaken, there is no reason for this BLP to remain on Wikipedia any more. Lourdes 05:58, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I would've voted Keep in the last AfD based on the arguments there but didn't feel I had enough information to be absolutely sure; relisting here so soon seems a sort of POINT argument so I'll jump in this time. -- Michael Scott Asato Cuthbert (talk) 20:54, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for contributing to the discussion. It's helpful to know your reasoning as well as your conclusions: for guidelines see WP:DISCUSSAFD Nangaf (talk) 03:15, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ah thanks -- that'd be helpful if I hadn't already participated in thousands of AfDs before. -- Michael Scott Asato Cuthbert (talk) 20:52, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Notes for the closing admin: With the utmost respect for all commentators here, I am providing a summary of the 7 keep votes below. Once again, this is not to discredit any comments on this AfD. This is just my opinion from my experience in AfDs here:

3 of the above 7 Keep votes have only one reasoning: That it is too soon since the last AfD closed. That leaves 4 Keep votes.

1 Keep vote mentions that the proposer has not provided evidence that the subject does not meet NACADEMIC (!!!) Shouldn't it be vice versa, that the keep argument should provide evidence rather than the proposer? That leaves 3 Keep votes.

1 Keep vote out of the remaining 3 is a "leaning keep" vote which mentions that the subject doesn't meet NACADEMIC (yes!) but his article's page views should qualify the subject on NBASIC (!!!). That leaves 2 valid Keep votes from 2 experienced commentators, versus 4 Delete votes, including the nominator's.

These are just notes for the closing administrator based on my assessments; and not intended to be a critique of any commentator here. Thank you, Lourdes 04:41, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No offense, but what you wrote is definitely a critique of Keep votes that you believe should be discounted by the closer. I've seen "Too soon since last AFD" comments come up in lots of AFDs and I've seen AFDs closed as Keep based on that objection alone but that is typically when a follow-up AFD is days, weeks or a month since the prior one. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:34, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Liz. What I meant is that I am not criticizing the commentators (just assessing their votes). You're right on the timeline front. Thank you for your response. Warmly, Lourdes 06:47, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Liz, it would be appropriate to close AfDs that basis soon after a positive decision to Keep, but no such consensus has ever formed on the article currently under consideration. Nangaf (talk) 18:48, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the proposer should provide solid policy-based arguments but we're not in court here and I've clarified my position. I would appreciate if you could update your summary. Alaexis_¿question? 09:46, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The reason for deletion is simply that the subject himself is not notable. My proposed course of action is to delete the article and remove any notable content about the false flag theory of the Maidan to an appropriate article. Nangaf (talk) 18:57, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you again Alaexis. You have re-quoted another editor now, who himself has quoted Google citations, which, as I mentioned above, are unacceptable in such cases. Once again, you need to refer to Wikipedia:Notability (academics)#Citation metrics to understand that the only independent reliable sources accepted for citations are Scopus and Web of Science. Any argument using Google citations in such borderline BLP cases which have zero references to Scopus and Web of Science, should be ignored, per our guidelines. Thank you, Lourdes 07:31, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I was under the impression that Scopus requires a subscription but it turns out that basic profiles are available for free. I'll update my post. Alaexis_¿question? 08:44, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, _signed,Rosguill ^talk 17:38, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - I had never heard of this guy, but he's associated with some very important "theories" of how the war in Ukraine started. Regardless of where you stand on the war in Ukraine he seems like a important enough figure.

Frankly, Wikipedia would be worse off deleting this article. Jjazz76 (talk) 19:43, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is far more weakly grounded in Wikipedia policy and guidelines even than the seven bad keeps analyzed above by Lourdes. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:30, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hatting to avoid further argumentative pettifogging. Lourdes 08:20, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Thank you for contributing to the discussion. It's helpful to know your reasoning as well as your conclusions: for guidelines see WP:DISCUSSAFD. Nangaf (talk) 05:05, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks David. If I were to describe this person in one line, it would be: "Visiting lecturer with zero GNG coverage, 9 h-index, 279 Scopus citations, and having zero Scopus citations of the very theory that is supposed to be his claim to fame." I was tad disappointed at the re-listing, but I guess consensus is not seen in the same way by different administrators. Lourdes 06:54, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lourdes, while I agree with the spirit of your reply (as I see it, you're suggesting that Jjazz76 should not swallow Katchanovski's theories hook, line and sinker without considering criticism of them), its content is quite inaccurate. Katchanovski is not a visiting lecturer but a part-time lecturer, and while I'm unfamiliar with the system in Canada and do not know what exactly this entails, it's an undoubtedly different role, as he's been at Ottawa for 13 years. I would not focus on his h-index too much as it's not absurdly low for his field, either. Most importantly, however, the statement regarding having zero Scopus citations of the very theory that is supposed to be his claim to fame, considering the paper you are seemingly referring to was published 3 months ago, is very much misleading. I don't think it is humanly possible to review his paper, incorporate it in your research (whether you're citing it approvingly or ripping it to shreds) and then get your own paper through peer review in the span of 3 months. Considering this person's evident self-consciousness and litigiousness, I would consider amending or striking that. Cheers. Ostalgia (talk) 09:34, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that is not true to say that Katchanovski's false flag theory is completely uncited in the literature. However, that is not by itself sufficient evidence that K is notable as an academic.
An h-index of 9 would not be absurdly low for a historian, or somebody who publishes mainly in the form of books or long monographs, but it is distinctly unimpressive in the quantitative social sciences, which is his actual area of expertise. (To the extent that he has gathered information independently for his own publications, the data are from surveys. He also teaches quantitative methodology.)
The nature of his appointment at Ottawa is not entirely clear. However, the following facts are established: he is affiliated with Ottawa; he teaches there; it is a part time appointment; and he crowd-funded the costs of a recent publication, suggesting that he has funding neither from research grants nor from his institution. No grant income is listed on his institutional webpage or Scopus.

Despite what he may have told people on YouTube or Twitter, he is not a "Professor". And since, being a part-timer, he definitely does not have a tenure track appointment, he could stay in his current position for another 13 years and he would not be any closer to being one.

This really is not a marginal case. Katchanovski is nowhere near notable as an WP:ACADEMIC. Nangaf (talk) 21:45, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure how any of that relates to the point I'm trying to make in the message you're replying to, which is that we should be careful with the wording, given the issues we have already had. Cheers. Ostalgia (talk) 06:32, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is indeed a contentious topic. All the more reason to be scrupulously accurate in the factual content of one's posts. Nangaf (talk) 02:33, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is getting weird – it's not the first time you reply to me to go on a tangent only to later repeat the exact same point I was making (and which I wish you would apply to yourself). I don't know what to make of that, frankly, but it's something beyond the scope of the AfD. I believe my participation here has run its course, I stand by my earlier comment and arguments both for and against, and will just wait in the wings for this to be closed. Cheers. Ostalgia (talk) 08:41, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

My polite suggestion is to get your facts straight. And if you can't do that, then I agree that not participating in the discussion is a good solution. Nangaf (talk) 20:48, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your suggestion is anything but polite, just like pretty much every interaction you have had with anyone who expressed an opinion that is not perfectly aligned with yours, but I'll still afford you the courtesy of one last reply.

What you call "my facts" are perfectly straight. That instead of looking at them you decide to argue with straw men that exist only in your imagination is an entirely you problem, and that is what makes further participation in this discussion pointless. Cheers! Ostalgia (talk) 22:19, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

My friends, both of you seem to be pragmatic and intelligent editors; so, it is unfortunate that your discussions are quite acerbic. I would suggest not to interact with each other any more here as it is not required. I hope this request is seen in a positive light. Thank you, Lourdes 06:31, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I thank my fellow editor Ostalgia (talk · contribs) for a fulsome contribution to the thread, and commend the economy of thought with which they have expressed their many words. Nangaf (talk) 02:05, 26 September 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 Academic year. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:23, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

First day of school

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

This is WP:LISTCRUFT. Almost entirely unsourced. There's nothing here that enages with broader cultural or historical importance of the "first day of school" and instead is just original research noting when different countries happen to start their school year. While some of it might be common knowledge (the fact that most northern hemisphere school years start in early fall) that very fact makes the usefulness of an encyclopedia article in question. ZimZalaBim ^talk 03:08, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm inclined to agree, the current article has no useful value whatsoever. It's a real pity, because a good article could be written. In Germany, for example, there is a lovely custom that on their very first day of school, in what we in the UK would call reception year, the kids take enormous paper cones with them, filled with goodies to share with the other kids. This sort of custom is of genuine encyclopaedic interest, and similar things must exist in other countries (and could be sourced). If anyone wrote an article like that, I'd be delighted. Elemimele (talk) 07:44, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Purely for reference, here's a not-great source that would provide someone with a foot-hold into useful ideas of how a valuable article could have been written: [62] Elemimele (talk) 20:33, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, poorly-sourced and likely contains OR, and topic seems unlikely to have significant secondary analysis. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 14:36, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I would support keep provided the article is completely rewritten with a different focus, as discussed on the article's talk page. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 18:53, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education and Schools. Shellwood (talk) 21:36, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:DINC. The article is largely unsourced and poorly written, but per WP:BEFORE C1-3 and all of D, those problems are not valid reasons for deletion. Source do exist (some of them in the article, others on a quick BEFORE search), and the article can be used as a baseline for creating something better. As Elemimele points out, a good article could be written [that is] of genuine encyclopaedic interest...and could be sourced. Once that is shown, an AfD is no longer the right venue for improving Wikipedia. We need to remove unsourced info and WP:OR, not delete the article. Cheers, Last1in (talk) 14:03, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've started a discussion on the article's talk page as I think this is an exceptional situation where it might be appropriate to delete nearly everything in the article and repurpose it, which might satisfy everyone. I'm suggesting we discuss there rather than here to avoid cluttering this AfD, and keep the !votes clear for the closing admin, but if anyone wants to discuss here, we can shift it. Elemimele (talk) 16:22, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to academic year. There's very little here about the first day except insofar as it's describing variation in the academic year across countries... and we already have an article about that. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 02:16, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merging any notable and sourced material into academic year is sensible. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 04:00, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to see if there is more support for a Merge.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:03, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge seems ok, the list as it stands now doesn't really explain why this day is important. Oaktree b (talk) 13:48, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, _signed,Rosguill ^talk 17:35, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to academic year. Reasonable search term and possibly a reasonable topic for spin-out at a later date. Eluchil404 (talk) 00:35, 23 September 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!} 22:23, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Beach volleyball at the 2022 Asian Games – Men's tournament

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

Not especially notable. Edward-Woodrow • talk 17:25, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports and Asia. Edward-Woodrow • talk 17:26, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Are you planning to nominate all previous years too? It should either be all or none in my opinion. - Indefensible (talk) 01:16, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you think Asian Games is not especially notable? It`s a multi-sport games with more than 10,000 competitors. Yikesaiting (talk) 01:39, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What do participants think about a merge (alongside Beach volleyball at the 2022 Asian Games – Women's tournament) into Beach volleyball at the 2022 Asian Games? Edward-Woodrow • talk 11:37, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep WildCherry06 09:06, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is easily notable as the Asian Games is one of the major multi-sport events that is held. HawkAussie (talk) 10:49, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's a major competition. Could use some refs but other than that, no need to delete. Kante4 (talk) 13:16, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above, the only thing is this might have been a little WP:TOOSOON. The event is ongoing now though, and should be populated shortly. - Indefensible (talk) 15:14, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep All users above did not comment about GNG, so here are examples of coverage: 1, 2, 3, 4. I wouldn't say they are strong signs of notability, but they should be enough for BASIC. Merging can also be possible although it might look a bit messy. Timothytyy (talk) 08:05, 23 September 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 Workers' Party (Ireland). RL0919 (talk) 22:50, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Irish Socialist Network

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

I can find almost no indication that this organization exists or is notable outside of its own publications, do not believe that it meets the WP:GNG. Bestagon ⬡ 17:24, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and Ireland. Bestagon ⬡ 17:24, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Workers' Party (Ireland) (from which this group seemingly split). As an WP:ATD. Or, failing that, delete. I suggest this because, per nom and my own WP:BEFORE, I cannot find any material coverage to establish WP:GNG or WP:NORG. A search, for example, in the Irish Times or the Irish Independent returns nothing. There is one hit each (both trivial passing mentions) on RTÉ and the Irish Examiner. A far cry from significant news coverage. While a book search returns a handful of results, they are all largely passing mentions where the subject is discussed alongside other parties or in the context of the split ("splinter" or "offshoot" per some sources) from the Workers' Party. Hence redirect as an ATD. Not seeing sufficient coverage for standalone article. (We don't even have sufficient coverage to confirm whether the subject is even still running/extant... Which is somewhat telling).... Guliolopez (talk) 19:18, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ArcAngel (talk) 22:07, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Workers' Party (Ireland) per Guliolopez. Spleodrach (talk) 22:00, 3 October 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. Whether to redirect is disputed, but that can be discussed and, if desired, done later. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 08:51, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

CinErotic FilmFest

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

Exclusively reliant on the subject' own website, social media page and announcement of the event on local press. Searches only returned trivial mentions. Seems to lack enough significant coverage to prove its notability. Tutwakhamoe (talk) 17:16, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, Events, and Georgia (U.S. state). Tutwakhamoe (talk) 17:16, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Passing mention as "the inevitable CinErotic FilmFest" in The NYT; a brief description in Thrillist (actually twice), brief descriptions in books and named/listed on Georgia-related websites. So, I'd suggest a redirect to Festivals in Atlanta#Film, where I took the liberty to add it.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 21:42, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ArcAngel (talk) 22:07, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Promotional and not notable. Drmies (talk) 22:09, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Mushy Yank's suggestion. Like him, I only found glancing mentions, which means a line might be appropriate in a larger article but it doesn't have the depth of coverage needed to establish notability. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 14:09, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Festivals in Atlanta#Film as an ATD. CycloneYoris ^talk! 20:15, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no evidence of notability. As an apparent one-off event that happened 13 years ago, I would also not redirect, as inclusion of a defunct festival in a list is questionable. Stifle (talk) 08:14, 28 September 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!} 02:41, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Minnesota State High School Mathematics League

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

This article only cites primary sources (two to the competition's website and one to a book written by its founder). A WP:BEFORE search found primarily trivial mentions in local news. – dudhhr^talk_contribs^she_her 16:25, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Mathematics, and Minnesota. – dudhhr^talk_contribs^she_her 16:25, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. The only sources are self-published except for a book where the results are listed (not notable), and like said, only passing mentions in the news. Kline | let me clear my throat! | (contribs) 20:46, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:23, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ArcAngel (talk) 22:08, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no reliable secondary sources beyond MILL competition results found. Listing of winners isn't appropriate as discussion of non-notable minors is something to be avoided here. There's nothing here that wouldn't be better contained in the organization website. Fails NORG; likely fails NOT. 4.37.252.50 (talk) 21:27, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:GNG and WP:NORG due to a lack of independent and secondary coverage. Trivial mentions regarding results don't contribute to notability. User:Let'srun 03:48, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:45, 1 October 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 Princeton University#Campus organizations. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:25, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Princeton Progressive

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

There is no SNG that confers automatic notability on a topic just because it's associated with an Ivy League school, and indeed our Ivy League articles have historically suffered because of reticence to upmerge non-notable subarticles. This is a prime example.

The initial source is a single quite small paragraph on page 458 of The New Princeton Companion (published by the university's press), very questionable for SIGCOV. Beyond that, there's media coverage of an event that mentions The Prog only trivially as a co-sponsor, and limited coverage from Princeton-affiliated sources which do not count toward notability per RSP.

This article was recently created, and after conferring with the NPP reviewer, Rosiestep, I redirected it to Princeton as an ATD. The article was restored, so I am bringing it here now. I am often a proponent of being lenient on newspaper articles, given that we often cite them and it's in readers' interest to be able to look up their reputation. But that sort of IAR argument doesn't apply well here, since The Prog is quite different from The Daily Princetonian — it's an opinionated political journal rather than a campus-focused publication of record, and it's cited less than half a dozen times on Wikipedia (compare to The Daily Princetonian's 400+). {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 16:01, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Princeton University § Campus organizations, where it's given an appropriately due one-sentence mention, as nom. If Student life at Princeton University becomes an article someday, perhaps it could have a paragraph there. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 16:01, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media, Politics, Education, and New Jersey. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 16:01, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per the above. Bestagon ⬡ 17:26, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Princeton University#Campus organizations per Sdkb. Sal2100 (talk) 21:11, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as is. The Princeton Tory is the conservative counterpart to The Prog and is cited 7 times on Wikipedia, but they have an independent page. Most of the citations on that page come from Princeton University sources, and most of the remainder do not mention The Tory at all. The number you cited also does not count the former domain of this publication, princetonprog.com, and citations that do not link the website.

The events shown in the article demonstrate that The Princeton Progressive has had a notable impact on American politics, as for instance the Frist filibuster was widely covered nationally, with some sources centering the publication in such events, explicitly. One outlet solely cited the Princeton Progressive Review as the organizer of the two-week event, while the other did not cite it as a co-sponsor, but as a co-organizer. 4kbw9Df3Tw (talk) 09:26, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Princeton Tory is WP:OTHERSTUFF, and it may be worth looking into whether it needs to be AfDed as well. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 14:08, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a response to the rest of the comment? 4kbw9Df3Tw (talk) 17:56, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

princetonprog.com turns up one citation, so there is no hidden cache being ignored. I believe I addressed everything else in the nomination. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 14:31, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:24, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:39, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Leila Fletcher

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

Article is entirely unreferenced and the external links are marketing her products for sale. WP:NOTADVERT would seem to apply. Further, fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. 4meter4 (talk) 15:28, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Music, and Canada. Edward-Woodrow • talk 15:48, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:30, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. On a ProQuest search, I get a fair number of glancing namechecks of her piano coursebooks — a few times in reviews of Two Pianos Four Hands, once in a review of an Emily Haines album, that sort of thing — and on Newspapers.com I get her name popping up in ads for music stores selling the books, but I found absolutely SFA that was about her for the purposes of WP:GNG. An article about her would probably be keepable if it could be sourced properly, I'll grant, but I haven't been able to find anything that resembles proper sourcing. Bearcat (talk) 22:36, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ArcAngel (talk) 22:09, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I haven't been able to turn up any useful sources that could be used to confirm notability. —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 18:47, 1 October 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) Maliner (talk) 15:48, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sumaya Alnasser

AfDs for this article:

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

Hello everyone,

This is the second request for the deletion of the article. In the first request, there was interference from sockpuppets, and there was no consensus.

I am submitting a deletion request for several reasons, as follows: The article does not meet the standards of notability, and there are no real achievements. It is evident that the article was created solely for promotional purposes. The article has been deleted more than 4 times after attempts to publish it on Arabic Wikipedia. Additionally, most of the sources in the article appear to be promotional and/or lack independence, reliability, secondary context, or the necessary commentary to support notability and assist in developing a neutral and balanced article.

The individual who published the article on English Wikipedia also attempted to pass and publish the article on Egyptian Wikipedia, French Wikipedia, and Spanish Wikipedia, which is suspicious. I believe there is a conflict of interest here.

The information presented is highly questionable, especially regarding "lifestyle coaches" regardless of their nationality. Coaching is a personal activity, and it is difficult to gain fame in it. I also wonder how, at the age of 41, she could have trained 200,000 people... That's a small country! Furthermore, including her website in the article appears to be a form of promotion, as she sells videos through access to her site! The article is suspicious and highly dubious. Osps7 (talk) 11:32, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Osps7 (talk) 11:32, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Women, and Saudi Arabia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:02, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable; I can only find this puffy article [63], with no other sources. I see PROMO. Oaktree b (talk) 14:26, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - A search found reliable sources to back the subject's notability, most of which are already in the article, including The National, an English-speaking publication which has bureaus in London and the Middle East. The subject has been featured in CNN. Noteworthy as well is that the subject was named by Forbes as one of the most influential women in the Middle East in 2018. Clearly passes WP:GNG and meets WP:BASIC. -AuthorAuthor (talk) 17:47, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The justification for deletion is appropriate, as the article contains a large number of inaccuracies. Also in a television interview with Sumaya Alnasser, she said that people who have doubts about my work should visit Wikipedia, because Wikipedia recognizes me!!!

She says that her presence on Wikipedia makes her products reliable!!!!!

This is clear promotion and exploitation of Wikipedia's purpose.

Most of the sources are promotional and paid, and during the previous discussion a number of sock puppets appeared and were later banned. What is the point of trying to keep the article going despite the disastrous fallacies! I support deleting the article. It's worth noting that the article has been deleted 5 times on Arabic Wikipedia, and the creator of the article has been banned on Arabic Wikipedia. Recently, the article was also deleted on Egyptian Wikipedia and Spanish Wikipedia. Osps7 (talk) 21:36, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sir Osps7, Lying is harmful to the online Wikipedia, please see WP:DNTL. Sumaya has not appeared on any TV interview recently and her last TV interview was on April 25, 2022. She has never spoken about Wikipedia in any TV show. I ask you to bring evidence. Sumaya does not have an article on the Arabic Wikipedia and the English article is only one month old, so how can an article that is a month old be a reason for the success of her work? Stop lying please as per WP:DNTL. Mazin suliman (talk) 03:45, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep The article already has many trusted and reliable sources. Clearly passes WP:GNG and meets WP:BASIC. Last month, the XfD discussion on this article was closed as “no consensus, you did not wait at least two months as per WP:2MONTHS. The subject has been featured in CNN three times [1][2] [3]. There are many reliable sources that have not been added to the article, I will add them. The Arabic article you mentioned was deleted because it was poorly written, and the editor who wrote it did not follow Wikipedia guidelines (no references, wrong format, etc.). I will write it according to Wikipedia policies and guidelines and submit it again. Moreover, training a large number of people can be done online within a short time. There is nothing suspicious about that. She speaks Arabic, and the population of Arab world is about 456,520,777 people. Mazin suliman (talk) 03:45, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Osps7, part of your deletion rationale is actually a comment I wrote in the first AFD in a relisting comment. It's still accurate but it's strange that you appropriated my words as if they were your own ideas. If you "borrow" content other editors have written, please give them credit. It's very easy to do. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:06, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hello @Liz, part of the justification for deletion is from your analysis of the article, and I apologize if my request for your analysis caused any inconvenience to you. You certainly deserve credit for this strong analysis. Osps7 (talk) 15:19, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - Tough one, but I'll err on the side of keep. Some of the sources look promotional, and it's entirely possible it was created for promotional purposes, but we're looking at the subject rather than the current condition of the article (unless it's beyond repair, which I don't think it is). Other sources, like Vogue, CNN, The National, etc. seem ok enough, with a mix of primary/secondary material (words by the journalists vs. words from the subject). The big question is the Arabic and English Middle East-related sources, which I (and I suspect most here on enwp) just don't have enough familiarity with to make a judgment call beyond the basics of information literacy. E.g. I don't know Arab News, but this sure looks like a press release/churnalism to me. The same language appears in some of the other sources, which further convinces me it's not a good source to use. I find myself on the fence, and because part of the reason for that is my own ignorance, I'm content to err on the side of a weak keep. I'd encourage the closer to weigh the SPA !votes accordingly, though. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:17, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, _signed,Rosguill ^talk 15:24, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - As said earlier, we have basic here for sure along with GNG. Arab News appears to be RS. Okoslavia (talk) 17:05, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. It doesn't like we're going to get a definitive agreement here on what to do. The suggestion by Rhododendrites to merge might be a suitable compromise, but that can be worked out outside of the scope of an AfD. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:27, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Native American Guardians Association

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

Notability, Neutrality, Original Research WriterArtistDC (talk) 14:20, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The primary reason for deletion is lack of notability per WP:ORG. As a result of a s̵p̵e̵e̵d̵y̵ ̵d̵e̵l̵e̵t̵i̵o̵n̵ prod tag placed August 19, there has been a discussion on the article's talk page.

Neutrality continues to be an issue, although much of the non-neutral language and content supported only by the organization's website have been removed.

The remaining content is original research due to sythesis, drawing conclusions from the organization being mentioned in primary sources, generally local news.

WriterArtistDC (talk) 14:37, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, North Dakota, and Virginia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:17, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Ethnic groups, Politics, and Education. Skynxnex (talk) 17:54, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I am still pondering this. There is a lot of coverage from a lot of geographic areas, including some regional newspapers, so it's not clearly all unreliable sources or ones that don't contribute to notability. I agree the article needs work to be more neutral and it seems like there's little coverage of the org other than at particular events... (As a minor note since I was somewhat unsure, WriterArtistDC nominated it for a Wikipedia:Proposed deletion, not WP:SPEEDY, see Special:Diff/1171091255; I mention it since a PROD was more appropriate for this article than CSD'ing it.) Skynxnex (talk) 20:33, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I spend 99% of my time creating content, so I did not know how to delete an article and chose the wrong process, but I hope that this is the correct one. WriterArtistDC (talk) 20:46, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Against The organization has enough media coverage to warrant a stand alone article. the major problem was neutrality but as per the article's talk page that was resolved. there is no reason to delete the article. Scu ba (talk) 20:51, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Media coverage is the entire problem. Should an organization be deemed notable because its media campaign has had some success in being mentioned in primary sources? Is the creation of a WP article part of that campaign? There is no secondary source to establish that the organization has any independent support or recognition. Instead, several of the news sources quote other Native Americans as saying NAGA does not represent them. WriterArtistDC (talk) 22:12, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Should an organization be deemed notable because it's actions were notable enough to be mentioned by the news? Yes. that is the definition of notability. Scu ba (talk) 23:30, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Notability is a complex concept with no definitive characteristic. Being mentioned in the news is the lowest level. With regard to news reports, Wikipedia is not a newspaper states "While news coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion...". That there is an ongoing controversy regarding the removal of Native mascots is notable, but NAGA's role in that controversy has not been established. The closest any citation comes to being a secondary source is a Sports Illustrated article that casts doubt on NAGA's authenticity as an organization.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 15:28, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This organization is less notable than they claim to be. Nor have they been transformational. -TenorTwelve (talk) 05:06, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Leaning delete - appears to be a failed astroturf organisation and the cites are to their PR work. The coverage is scattershot with very little depth. Possibly there's an article here, but it would be considerably shorter and give the org much less credit - David Gerard (talk) 09:31, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 15:49, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note RE: Breaking news - The astroturf is continuing to be rolled out, and reported by local news without sufficient independent investigation to qualify as reliable sources for any Wikipedia article. An example from Thursday 08/31 is a CBS TV affiliate (KDBC) in El Paso, Texas, operated by Sinclair Broadcast Group, posting a story with the headline "Soros-backed Native American group praises Commanders president's refusal to revert team name". The group referred to is the NCAI, and the unsubstantiated connection to George Soros is the beginning of a making a false equivalency between NCAI and NAGA, the former being a civil rights organization founded in 1944, representing the shared interests of many tribes; the latter a non-profit founded in 2017 that does not have any secondary source to substantiate any of their statements as being representative of more than the handful of Native Americans listed in public records.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 23:34, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I still wonder what you classify as an "independent investigation". Because usually media companies with things such as editorial boards tend to investigate the things they are talking about before releasing it to the world. Also what part of "The organization traces some of its funding back to George Soros’s Open Society Foundations, as well as other left-leaning contributors" is unsubstantiated, the NCAI lists the open society foundation in their list of backers on their own website. Scu ba (talk) 02:00, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
See comment below WriterArtistDC (talk) 22:19, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comments:
- I see no original research or synthesis in the article’s current version
- The article is well referenced by reliable secondary sources.
- The Sports Illustrated article, while primarily written to spotlight NAGA’s presumed major funder, also covers NAGA in substantial depth.
- Traditional local newspapers and media outlets in the United States are presumed reliable sources until proven otherwise.
- I have never heard news reports by traditional local newspapers and media outlets in the United States described as “primary” before. They are secondary
- We do not make a distinction between little news outlets and big outlets as to reliability unless proven otherwise. Instead we look at editorial oversight, independence and neutrality.
- The article seems to have a slight POV against NAGA. That’s irrelevant to article retention. Cleanup ≠ deletion.
- Whether this is some sort of Native American astroturfing group is irrelevant to article retention.
- Whether NAGA are the good guys or the bad guys is irrelevant to article retention.
- IRS form 990 returns are always primary sources. A possible exception might be any independently audited financial statements attached to the return.
- Analysis of and reporting about Form 990 returns can be used as secondary sources.

—A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 04:04, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The difference between primary and secondary sources is not the type of organization, journalistic or academic, but the level of analysis they do. A primary academic source is one that reports the result of a single study, a seconday source is a literature review which reports and synthesises the results of many similar studies, and a tertiery source makes an even broader analysis and places conclusions in an historical context. A primary journalistic source reports on a single event such as the vote by a local school board to change their mascot, a secondary source reports on the mascot controversy statewide or nationwide based upon an analysis of many such events, often with reference to independent experts. I have never seen NAGA mentioned in any secondary reports, although the SI article comes close.
When I first encountered the NAGA article it was mainly based upon references to the organization's own website and the creator's synthesis of many primary news reports. The current content of the article is the result of removing this original research as much as possible. I used the IRS filings as an independent primary source for the infobox, much better that the prior information being from NAGA's own website. If the current content is negative towards NAGA, it is because the reporting that remains includes comments by Native Americans that NAGA does not represent them. The proposed deletion of the article is based upon notabilty, not POV. Notability is established by reference to secondary sources, not the media's uncritical parroting of NAGA's press releases.
The bias in the Texas television report cited above is clear in their wording of the headline, which implies that NCAI is controlled by Soros. The NCAI is primarily funded by dues paid by it members. If it also receives donations from other sources, characterization of those donors as "left-leaning" belongs on an editorial page, not in a news report.

--WriterArtistDC (talk) 14:23, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

you might want to brush up on what a primary source is, the statements that NAGA makes can be classified as primary sources, and the media reporting on these statements as secondary sources.
as such, due to the substantial media coverage, it classifies for notability.
the CBS report called them "Soros-backed", the NCAI is backed, financially, by the open society foundation which is run by Soros. Not sure how more black and white it could be.

Scu ba (talk) 16:58, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You are misreading the definition you linked to and the WP guildline:
- What NAGA has to say about itself is self-promotion, not independently published, thus no source at all.

WP:Primary "Primary sources that have been reputably published may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation."
The LOC definition is somewhat different than WP, but similar to historical research: primary sources are "original documents and objects that were created at the time under study". Yet there is the same caveat: "secondary sources, [are] accounts that retell, analyze, or interpret events". On WP, not having secondary sources for the interpretation of "raw materials" found in primary sources is original research. Historians and journalists may do original research, but not wikipedians.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 21:31, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

And again, are their statements which are released by local media affiliates not reputably published due to the existence of the news affiliate's fact checking and editorial boards per WP:NEWSORG. Scu ba (talk) 22:29, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

- The news stories are raw materials, almost all primary sources of NAGA's actual activity on particular occasions, not what they claim. The sources that remain in the article have some balance, also quoting other participants in the events. The SI article approaches being secondary, placing NAGA's activities in a larger context of Native support for the Redskins and finding it to have been mostly funded by Dan Snyder, and noting that one of NAGA's founding members and spokesperson is Snyder's favorite Pretendian, Mark Yancey.
Not placing the contribution of the Soros organization in the context of the NCAI's total funding is biased reporting. NCAI's list of supporters includes business such as Walmart, government agencies including the Department of Agriculture, and 37 Native American tribes, yet this TV report picks out the Open Society Foundations to make claims that the NCAI is a front for woke liberalism (DEI).

WriterArtistDC (talk) 18:03, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Just because you don't like the reporting or the way it was reported doesn't make it incorrect. Scu ba (talk) 22:28, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the Native American mascots article, or selectively merge there. That seems to be really all they do, so outside of that, nothing for notability. Oaktree b (talk) 01:24, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The main articles on Native mascots are GA. There is nothing worth merging. I fail to see the point of redirecting a title to an article that does not mention NAGA. WriterArtistDC (talk) 03:00, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

~~Comment~~ Delete (After going through the history, and especially after looking at the first version of this article and the talk page, the problem is not with SPAs and IPs. Changing from neutral to Delete. - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 22:42, 5 September 2023 (UTC) )[reply]

With astroturfing groups like this we always face a dilemma. I am familiar with this group. There is no way to put this gently or neutrally. They perpetrate hoaxes, and if they have a WP article, they will create accounts, or do IP edits, to attempt to abuse the 'pedia to perpatrate a WP:HOAX to claim they are actually Native people, that Native people support mascots, and other untrue things. As far as I am aware, from investigations done by Indigenous researchers, they are well-known pretendians and hoaxers, funded by opponents of Indigenous rights, who routinely mislead the media to advance certain political agendas. Advancing these agendas is their paid profession. So, there are usually-reliable sources that contain misinformation about this group, calling them legitimate when they are not, because they succeeded in fooling journalists. This puts us, as Wikipedians, in a difficult place. We can either:

Delete the article under the principle of Deny Recognition. Or,
Keep the article only if there are sufficient sources to tell the truth about them, in a neutral, encyclopedic voice.

My opinion is that if we don't have enough sources to do #2, the best way to avoid being used for a hoax is to do #1 and delete. - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 00:07, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am also very familiar with NAGA, having edited the Native mascot articles since 2012. Their tactics are the same as Dan Snyder and prior owners during decades of resisting change: "I found one Native American Redskins fan, so I get to keep the name no matter what Suzan Harjoe, Amanda Blackhorse, and the NCAI says". One of the Natives he found was Mark Yancey, a founding board member of NAGA who could not reliable say which tribe he was from. However, I do not say the NAGA members are all pretendians, but there are only about a dozen in the IRS documents, and no independent source for their claim of 5,000 due-paying members, but the majority are certainly non-native sports fans, as are the thousands signing the change.org petitions.

The racism represented by Native mascots is not a matter of individual opinions, but studies published in peer-reviewed journals and supported by the professional organizations representing the relevant academic disciplines. The current version of the NAGA article has indeed been edited down to a neutral reprentation (per WP:DUE) of NAGA as a fringe group with little credability or success at promoting its contrary viewpoint. This may be all they need, to be able to say there is a Wikipedia article on NAGA so it is noteworthy, but the woke editors are posting only lies and deleting the truth.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 14:13, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If IP editors make incorrect edits we can WP:ECP the article, it doesn't make sense deleting the entire article on the premise that IP editors might one day make incorrect edits. Scu ba (talk) 12:49, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Of course we can protect the article if we keep it. And we would most likely have to. Just looking down both roads, whichever way we turn at this crossroads. I'm not so much saying it's a reason to delete, but some have considered the hassles a reason in the past. I tend to lean towards keeping something to tell the truth about them, but I haven't decided what's best here. Best wishes. - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 22:15, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, sorry for the misunderstanding. Scu ba (talk) 23:15, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Scu ba... I'm looking at your creation of this article. This opening you wrote is really not neutral, but seems like you believe their false claims and are promoting them. This is concerning. Do you have any connection to this group? - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 22:19, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I just wrote what was in the articles. I didn't put my own POV into it, but the affiliated CBS ABC stations might've had their own POV to increase clicks. Scu ba (talk) 23:16, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per my earlier comments above^{(04:04 3 September)} and those of others. This organization is notable.

A question that's been raised is: how's it right/righteous/appropriate/whatever to keep an article for an outfit like this. My policy-based answers:

Wikipedia is not censored
Wikipedia is neutral
Our article deletion policy doesn't have a provision for deleting on this basis.

As a practical matter, I don't think this article does the Native American Guardians Association any favors. It's not NPOV now but even edited to neutrality, it's still going to report awkward things. I think the organisation's foes would want an article here. It's the first place journalists and others will look when NAGA comes to their town. If I were NAGA, I would want this article deleted if I couldn't control it. It's too late for them to control it -- it's now on too many watchlists.

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 03:43, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The relevant argument here is whether the article meets the GNG. I see a lot of discussion that skids past the sources and basically have two sets of assertions. What would help would be either a source analysis or a conversation about specific sources to enable us to get to a clear consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:31, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - More specific than GNG to the notability of organizations (WP:ORG), the Primary criteria is: "A company, corporation, organization, group, product, or service is presumed notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject." This criteria is stricter than GNG specifically to prevent WP being used for advertising and promotion. If these criteria were applied to the NAGA article, all content would disappear, and almost has compared to when originally created. There is at most one secondary source (Sport Illustrated) which mentions NAGA but is about the Washington Redskins Original Americans Foundation, and supports the description of NAGA as an Astroturfing organization.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 14:25, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Again, they have significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources, aka local news reports, that are independent of NAGA and instead focusing on the Redskins and other Indian mascot name controversies. Scu ba (talk) 02:59, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum to reply above - WP:SECONDARY: "A secondary source provides thought and reflection based on primary sources, generally at least one step removed from an event. It contains analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis of the facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas taken from primary sources." With the exception of the SI article, all of the citations that have ever been in the NAGA article are primary - local news reporting of an event, in which NAGA was mentioned in passing, not "significant coverage".--WriterArtistDC (talk) 15:58, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep based on wide coverage noted above, but should have a "criticisms" or similar type of section. There is definitely material out there which can be used to populate such a critique that would ensure the article is balanced and encyclopedic rather than being used merely for publicity. The subject is engaged in activities which the general public should know about with available references to support, and that makes it encyclopedic. - Indefensible (talk) 19:08, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Others have been editing the article during this discussion, and I have been doing cleanup, usually rewording based upon the cited sources or removing content that the sources do not mention at all. As noted, the article is moving towards being negative regarding NAGA, but this is due to accuracy, not bias. The organization is mentioned in many primary news reports in sources of varying reliablity, but the few that go beyond stating facts regarding an event either include statements by local Indigenous tribal representatives that NAGA does not represent them or actually represents white supporters of Native mascots that fund the organization. One source notes that NAGA has not received sufficient donations in a year to require submitting a full report to the IRS detailing their activities and spending.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 13:49, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The latest cleanup has been the reversion of an edit deleting SI cited content. WriterArtistDC (talk) 19:33, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The SI content was again deleted without explanation. Should I bother to replace it since the entire artical should be gone? WriterArtistDC (talk) 18:59, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The deletion was self-reverted. WriterArtistDC (talk) 23:13, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: One more try for clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, _signed,Rosguill ^talk 15:18, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not having been part of an AfD before, I don't know what a clearer concensus would look like. Frankly, the topic is not worthy, so I am not surprised there are few participants here. There are currently 4 for deletion (including one "leaning"), all offering comments specific to this article regarding lack of Notability, RS's and NPOV. There are three "keep", one by the originator of the article, who seem to offer inclusionist arguements that would make anything is the media worthy of a WP article, opening up a flood of astroturfing.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 18:40, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is a tough one. I'm sympathetic to the argument that effective astroturfing leads to coverage in minor/local publications (not to mention publications with a documented ideology compatible with the subject's). Fun fact: several of the sources cited quote this guy without qualification (or perhaps prior to the WaPo article). I'm also sympathetic to the argument that there are several sources which go into some depth about this group's activities. There's a good case for retaining some information about it, prioritizing the highest quality sources, somewhere. Does it merit a stand-alone article? It's borderline. What about a selective merge to Native American mascot controversy (again, preserving only the best sources). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 19:15, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have mentioned above that I am the major contributor to the mascot controversy article, which has been GA for years, and no editor found NAGA (or Mark Yancey, the "guy" alluded to) worthy of mention. The viewpoint that mascots are racist, not "honoring" is based upon peer-reviewed journal articles and books by professors in several disciplines, not the opinion of a fringe group.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 21:19, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What does The viewpoint that mascots are racist, not "honoring" have to do with anything? The question is whether, if you take all the reliable sources about the subject of the mascot controversy, there are sufficient sources about NAGA that they constitute due WP:WEIGHT to include there. That's the nature of NPOV. Nobody says we have to parrot their talking points. If there's consensus there that it would not be due weight to include, that's fine, but it's based on sourcing. The merge could simply be something like "Organizations like the Native American Guardians Association (NAGA) mobilized local and national activists claiming to be Native Americans to defend use of Native American mascots. These organizations are not part of any tribe or other Native American cultural group, and multiple people involved have faced allegations that they are not Native American". Now, that may not wind up being an NPOV summary (I'd need to look closer at the sourcing), but it's an example of the kind of merge I mean. Doesn't the existence of these astroturfing groups (caveat: I can't find a good source that explicitly calls them that, so don't use that word) seem worth at least briefly mentioning as a frequently publicized player in the larger controversy? — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 21:42, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I appologize for the way I stated the issue. I do not seperate due weight based upon sourcing and my understanding of those sources as a subject area expert. The fact us there is really nothing to say about NAGA anywhere because there are no sources that mention the organization that come near to the academic and professional sources I have cited in the main articles on Native mascots. Most pointedly there is no secondary source to establish that the organization even exists as supporters claim.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 00:18, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Of course they exist, there is a verifiable EIN. - Indefensible (talk) 18:58, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Exist as they claim. From the evidence in public sources, NAGA is less than a dozen individuals with a website, a PO box and a registration as a charity which has rarely collected significant donations. They claim to represent a "silent majority" of Native Americans nationwide who are honored by Native mascots, but usually fail because there are members of local tribes advocating for their removal. WriterArtistDC (talk) 20:12, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That is a little different than "even exists as supporters claim," but even so it does not really matter. Wikipedia can still have neutral coverage of a problematic subject like a hoax or fraud, that is why I recommended previously to include a "Criticisms" section. - Indefensible (talk) 21:23, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The article is currently little more than a list of failures and criticisms, which is all that can be established based upon the sources. This discussion is about whether the paucity of sources warrants deletion.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 01:09, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:31, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jessie Baetz

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

Fails WP:SIGCOV, WP:BASIC, WP:MUSICBIO, and WP:NARTIST. The sources listed only mention the subject in passing, or are trivial local press covering minor events. The New York Times article for example includes her name in a long list of names. (FYI The article's title is "Art In Review" in the subsection of "At the Jumble Shop") The reviewer, Edward Alden Jewell, didn't even review the art only mentioning food was available and people could walk around and look at the art. The main criticism of the piece was directed at other unconnected art events in other parts of New York City. A WP:BEFORE search didn't yield anything better. There isn't anything here to suggest the subject is encyclopedic. 4meter4 (talk) 14:18, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: More than enough discussion of their work as a composer in Gscholar. A quick perusal shows the first 6 mentions in Gscholar to be decent. Oaktree b (talk) 14:59, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Oaktree b I looked at most of those (as in actually read them). They only mention Baetz in passing as a student of Johanna Beyer who performed with Beyer at the Composers’ Forum Laboratory Concert in 1937 (a work composed by Beyer not Baetz) with no other biographical content or discussion of Baetz's music compositions or work beyond that. The articles in question only briefly nod at Baetz, and do so entirely in the context of coverage of Beyer's music and its performance in 1937. Can you please point to a journal article that actually has "in-depth coverage" that goes beyond a passing mention in a single sentence (literally that is the length of Baetz's coverage in those journal articles).4meter4 (talk) 15:31, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I've had deep dive in the sources, (the Jstor one in particular), Baetz seems to be a student of Beyer, mentioned as you said over, and over, in her article. I feel like we could selectively merge some of the Baetz article into the Beyer. I mean, Baetz is mentioned several times, but always as being "a student of" Beyer. That would make the most sense to me, rather than a wholesale deletion of this article. Oaktree b (talk) 20:28, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's what it seems to be, this thesis on page 52 [64] mentions Baetz in a footnote; that appears to be the extent of coverage/notability. She's a student of Beyer with some connections to her, but never rising to her level of critical notice. Oaktree b (talk) 20:35, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists, Bands and musicians, Women, and Canada. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:32, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - much of the original article, and the current one, directly matches this article (footnote 38) - however, the user who added that text has a username that matches the author of the article, so this is presumably not a copyvio as such. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:38, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, leaning Keep. There seem to be multiple articles discussing her as a composer, esp. "Never Call Us Lady Composers": Gendered Receptions in the New York Composers' Forum, 1935-1940 by Melissa J. De Graaf American Music, Vol. 26, No. 3 (Fall, 2008), pp. 277-308 (JSTOR 40071709) as well as the book The New York Composers’ Forum Concerts, 1935–1940 also by Melissa de Graaf (review by John D. Spilker mentions Baetz; Journal of the Society for American Music, Volume 10 , Issue 4 , November 2016 , pp. 511 - 514 doi:10.1017/S1752196316000420). Newspaper search finds local newspaper coverage of an art exhibition (Kingston Daily Freeman 31 Oct 1970) and several other mentions. Not really seeing a pressing need to delete. Espresso Addict (talk) 23:09, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Changing to formal keep per additional sources found by Tagishsimon. Espresso Addict (talk) 21:46, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per Oaktree b and Espresso Addict. I'd like to add too that as a female composer of note, she would be of historical interest there as well. I'm confident that going through books more will be turned up. Karl Twist (talk) 08:47, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. There is a consensus to Keep but it's unclear if newly discovered sources are sufficient to meet GNG.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:33, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I personally believe the keep voters haven't demonstrated WP:SIGCOV. In looking at the sources presented by Espresso Addict and others above, the coverage appears to be very thin. There isn't any critical commentary on her compositions and no larger discussion of her work as a composer. She's largely only mentioned in passing in connection to Beyer. Further, it's telling that no one has been able to come up with a review of her music; which to my mind demonstrates a lack of notability for a composer. One would think a critical review of a concert where here music was performed would be locatable, but there isn't anything newspapers.com, The New York Times archives, or music magazines or journals. That would be very odd for a notable composer based out of New York. The "art reviews" aren't all that significant as they are all small local affairs and not at a significant art venue, and the reviews themselves don't have in-depth coverage of her art and work as an artist. They are more focused on her husband's work (the couple exhibited together), and the one larger art review in the Kingston Daily Freeman only mentions her as creating new pieces while people were watching at the art exhibit as a form of "improvisational art" in one sentence while her husband's work got a few paragraphs of coverage. In short this is all trivial coverage in my opinion. I also note the subject doesn't meet any WP:SNG criteria either. 4meter4 (talk) 00:19, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, we're aware that you believe the article should be deleted, but I don't personally believe that you have demonstrated a case for the necessity for deletion. None of us can access the book I mention, so the extent of coverage of Baetz is only known via the fact that a book reviewer explicitly chose to highlight her, which to me suggests likely to be significant. I don't believe anyone commenting here has access to specialist music library sources -- I certainly don't. Espresso Addict (talk) 00:14, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Besides incidental mentions, there's a couple of pages on Jessie Baetz in The New York Composers' Forum concerts, 1935-1940 by Graaf, Melissa J. de, pages 100 & 101, available via Internet Archive. Not sure if this was the book Espresso Addict is pointing to. More generally, an IA search for "Jessie Baetz" comes up with plenty of hits suggesting that she's not obscure. --Tagishsimon (talk) 01:47, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am aware, but I fail to see how this essentially one event passes GNG. All of the music related sources are about the New York Composers Forum. The one you found, while in-depth (where the others are not), is so negative in its reception of the subject and her work I question whether this really lends notability/credibility towards creating an article on the subject. It looks to me like we have a composer who had her music performed at only one notable event at which point her music was harshly received and she simply stopped after that. To my mind that doesn't reach the standard of GNG, WP:MUSICBIO, or WP:NARTIST. 4meter4 (talk) 19:00, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ima stop you at 'while in-depth'. 'so negative in its reception of the subject and her work' might be said about any number of people; it's not an AfD criteria that people must like her music. --Tagishsimon (talk) 19:47, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Tagishsimon I never said a positive review was required. However, WP:SIGCOV requires multiple sources with significant coverage and this is only one source. Further I take issue with this source as providing a neutral or balanced picture of Baetz. Reasonably WP:NPOV requires a balanced reporting on a subject. Ironically, the author of the book including this coverage was doing so to demonstrate a larger historic pattern of bias against women composers in music criticism; and really the main topic here was not Baetz and her music but the potentially unfair assessment of Baetz and women like her through a cultural problem of systemic bias against women composers of that era. Unfortunately, there is no counter-assessment from a contemporary author to remedy the historical critique.

My main concern in creating an article based on this one solid piece of evidence is we are essentially encoding the negative reception of Baetz from a single event into an encyclopedia article on her, and are taking one small window of her life and work to build an article which will inevitably skew negative. More importantly, there are zero sources with a broader view of her life and work as either a composer or an artist, which all add up to failing WP:SIGCOV in my opinion. In short, I believe the scholarship just isn't there to create an ethically responsible encyclopedia article. This is clearly a woman that deserves to be researched and potentially re-assessed. However, that is not our job at Wikipedia. Until that original research is done by academics in published sources, I really don't think we should have an encyclopedia article on her. 4meter4 (talk) 23:06, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

tfw it's your ethical responsibility to remove an article supported by 15 referenes, on a women, b/c. --Tagishsimon (talk) 10:02, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kepp. Appears to be sufficiently notable.--Ipigott (talk) 07:39, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: "Notability" appears to be based entirely on passing mentions. Looking through newspaper archives and JSTOR does not turn up any significant coverage. Am I missing something here? —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 18:43, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Flipping through the de Graaf book right now. Again, mentions of Baetz are all in passing: as being one of several "ultramodernists" (p. 46), her music was played at the Forum ~~twice~~ once (p. 97), the audience derided her music (p. 101). What very little is mentioned sounds tantalizing enough to make one want to hear her music and learn more about her. But as de Graaf herself admits (p. 100) "unfortunately, very little is known about Baetz". —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 18:53, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You are missing pretty much all of WP:GNG here; notably, pages 100-101 are 'significant coverage' in GNGs terms, and the rest of GNG is met. Only knowing little about the subject is not a reason for deletion. --Tagishsimon (talk) 19:47, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

According to WP:SIGCOV, significant coverage would address "the topic directly and in detail". However, de Graaf's book does not do this. I agree that knowing little about a subject is not necessarily reason for deletion, but in Baetz's case there are also no studies, books, reviews, etc. that specifically cover her work. Whatever the worth of her music—and, again, de Graaf suggests that it may have been very interesting—that does not make up for lack of significant, much less sustained coverage. —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 19:59, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A couple of pages is in detail, CurryTime. It's not a passing mention. It is direct. GNG is satisfied. --Tagishsimon (talk) 21:42, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Four fleeting references that total about 2 1/2 paragraphs in a 290-page book is not "detail", Tagishsimon. They are passing mentions. They are not direct. GNG is not satisfied. —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 22:24, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

SIGCOV is not determined based on the length of the rest of the source. 2 1/2 paragraphs is indeed significant coverage. A passing mention would be one or two sentences. Silver seren^C 22:41, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We are just going to have to agree to disagree on this matter. To me, 2 1/2 paragraphs of scattered passing references in a book that otherwise is not about her specifically, but about an organization of which she was but one member of many (and where her music appears to only have ever been performed once) is not significant coverage.

My vote to delete has nothing to do with the possible intrinsic quality of her music, which may be considerable. If any other editors turn up reviews, interviews, studies, etc. about her specifically, believe me, I would enthusiastically vote against deletion. —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 23:20, 29 September 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 Drygalski Fjord#Named locations. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:17, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Trendall Crag

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

A geographic feature that isn't protected or otherwise populated. Not seeing significant coverage in web sources either, everything is about Alex Trendall and not this crag. JackFromWisconsin (talk | contribs) 14:11, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: United Kingdom and Islands. JackFromWisconsin (talk | contribs) 14:11, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ArcAngel (talk) 22:10, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:32, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Drygalski Fjord#Named locations. Trendall Crag is mentioned in connection with the fjord in this publication (page 158). [65]. I'm concerned at losing Wikipedia's geographical features coverage but agree that a separate article is not warranted in this case and the material is better served placed within a more comprehensive article. Rupples (talk) 02:24, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Drygalski Fjord#Named locations.4meter4 (talk) 16:22, 10 October 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. Luca Brasi keeps his head above water for now, but we might need to rewrite and/or move the article to focus on the notable aspects of his character, rather than an in-universe biography. – Joe (talk) 14:04, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Luca Brasi

AfDs for this article:

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

A quick Google search and the sources already existing in the article does not give any sources that prove individual notability, and per WP:N, it is not worth a standalone article. If the character is not notable, I suggest a redirect and/or merge to List of The Godfather characters#Luca Brasi. Spinixster (chat!) 14:02, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Science fiction and fantasy, and Film. Spinixster (chat!) 14:02, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, film study [66], CT Magazine [67], Time Magazine [68] DonaldD23 talk to me 16:07, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'll see if the sources are good:
- First source seems to have been written by students (see bottom of page), but either way, this talks about the character's death scene rather than the character himself.
- Second source also talks about the character's death scene.
- Third source isn't very good because it's a trivial fact in a list of trivial facts.
You will need sources that prove the character's individual notability, not something about a scene they're in or some trivia about the portrayal of the character. Spinixster (chat!) 08:49, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment List of The Godfather characters seems to have a major NN character spinout problem. There are quite a few redlinked hatnotes from expired PRODs from 2021 which no-one has bothered to remove. My recommendation would be to blanket merge/redirect back all subquality TGF character articles there and let it grow organically, instead of worrying individual character notability. – sgeureka ^t•c 09:14, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. (see below for GNG) If we think about this from the readers perspective, they're going to want to read about the iconic line, "Luca Brasi sleeps with the fishes" and learn what it means, how the relevent scenes played out, how they were made, what impact it's had beyond The Godfather, etc.

We Wikipedians have a hard miss here, not having any solid coverage beyond a bit of plot summary of "Luca Brasi sleeps with the fishes". I'm willing to seek out a better way to cover this subject, but flat merge into a character list probably buries the notability here. Perhaps a Death of Luca Brasi or even Luca Brasi sleeps with the fishes article for the notable sequences from The Godfather, with some background, and linking to a shorter character bio in the list would work. But I'm not sure AfD is the best place to make that complicated a decision. Beyond the movie character, there's even the matter of the differences between film and book to cover, as those have been analyzed as well.

Either way, the article needs an improvement to focus on notability. But when we consider the subject holistically, a fictional element that is analyzed in secondary sources, it's pretty clear this this meets WP:GNG.

Here's a Springer Nature book chapter[69] that dedicates several hundred words to the character and their death, as part of a discussion of cuisine. (Incidentally, this is a morbidly fascinating read).
This academic book [70] has hundreds of words of coverage of this character, relating The Godfather to the real world, comparing the authenticity of the book and the movie, etc.
This book has more analysis [71]
This book's commentary [72] provides secondary coverage of the character in "life" as well as their death, also examining how various film-making techniques were used.
Here's a bit of a shocker - a religious analysis of the notable scenes [73]

This represents a non-exhaustive search.

I'm willing to change my !vote if someone has a good way to capture the notability for our readers, but again, a flat merge into a character list is probably not going to do it here. —siro χ o 05:19, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's a good idea for an article about the scene. I checked the sources, and they seem to be okay for use, though I'm not sure about the title of the article, more consensus would be needed for that. Spinixster (chat!) 07:16, 24 September 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 Steve Earle. RL0919 (talk) 23:58, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Steve Earle Show

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

Unable to find any secondary coverage for this defunct radio show. Hits for "The Revolution Starts Now" are about the song of the same name, not the radio show. Fails WP:GNG. Let'srun (talk) 13:18, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Music, Radio, and Politics. Let'srun (talk) 13:18, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to parent article. That seems simple and reasonable enough. Why? I Ask (talk) 14:22, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ArcAngel (talk) 22:10, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Steve Earle per WP:ATD. Currently the biography doesn't even mention the show by name and the content would seem like a better fit on Earle's bio page than on the radio station page for WP:WEIGHT reasons.4meter4 (talk) 18:25, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 15:05, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kosovo Raid (1448)

AfDs for this article:

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

This article fails WP:NEVENT and WP:GNG. No results on Google Books for a Kosovo Raid of 1448. Sources have mostly short/trivial mentions of event, sometimes with different dates and different perpetuators. If a significant raid did take place WP:SIGCOV from contemporary sources would exist which would warrant a standalone article, otherwise trivial mentions in sources can be sufficiently described in Đurađ Branković, Skanderberg, John Hunyadi or any related articles. Wafflesvarrg (talk) 12:42, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, Albania, Serbia, and Turkey. Wafflesvarrg (talk) 12:42, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Sources used in the article:

[74] inaccessible
[75] short mention in a masters' thesis of Skanderbeg sacking Serbia; not sure if showing significant scholarly influence per WP:SCHOLARSHIP N
[76] short mention in a footnote sourced from a 1509 and 1743 book dating the event to 1444 not 1448. N
[77] trivial mention, also contradict content with quote p.393: "Hunyadi treated Serbia as enemy territory, plundering and devastating the countryside." N
[78] contradict content, full quote :"It was formerly believed that George Brankovic, responding to Murad's hopes in him, had blocked the mountain passes against George Castriota, who supposedly tried to come to the crusaders' help with his Albanian troops but recent research has shown this to be untrue". N
[79] trivial mention on p 63., different perpetuator. The quote is "As after Varna by Vlad, so now Hunyadi on his flight was detained by the Despot, on whom after his release he wreaked the milder vengeance of devastating part of his territory." N
[80] About the Second Battle of Kosovo. Hunyadi’s Campaign of 1448 and the Second Battle of Kosovo Polje, no mention of 1448 Raid.
[81] same as 4 N
[82] same as 5 N
[83] same as 6 N
[84] same as 6 N
[85] About Second Battle of Kosovo.
[86] About Second Battle of Kosovo.
[87] same as 1
[88] same as 2 N
[89] same as 3 N
[90] This seems to be about the 1444 Battle of Varna not sure what content this is supporting.
Sources section list this book which contains chapter Skanderbeg’s Revolt in Albania pp. 556 to 558 but no mention of a military campaign or raid launched in Kosovo in 1448; the closest I could find was p 554 "Then he (Hunyadi in 1448) led his armies through Serbia anyway, plundering Serbia like an enemy land." and p 557 "Skanderbeg, leaving part of his army to carry on the siege of Danj, met the Turks in battle in September 1448" and p 558 "Skanderbeg at the end of 1448 concluded a peace with Venice" N

Wafflesvarrg (talk) 12:45, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. Does not appear to be significant enough for a separate article since there are barely a handful of mentions of the event and nothing in detail. If not already included, good sources could be added to relevant articles. Aintabli (talk) 05:29, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. This event is not significant enough to have its own article because there is very little information about it available. Боки ^{Write to me!} 21:59, 23 September 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 World Series of Darts. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 15:06, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

World Series of Darts Finals

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

Last edited 8 months ago, and doesn't have any sources. Is it worth keeping, or delete? L1amw90 10:31, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Sports. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:10, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Austria, Netherlands, and Scotland. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:11, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTSTATS. We have the top level World Series of Darts and we have individual tournament articles like 2023 World Series of Darts Finals (see Category:World Series of Darts). The article under discussion is an extra one which just covers the "finals". As such it seems to be primarily a repository for random stats. Any useful text could be relocated to a section in World Series of Darts and the stats deleted. Nigej (talk) 11:51, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:17, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into World Series of Darts as a premature spinoff. Respondent above me seems to agree that the texts should be considered for merge. I tend to agree with them that in general we have sufficient stats at the target already. Both opinions culminate in merge as does a nomination that is unsure between keeping or deletion. gidonb (talk) 07:39, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into World Series of Darts, as it's an unnecessary spinoff of that article. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:52, 23 September 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. – Joe (talk) 13:53, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hilden Grange School

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

I have carried out WP:BEFORE on this article about a preparatory school, and added a citation to "Get Information about Schools". I cannot find reliable, independent secondary sources and I don't think the school meets WP:NCORP or WP:GNG. Tacyarg (talk) 09:42, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, United Kingdom, and England. Tacyarg (talk) 09:42, 19 September 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) Nagol0929 (talk) 12:40, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Alexis Baro

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

Previously deleted. No evidence of wp:notability under GNG or the SNG. I looked at all of the references and could find even a small amount of GNG type coverage. The most written about him in any of those is the self-supplied bio in various announcements. One of the references is Wikipedia that that has just his his name is a list. Reviewed during new page patrol. North8000 (talk) 01:27, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the Jazz Journal review looks alright [91], but couldn't find anything else. Might fall short of meeting MUSICBIO.-KH-1 (talk) 01:53, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not delete the article until I post my replay later today. I will explain what are the reasons why I think the article should remain on wikipedia and why I think article meets wikipedia guidelines. Thanks! IlistenClassicalMusic (talk) 06:39, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Canada, and Cuba. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:08, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@North8000@KH-1@Spiderone

Hello to everyone, in this message i will explain why i think article meets music notability guideline. I am sorry for long text but please read it all.

1."Has won or been nominated for a major music award, such as a Grammy, Juno, Mercury, Choice or Grammis award." You can read on reference that is official CBC.ca website that subject is nominee of Juno 2019 awards. This is most clear meet of wikipedia music notability guidelines.

2."The most written about him in any of those is the self-supplied bio in various announcements": RE: I think we should take in consideration that subject is from Cuba, many information about him cant be obtained since Cuba is closed country, expecialy from the "internet" side. Second, how is media supposed to write biography about someone from closed Cuba, if biography isnt supplied from subject side on one way or another, written or spoken? You will probably agree with me that the media will not go to Cuba to "investigate" about jazz musician and get his birth certificate risking their own freedom, jazz is not a 'commercial' type of music listened to by billions of people nor is the subject politically dissident/politically persecuted etc. so articles about him will sell millions of copies.

3. "One of the references is Wikipedia that that has just his his name is a list." That reference is leading to Wikipedia article about world famous Jazz festival and competition in New York. In that article subject is mentioned as one of the performers and subjects performance on that festival is showing that subject is acclaimed, recognized, and famous artist in his(Jazz) field since he performs on world famous festival. Second reference for that performance is YouTube video on YT channel of that same festival, on video you can literaly see subject performing there. Third reference is from media. I know YouTube shouldnt be used as reference, but i put it there with purpose, for reviewer of article to see with his own eyes that media coverage is justified, accurate, and authentic, YT reference can be removed when reviewer see it and confirms it anyhow.

4. Music notability guideline, "Musicians or ensembles may be notable if they meet at least one of the following criteria."

"Has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent of the musician or ensemble itself", In article there is many references of media that report about artist, they are not big media publishers but Jazz is not 'comercial' type of music. In whole world there is no big world famous media that make many reports on Jazz musicians and their life. The size, importance and popularity of the media reporting on the subject are proportional to the influence of Jazz in world.
"Has received non-trivial coverage in independent reliable sources of an international concert tour, or a national concert tour in at least one sovereign country". In article there is references to his performances in Canada, USA, Montenegro. For Montenegro reference is from the first Montenegrin Jazz radio station and portal.
"Is an ensemble that contains two or more independently notable musicians, or is a musician who has been a reasonably prominent member of two or more independently notable ensembles." Subject, while in school, became member of "Buena Vista Social Club" that is internationaly famous ensemble, which have own Wikipedia page, in that club there is numerous notable musicians. I put only one reference for that from "Niagara jazz festival" since i thought it would be enough, it isnt possible that so much famous festivals lie about their musicians, also when you google this there is many media that mention Alexis Baro as one of members of the ensemble.
"Has performed music for a work of media that is notable, such as a theme for a network television show, performance in a television show or notable film, inclusion on a notable compilation album." I think this is also a pass, since subject performed on world famous jazz music festival in New York, i explained this in part 3.
Criteria for composers and lyricists, Others: -The recording has won or been nominated for a major music award, such as a Grammy, Juno, Mercury, Choice or Grammis award -The recording was performed in a medium that is notable-Has credit for writing or co-writing either lyrics or music for a notable composition-Has had a work used as the basis for a later composition by a songwriter, composer, or lyricist who meets the above criteriaRE: I think few of this are pass or partialy a pass since subjects composition is on Hilario Duran’s Grammy Award nominated album “From The Heart" and I put references for this also, reference is Library of Congress in Washington.

I am sorry for long answer, but i think i fully explained why subject meets multiple music notability guidelines, fully or partialy in some parts and why article is not for deletion. Thank you for you patience. IlistenClassicalMusic (talk) 11:18, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @IlistenClassicalMusic:, thanks for your work. I just try to do my job properly and am not an active advocate for what happens then either way. For this reason I'm not going to argue/respond to the points in your post post except to note a couple things which might be useful info for you. Wikipedia notability is mostly about finding in depth coverage of the topic (the performer) in typically at least 2 sources so that would be a good thing to look for when looking for sources. Adding references which are basically the venue promoting an upcoming appearance which use the artist-supplied bio are a nice addition but don't count towards that. Also, you can't use Wikipedia as a source. However this ends up, thanks for your work and happy editing! Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 14:13, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for explanation, I'm sorry if my answer seemed like an arguing, that is surely not what i wanted to do. I hope that you read whole text and editors and participants of this thread will read my whole explanation why i think this article meets notability guidelines, and help me improve article. IlistenClassicalMusic (talk) 14:26, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@IlistenClassicalMusic: A common meaning of "arguing" is simply "making arguments" "making points" and is not anything negative. So your post is fine and there is nothing to be sorry about. My advice on all articles is to look for coverage which in-depth on him and try to include 1 or 2 of those as sources. North8000 (talk) 14:46, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Can you now remove notification on article? Another editor commented bellow that we should keep it. IlistenClassicalMusic (talk) 07:44, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I can't. The result of this discussion here will determine that. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 12:16, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but tag for cleanup. Article is very over-reliant on bad primary sources that are not valid support for notability, and is in dire need of a cleanup job, but he does have a valid notability claim as a Juno Award nominee and better sources are available (163 hits in ProQuest) to repair it with. Bearcat (talk) 13:54, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:51, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the reliable sources. NYC Guru (talk) 08:54, 19 September 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} 06:19, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Athena Massey

AfDs for this article:

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

Since the last AFD in 2020, she's had no new roles, apart from a minor appearance in a documentary made this year, We Kill for Love, for which she gets passing mentions in the four Google News hits for her name. This version is substantially longer, having been padded out with a lot of highly promotional fan language, and still using IMDB for about a third of its sources. In a WP:BEFORE search, I can't find SIGCOV of her in reliable sources, just a lot of mentions in film and TV credits for minor roles, as you can see in the cites here, and a few interviews on podcasts and YouTube. Article mentions that she was featured twice in Femme Fatales (magazine), but as the WP article notes, " It was unique in that it encouraged contributions from the actresses themselves...", and I can't see that as counting substantially toward meeting WP:NACTOR. Wikishovel (talk) 08:49, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Women, Television, Video games, and California. Wikishovel (talk) 08:49, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The "shusher" on Senfield is iconic, but it's not what we're looking for, notability-wise. Sources used are cast lists and press stories where she's listed as an actress in xyz production. Not meeting ACTOR. Oaktree b (talk) 14:23, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I wrote this article for the simple fact that I have been a fan of the subject for some time. I came to Wikipedia as the go-to platform for finding more information where she has been active and found a blank page. This was surprising to me because she was referenced several time on the platform on various films, shows, etc., along with other actors of her level that DID have active pages. So, I took it on myself to create one. I did see the previous deletion that said the citations were largely IMDB. So I went out of my way to use as many sources other than IMDB in my cites. If I was a fan looking for her on Wikipedia today, his is the exact type of page I would be looking for. To the comment that she hasn't been active is incorrect. As noted, she is active in the various interviews and appearances in connection to her various roles. For her fan base and others, this IS an informative article. Keith0603 (talk) 14:47, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
While I have no opinion on whether or not this page it kept, I would like to point out that your argument for not deleting the article is WP:ILIKEIT, which is not a valid rationale for keeping it. DonaldD23 talk to me 02:18, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fair point. I will try again and be more objective. The comment regarding the number of IMDB links is valid. My understanding was that I needed citations for everything in the article. In looking at other similar articles, I should have only had the citations back to a single page on IMDB (where applicable) and take off all the individual citations for each item in the lists. I would be more than happy to make those changes. That should address that concern and clean up the document. Keith0603 (talk) 21:24, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Seems to have had a few rather significant roles in notable films (Shadow of a Scream and her appearance in We Kill for Love does not seem really minor (or this , on that very film), for example, and some in TV shows. So all in all, she seems notable. Still, the page needs clean up (and is not a B-article in my view but I won't reassess it just now).-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 20:30, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't agree with the assertion of "just a lot of mentions in film and TV credits for minor roles". While she did have many guest starring roles in popular shows at the time, she had top billing in several films. Additionally, Femme Fatales may have encouraged contributions, the interview I quoted was done by a journalist and was not self-submitted. Keith0603 (talk) 21:29, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~: I removed the redundant citations with regards to the comments on the page needing to be cleaned up. Keith0603 (talk) 21:34, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I removed all of the external references except for IMDB. As an actor, I still feel this is valid, but removed the rest. Additionally, I went though and edited to be more "encyclopedic". I have only written one other published article, so please bear with me as I learn. I do feel that it reads better now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Keith0603 (talk • contribs) 00:19, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have made various edits to address the issues that have been raised here. I'll try to list them here. COI - As mentioned, I am a fan of the subject but have no other connection, personal, professional or otherwise. I am not, have not, and will not be compensated for this article. All the information I gathered was via interviews in magazines or podcasts. I did notice I inadvertently deleted a citation during one of my edits that I have since restored. Since the COI tag doesn't mention what area is uncited, I don't know how else to fix. Tone/Peacock tag. I did edit and/or remove several places where I saw this. If there is any other specific areas I would be happy to fix. Notability tag. I believe this has been addressed in the discussions on this page already. Reliability - again, I'm not sure which sources this refers to. If it's IMDB, then I would call out that other actors use this successfully as a citation on other pages in Wikipedia. Again, since I've only previously published once, I appreciate your patience with making this process work. Keith0603 (talk) 00:05, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: We need to hear from more editors about this article. As an aside, User:Keith0603, you've probably commented enough now for others to understand your point of view on this article and the subject's notability.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:36, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree nothing has changed since the last nomination. BrigadierG (talk) 22:49, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No significant coverage in reliable sources (fails WP:GNG), lack of major roles in multiple notable productions (fails WP:NACTOR). --Mika1h (talk) 14:52, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:27, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete @BrigadierG I agree with you.--Correspondentman (talk) 08:52, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I dispute the comment that she has had no notable roles in multiple productions. She has starred in 5 Roger Corman productions, which included 4 films and one film that became a TV series. She also had a lead role in 3 Westwood Studios video games. Keith0603 (talk) 23:05, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
For reliable sources, would references to physical DVDs be better than IMDB? This seems to qualify as a secondary source and should be undeniable proof. The guidelines that I read here are a bit vague. I would be happy to provide if this is a more acceptable source. Keith0603 (talk) 23:09, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unfortunately, the subject is still not notable enough for now. The above editor does not seem to have the usual signs of a paid editor (so I’m inclined to believe their claim that they are unrelated to the subject), so I would highly advise them to better familiarise themselves with the guidelines about reliable sources, and try to edit other articles first. Handmeanotherbagofthemchips (talk) 12:33, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Guilty as charged. I am a newbie having only published one other article. That article was not challenged for deletion, so I am new to this process. I do appreciate your patience with me. I hope this means we can remove the COI tag then. As advised, I did additional research on both reliable sources and notability. First notability as this seems to be the biggest sticking point here. For film notability, one of the stated criteria WP:NFOE can be "The film was featured as part of a documentary, program, or retrospective on the history of cinema". The recent documentary Massey appeared in, "We Kill For Love" satisfies this as 3 of her films that she had the lead role (Star Portal, Shadow of a Scream, and Undercover) and one series (Red Shoe Diaries) were covered. This documentary was featured in the 2023 Overlook Film Festival in 2023, which satisfies another criteria of "The film was given a commercial re-release, or screened in a festival, at least five years after initial release". With 3 of her films then satisfying the notable film criteria, it would follow that the notability of her as an actor is also satisfied with the following criteria "The person has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions" (Satisfies WP:NACTOR). Because this documentary received significant publicity, I was able to find a review in the New York Times of the film, and review in Forbes that specifically called out Massey as one of the "major stars of the era". I will be adding these citations to the page. This should also at least be a good start to satisfying the issue about reliable sources. Therefore, I would respectfully ask that deletion be reconsidered as I believe the criteria has been met. Thanks again for your patience working with a newbie.Keith0603 (talk) 23:33, 7 October 2023 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Keith0603 (talk • contribs) 22:36, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Passes criteria 1 of WP:NACTRESS. There appears to be plenty of WP:SIGCOV of her work to pass our notability requirements for actresses. See [92], [93], [94], [95], [96], [97], [98], etc. There are also a lot of snippet reviews of her films in books in google books. She clearly was a main cast member of multiple films and television shows. I'm concerned that the accusations of coi and the promotional tone of the article are distracting the voters above from viewing the topic through the lens of notability policy and actually following WP:BEFORE. She clearly passes WP:GNG.4meter4 (talk) 17:04, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, the "significant coverage" links given above are clear passing mentions, none give any actual information about Massey, just list her as having played a role. Fram (talk) 17:12, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I found this article.

See this sexy serial-killer flick in the name of cinema science

Which has significant coverage of her role in Shadow of a Scream. Silver seren^C 21:23, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. RL0919 (talk) 22:32, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Naugachia

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

Lacks reliable sources. Full of WP:or. Fails WP:v. Thank you.— Mikeanand (talk) 15:21, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Bihar. Shellwood (talk) 21:40, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You know everything about the region. Even you know that Naugachia doesn't belongs to Mithila Region. But you're trying to manipulate the history. you're totally politically influenced or you're the puppet of any political leader.

But here are some the some online news media links, which can help you to understand Naugachia better.

1.This shows that Angika is the notable language in Naugachia Region. ^[1]

2.This shows that Naugachia comes under Anga Region. ^[2]

M Nitishbgp (talk) 01:21, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Nitishbgp: We need reliable sources for the article. My wp:pov or anyone's for that matter, doesn't matter. And maybe you should look at wp:NPA. @Ponyo: could you please take a look. Thank you. — Mikeanand (talk) 01:46, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Also, everyone is requested to read the cited source in the article to see for yourself if it is wp:or or not. Thank you.— Mikeanand (talk) 01:52, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

References

comment This could be remedied very quickly if the article were properly sourced. Mangoe (talk) 04:21, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep from a deletion point of view, and easily so - it's clearly a notable place from a quick book search. The problems with the article can be solved through editing, maybe even WP:TNT, but deletion is not an option here. SportingFlyer T·C 11:45, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:22, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:39, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Third and final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ArcAngel (talk) 22:15, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep meets WP:NPLACE as it is real and populated. I've removed the OR. It also looks like this title is spelled wrong - the town is recorded in the 2011 Indian census as "NAUGACHHIA" with two H instead of one. Once this AFD closes I will move it, or if nom will withdraw the nomination given the obvious NPLACE meet, I will do it sooner.BrigadierG (talk) 23:03, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, article is full of unverifiable original research and needs a huge rewrite, but does pass WP:NPLACE. GraziePrego (talk) 04:07, 3 October 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 National Rugby League#Mid-season representative rounds with no prejudice against recreation. (non-admin closure) Alpha3031 (t • c) 13:49, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Pacific Rugby League International

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

Following comment on original discussion that all referenced content must be moved to the appropriate article, I am reopening this discussion (in AfD as advised) as that has now been done for this page. ORIGINAL CONCERN: This page group together a bunch of unrelated rugby league competition and one off international matches and presents them as one competition. The intended unifying factor for these games were that they were played by Pacific Islands nations during the NRL international break which a number of them are not. Information on this pages is better suited else where on Wikipedia and the majority of information here has just been copied from those pages. The article is also unreferenced from 2016 onwards. Mn1548 (talk) 16:40, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Rugby league-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:14, 24 August 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 August 28. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 17:25, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Undecided on this one. I think it probably could be re-worked into an article specifically about the Pacific Test, which was part of the NRL calendar for a number of years. Any unrealted fixtures should be removed from the article. J Mo 101 (talk) 09:52, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
But would the title be appropriate? What this article defines "Pacific Rugby League International" as is unscourced, and I can't seem to find a source suggesting it was an official name. I'm not opposed to keeping the article but a major re-work would be needed, and I'm not even sure what direction that re-work would go. Mn1548 (talk) 10:16, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:36, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:17, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative to consider: Redirect to National Rugby League#Mid-season representative rounds. This covers all valid information presented in this article with out an infobox and lead which words the internationals as one competition. Mn1548 (talk) 09:11, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Since this AfD has minimal participation, I would support a Redirect per above, with no prejudice against re-creation if someone wants to put together a more cohesive article in the future. J Mo 101 (talk) 14:26, 18 September 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, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:39, 19 September 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 List of Scream (film series) characters#Tara Carpenter. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:38, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Tara Carpenter

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

Unnotable (and largely unsourced). WP:NOTFANDOM, WP:INDISCRIMINATE, WP:5P1. Edward-Woodrow :) _[talk] 15:08, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to List of Scream (film series) characters#Tara Carpenter would be a fair WP:ATD. BenKuykendall (talk) 17:00, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:40, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep No evidence of a BEFORE has been shown, and a simple search yields a wide variety of articles discussing the character in some depth, or discuss developmental info regarding the character, such as the following sources:

Jenna Ortega teases 'suffocated' Scream 6 as Ghostface heads to New York | Metro News

Scream 6: Taking a Stab at the Big Apple – The Tack Online (bvtack.com)

'Scream VI', Tara Carpenter, And A New Way To Look At Trauma (dreadcentral.com)

Scream (2022): How Tara Carpenter Stole the Show (movieweb.com)

Scream VI Unveils a Horrifyingly Brief Synopsis (cbr.com)

Scream 6's Tara Romance Fixes The Biggest Legacy Characters Failure (screenrant.com)

And I've barely even gone past Page Two of GNews hits. I'm sure if a more thorough search was performed than mine, anyone would find a wide variety of information related to the character. This AfD seems highly unwarranted. Pokelego999 (talk) 22:08, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Movieweb, Valnet and Dreadcentral sources doesn't contribute WP:GNG. Metro and Bvtack are unreliable. GreenishPickle! (🔔) 22:30, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Greenish Pickle! My script for marking unreliable sources just picks up Metro. Can you point me to where the other soruces are marked as unreliable? Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources does not mention them :(

In general, I don't consider such soruces to be very reliable, and the article right now is in a terrible shape, but https://web.archive.org/web/20221110200906/https://movieweb.com/scream-2022-how-tara-stole-the-show/ (link to bypass ads) and the dreadcentral article linked above for example do seem to meet SIGCOV (I did not check other, they don't mention the character in the title and likely fail SIGCOV - if someone cares to claim otherwise, please do so, with quotes). Oh, and Screenrant article seems borderline ok too, and you did not call it out as unreliable...

Leaning weak keep for now. Of course, tag this article with cleanup templates (I'll do it now). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:12, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I seen somewhere before that Metro was marked as unreliable, but I think it was probably at WP:VG. GreenishPickle! (🔔) 13:57, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Based on my source assessment below (of the sources linked above), the article could maybe pass GNG if we clear up the question marks. Edward-Woodrow :) _[talk] 19:40, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Edward, CBR.com has its own Wiki, and based on my own analysis, the site is blog-based, meaning it is not reliable. MovieWeb mainly relies on WP:TABLOIDs from other sources, which means it is also unreliable. Finally, the Screen Rant source is actually fairly significant. I counted 24 instances of Tara's name appearing. Granted its about her relationship to Chad, but delves into how their romance is shown to us the viewers. Conyo14 (talk) 04:51, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

CBR has been used for articles in the past. Their reliability, from my experience, tends to be dependent on what is written. Granted, it only has a small blurb of info about Tara, so it's not an end of the world scenario if it isn't fit for the article, but I thought it best to include all that I could find from my brief search. Pokelego999 (talk) 17:18, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Source assessment table:
Metro News	WP:RS/P	~ Barely? Seems to focus on the plot	✘ No
bvtack.com	? Greenish Pickle! says it's unreliable, but I can't find any listings on RSN	Focuses on the plot.	✘ No
dreadcentral		Barely.	✔ Yes
movieweb	? No RSN discussions; leaning towards unreliable.		? Unknown
cbr.com	? No consensus at RSN. Also out of their scope.		✘ No
screenrant.com		?	? Unknown
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:33, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:33, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of Scream (film series) characters#Tara Carpenter. NYC Guru (talk) 08:52, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to the list of Scream characters, or Jenna Ortega, I'm not fussed about where it goes. There is no critical discussion about the character in RS, as seen from the source table above. Oaktree b (talk) 14:26, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as usual with most character articles. There is almost nothing to say here outside in-universe lore. Any real-world stuff is more closely related to the films than the character in their own. Andrzejbanas (talk) 18:09, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge as WP:ATD. There is a valid target if it helps produce a compromise. As is, there isn't enough WP:SIGCOV to support this as a separate article. Regardless of the outcome, editors can continue to discuss how to cover this at the related notable articles. Shooterwalker (talk) 16:56, 23 September 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 Recurring elements in the Final Fantasy series#Magitek. czar 02:52, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Magicite

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

I could only find one reliable non-primary source at https://www.rockpapershotgun.com/magicite-review . The reviewers at Capsule Computers (the only non-primary source used in the article) don't seem to have much in the way of credentials, so I don't think that that review can be used for notability. QuietCicada (talk) 23:27, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. QuietCicada (talk) 23:27, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Restore redirect to Final Fantasy from 2014. As nom states, it has insufficient significant coverage, despite the lengthy Rock Paper Shotgun article. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 23:30, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Recurring elements in the Final Fantasy series - it seems like the concept of magicite is addressed there. Game is patently non-notable and lacks secondary coverage. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 09:26, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:26, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. I'm not sure that redirecting to Recurring elements in the Final Fantasy series is the best option as that article is also at AFD right now.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:39, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Recurring elements in the Final Fantasy series. I don't agree it's a bad option since it looks like the AFD discussion there is a WP:SNOWBALL towards keep. BrigadierG (talk) 22:45, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Recurring elements in the Final Fantasy series. Not notable on its own. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 15:22, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Recurring elements in the Final Fantasy series. The consensus for the AFD there seems to be reaching keep, so I don't think there's a problem there. Industrial Insect (talk) 17:28, 27 September 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. The consensus is the article should be improved instead of deleted. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:25, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nuzha Al-Ghussein

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

Article reads like an advertisment. All of the article but a few sentence are unsourced. May be WP:SELFPROMOTION Seawolf35 (talk) 08:17, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Palestine. Shellwood (talk) 09:38, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The subject's name here is Nuzha Nuseibeh or Nuzha Nusseibeh, but the page is currently listed under the subject's maiden name, not her married and most commonly used name (as used for example, alongside her husband, in diplomatic records, or as president of the YWMA in Jerusalem, and as quoted in books), so a WP:BEFORE search for sources under the actually more prevalent name for the individual is required. Iskandar323 (talk) 12:08, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: On the face of it, that the subject received the Order of Jerusalem is alone sufficient for WP:ANYBIO. The subject's activism in politics and women's rights also makes it likely that more material is out there, quite possibly more in Arabic than in English given the geographies and time period involved. Iskandar323 (talk) 13:00, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Article requires clean-up, more citations, and a more neutral tone, but she seems to be a relevant and impactful figure in mid-century Palestinian philanthropy. Mistamystery (talk) 23:55, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. It looks like the newly found sources address the GNG problem. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:40, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Raja Changez Sultan

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

Although two of the sources here are the Express Tribune, both are interviews and therefore not independent of the subject, so failing WP:GNG. Exhibitions at many minor galleries (the Louvre, but in Karachi) and no record of enduring impact, critical review or significant monument do not pass WP:ARTIST. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 08:14, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists, Poetry, and Pakistan. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 08:14, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep another lazy nomination without a proper WP:BEFORE. Easily passes WP:NARTIST as there is a ton of coverage: [99], [100], [101], [102], [103], [104], [105], [106]. 74.14.185.53 (talk) 11:31, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep After reviewing the article and looking at ALL the references, my conclusion is that this article about a veteran painter-artist is worth keeping. I saw many references not only from the reliable sources like Dawn newspaper, The Express Tribune and Youlin magazine and others. This is a veteran painter-artist whose first paintings go back to the 1960s and continue to the present tme. His paintings have been shown at many international galleries including Europe and the United States. In my opinion, the subject passes WP:NARTIST...Ngrewal1 (talk) 20:37, 23 September 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:28, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Danny "Danno" Williams

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

Many sources in the article are primary/unreliable, a quick Google search does not give any sources that prove individual notability. If the character is not notable, I suggest a redirect and/or merge to List of Hawaii Five-0 (2010 TV series) characters#Danny "Danno" Williams. Spinixster (chat!) 08:04, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Science fiction and fantasy, and Television. Spinixster (chat!) 08:04, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment No opinion on whether to keep or delete, but the proposed merge target would be inappropriate as Hawaii Five-O (and thus this character) has had two different iterations. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 19:55, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think it is the best merge/redirect target as the original Hawaii Five-O series does not have a list of characters page, and either way, the two iterations of the character are pretty much the same. Spinixster (chat!) 08:52, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Further to this, there is also a similar Steve McGarrett created in 2007. If you look at the Hawaii Five-O navbox, they appear to be the only who characters like this. Chin Ho Kelly is a redirect. — Maile (talk) 00:42, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge but divide the information between the original series characters and the reboot. That would be the best solution, IMO. TH1980 (talk) 01:21, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ArcAngel (talk) 22:16, 26 September 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} 07:59, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Leaning keep, as a redirect can not point to multiple targets, and disambiguation is inappropriate for multiple iterations of a single character, which leaves this as the equivalent of a WP:BROADCONCEPT article on the topic. BD2412 T 17:45, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep because we can't redirect for reasons cited above. Now for the improved sourcing that the article needs. Mystery Scene magazine feels editorialy. It's About TV is a direct discussion of the character but the author says they've published just one nonfiction book and we'd have to establish that they're generally considered an expert in the field for this source to be considered reliable. Heading to Google Scholar: Aha! [107] [108] Darkfrog24 (talk) 21:03, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Mystery Scene source is a brief mention. Also, it's written by a writer for the show and is more about his experiences working for the show.
- It's About TV is a self-published source (check bottom of website)
- First book source mentions the character in plot summaries, there doesn't seem to be much discussion about the character himself.
- Second book source is mostly just plot summaries and comparing him to Steve McGarrett. There's little to no commentary about the character.
Spinixster (chat!) 02:41, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, Mystery Scene isn't suitable, and we'd have to establish that the writer of the self-published source is publicly considered an expert, WP:SPS, for it to be suitable for anything other than that writer's opinion. Darkfrog24 (talk) 19:42, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep because of the multiple iterations of the character. A standalone page seems better in my opinion for showing these two. GraziePrego (talk) 06:15, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm seeing many picking Keep due to the character having multiple iterations, but I want to bring out another option to disambiguate the page at Danny Williams instead. Something like the Barry Allen page, with both the original, Arrowverse and DC Extended Universe versions of the Flash listed as well as other people named Barry Allen. Spinixster (chat!) 06:55, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:53, 11 October 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. – Joe (talk) 13:47, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of equestrians that competed in more equestrian disciplines

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

"List of equestrians that competed in more equestrian disciplines" seems oddly tortological, but then 'List of equestrians with a history of competition in more than one discipline', which is what I think we're after here, is a level of detail I think we don't need. What next? List of authors who wrote more than one type of book? Alexandermcnabb (talk) 07:57, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports and Olympics. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 07:57, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-encyclopedic. This is also like having "List of pool players who play in more than one pool discipline" like eight-ball and nine-ball; and so on. For many of these sorts of pro and semi-pro competitors, competing in more than one discipline is rather expected. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 09:01, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:37, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Looks like trivia to me. Kante4 (talk) 13:18, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Trivia. Nigej (talk) 06:32, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:12, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hasan Abdulwahab Al-Qadhi

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

Fails WP:GNG, google search brings up no sources Brachy08 _(Talk) 06:54, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and United Arab Emirates. Shellwood (talk) 09:36, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 13:30, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 13:38, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG as stated above, no sources in Arabic either. Tails Wx 15:44, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. Fails WP:GNG. -The Gnome (talk) 14:42, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:18, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dancing Stars (Austrian season 6)

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

Purely unexplained statistics, a failure of WP:NOTSTATS. SWinxy (talk) 19:07, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reason:

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Dance, Television, and Austria. SWinxy (talk) 19:07, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Searching for the Austrian series alone is tricky, but this search, restricted to sites in the .at top level domain, gives some possible references. I added a reference I found in the German Wikipedia to Dancing Stars (Austrian season 8). Eastmain (talk • contribs) 21:19, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is the equivalent of Dancing with the Stars, but in Austria. I have been working to overhaul these season articles to bring them into compliance with Wikipedia policy. I am currently on the Australian seasons, but can address the Austrian seasons next. Please allow me the chance to repair these, but it’s not something I can do immediately as I want to finish the Australian seasons first. Bgsu98 (Talk) 09:35, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Bgsu98 and Eastmain: is there anything that could bring these articles into compliance? What's happened is that some parts have been removed, but nothing encyclopedic has been added yet (i.e. still NOTSTATS). Can these seasons be standalone encyclopedic articles? SWinxy (talk) 23:38, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I did remove some of the most egregious nonsense on one or two of the articles, but I have not had a chance to do much more because I want to finish work on the Australian seasons first. Not that this work is ever truly finished. In fact, I’ve gotten sidetracked the last few days back to the American seasons in an attempt to bring a uniformity and consistency to all of the seasons in the franchise, regardless of nation. If I work on the Austrian articles and find I can’t make them work, I’ll re-nominate them myself. Bgsu98 (Talk) 23:46, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:10, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I'm going to relist this once more.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:11, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 06:37, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE. I have worked a little on a few of these articles and they are just not worth it. I have moved a few relevant tables to the Dancing Stars main article, but these season-specific articles can go. We don't even have articles for every season, both before and after. Bgsu98 (Talk) 18:26, 21 September 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!} 07:11, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Omid Khansari

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

Tagged for notability since 2010. Fails WP:NACTOR and WP:GNG. - UtherSRG (talk) 11:18, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, Sweden, United States of America, and Florida. UtherSRG (talk) 11:18, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:16, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete since subject lacks the required level of notability per WP:GNG and also WP:NCREATIVE. The article's creator has been indefinitely blocked for "abuse of multiple accounts" but that's just collateral damage. -The Gnome (talk) 14:41, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:09, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mascara (musician)

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

Likely to fail WP:MUSICBIO KH-1 (talk) 06:23, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and New York. Shellwood (talk) 08:45, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:13, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Subject fails WP:GNG and WP:NCREATIVE, though easily passes WP:PROMO. All sources already present and a handful of others one can scare up online are routine listings and announcements about work that is being and released. Virtually nothing about the artist himself. And the fact that the text has been posted up by a banned account does not help much. -The Gnome (talk) 14:28, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete: Does not pass WP:NMUSIC/WP:BIO, only thing that shows up is Allmusic and some media links. The listed sources does not seem reliable and are not found here WP:RSMUSIC. dxneo (talk) 13:55, 25 September 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 Okay Ka, Fairy Ko!: The Movie. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:08, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Okay Ka, Fairy Ko!: Part 2

AfDs for this article:

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

Sent to Draft, returned; redirected, reverted. So here we are. Unsourced, non-notable part 2 of series Okay Ka, Fairy Ko!, which article covers this topic more than adequately reflecting its independent notability. Clearly consensus now needed to either redirect without fear of reversion or delete. Personally, I'd commend the latter to your excellencies... Alexandermcnabb (talk) 05:44, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Film, and Philippines. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 05:44, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There may be offline sources I can’t see but it doesn’t seem notable to me. There is a perfectly adequate article on the whole series so if there’s no consensus to delete a redirect would be ok. Mccapra (talk) 06:51, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or redirect to Okay Ka, Fairy Ko!: The Movie. This version of the article may give a better idea of why. The last Afd was not that long ago (July 31!!!) and things haven't changed. Please note that this is a feature film and not a part of the TV series. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 07:23, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry I missed that AfD, not sure how, 'cause I'd have gone G4 if I'd have realised... Redirect was reverted, hence AfD... Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 09:05, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Except G4 Speedy deletion applies to pages that were deleted and the consensus here was for a merge. I have an opinion on the page (above) but no opinion on renominating the page; still, this essay, that I am sure you know, might be of interest. Best, -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 09:50, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Let me have my fun. I'm imagining a G4... Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 09:59, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

My vote would go towards a redirect, because while the movie exists, stars well-known actors and (from what I remember) was a blockbuster, it's really hard to come up with (online) sources about this movie. A redirect will be better. ---Tito Pao (talk) 09:27, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Restore redirect: per the first AfD. ThisIsSeanJ (talk) 10:14, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as suggested is fine, nothing has changed in the last month that makes it now more notable. Oaktree b (talk) 14:50, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Restore redirect per above --Lenticel ^(talk) 07:57, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If possible, salt the article until notability has been found (unless this AfD is not closed as keep). The creator JuanTejada19 keeps on restoring the article despite the result of the first AfD and this seems disruptive. ThisIsSeanJ (talk) 09:28, 21 September 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 Hinunangan#Secondary schools. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:38, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Holy Rosary Academy (Hinunangan, Philippines)

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

Tagged for references since 2011. Google and Google News turns out no reliable non-directory sources. GNews Archives shows a 1989 story about a girl who reunited with her family who just happened to attend this school but that's it. Alternatively, redirect to Hinunangan#Secondary_schools. --Lenticel ^(talk) 03:59, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and Philippines. Lenticel ^(talk) 03:59, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and don't redirect. Not a plausible target. HueMan1 (talk) 04:02, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Another possibility is to have it redirect to Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Palo, assuming that that article mentions the primary/secondary Catholic schools/parochial schools the archdiocese operates. At present, however, that information isn't in the archdiocese article. So Lenticel's suggestion to have it redirect to Hinunangan#Secondary_schools might be more viable. --- Tito Pao (talk) 09:30, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete without objection to redirecting per nom — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:55, 19 September 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.

This closure might be contested but the previous AFD was interrupted by a Speedy Deletion and had no participation so I don't think it can count as a previous AFD as it was technically opened and then closed. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:29, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Peeled Snacks

AfDs for this article:

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

Defunct company with very little notability. GraziePrego (talk) 03:47, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails WP:NCORP, references are below standard, appears only to be notable for going out of business, a common enough business happening to be treated as WP:ROTM 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 06:40, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink, Companies, and New York. Shellwood (talk) 09:41, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:08, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fear and Hunger

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Fear & Hunger

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

I say Keep, as I believe the game as garnered further notoriety between the time of the deletion discussion and now. The page is adequately sourced and it has been established that it is notable. Pyraminxsolver (talk) 01:28, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really see why this page should be deleted. I was unaware that a previous Fear and Hunger article had been deleted, but I think another discussion should be had on whether this article deserves to be deleted. It is my opinion that the multiple articles from Rock Paper Shotgun, CBR, and DualShockers all fall under WP:GNG. I think another discussion should be had on whether it does or does not fall under WP:GNG. I don't think they're the strongest sources in the world but I've definitely seen Indie game articles that have been kept on far shakier grounds --NimoEdit (talk) 00:44, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete @Pyraminxsolver: AfD is for when you want an article to be deleted, not kept. Nevertheless the article should still be deleted, as the notability has not changed since the previous AfD held mere months ago. It fails WP:GNG with most sources not being from WP:RS. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 04:53, 5 September 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 September 5. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 04:56, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. DualShockers is situational, the most recent discussion[109] is pretty promising, and the author of these two pieces[110][111] is a professional journalist in the entertainment industry. Those plus RPS should suffice for GNG. And note that one of those DualShockers pieces is new since the last AfD, so the coverage is indeed deeper now than a couple months ago. —siro χ o 05:55, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Even assuming we count DualShockers as a reliable source, per WP:GNG, "Multiple publications from the same author or organization are usually regarded as a single source for the purposes of establishing notability." The second one is also about a totally different game, the sequel. So we'd preferably need one other source, and CBR is simply a content farm. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 06:45, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the combination of the first DualShockers source and the Rock Paper Shotgun article is enough to just barely pass WP:GNG. Zxcvbnm is correct that if it were just the two DS articles this wouldn't be notable, but the combination of the first one with RPS is enough to showcase notability. Devonian Wombat (talk) 14:36, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's incredibly rare that 2 reviews would be considered GNG passing, especially when one of them is from a situational source. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 14:53, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have added 3 additional non-english reviews, all of which I believe should pass WP:RS. Surely this should be considered enough to pass GNG? NimoEdit (talk) 02:59, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not every source that is published on the internet passes WP:RS - there are massive amounts of unreliable sites. That said, The Games Machine is an unequivocal reliable source. This still does not, IMO, put it over the edge into notability, though it does help. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 04:11, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Still unclear why the nominator is making an argument for Keeping this article. Still, there is an editor advocating Delete.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:11, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 17:06, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Found a news article from Finnish magazine MikroBitti but it's paywalled: [112] --Mika1h (talk) 00:09, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:13, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There are just about enough RS to keep this article. I don't have access to Mikro Bitti articles, but it nevertheless contributes to the game's notability. Cortador (talk) 08:11, 19 September 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!} 01:54, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Rhadi Ferguson

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

Doesn't meet GNG or WP:NMMA, seems to only be notable as Kimbo Slice's cousin, though notability is WP:NOTINHERITED. Lots of fishy primary refs, dead links and a general sense that this is a COI/vanity page. Nswix (talk) 03:16, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Martial arts, and Florida. Nswix (talk) 03:16, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ as per nom. Doesn't meet WP:NMMA. Lethweimaster (talk) 15:30, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep After reading what BeanieFan11 brought up below. Lethweimaster (talk) 10:33, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Does not appear to meet any current notability criteria. The most notable thing he did was compete at the 2004 Olympics where he won his first fight and lost his next two. I don't see significant independent coverage from reliable sources to show he meets WP:GNG. Papaursa (talk) 01:24, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I want to thank BeanieFan11 for his efforts and finding those sources. Ferguson doesn't meet any SNG, but I think the GNG is met. I've certainly seen other AfDs closed as keep with poorer sources. I went looking for more evidence of his U.S. championships, but USA Judo only shows the 2023 results on their website. Papaursa (talk) 01:42, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. @Lethweimaster and Papaursa: The article might not be in the best shape, but there's extensive coverage of Ferguson available, see for example: "Muscle and Mayhem; Ferguson Takes No Holds Barred Pursuit of Judo Gold", a 1,200 word feature from The Washington Post (national coverage); "COURAGE OF THE FIGHT; Armed with the best America has to offer in judo, Rhadi Ferguson will accept nothing less than gold in Athens.", a 1,300 word feature from the Los Angeles Sentinel (more national coverage); "Ferguson getting an education at Games", 700 words from The Gazette; "Judo Olympian ready for the cage" (part 2), an in-depth feature story from Florida Today; "Judo master sharpens skills for Athens" (part 2), a feature story from The Palm Beach Post; and "Titusville black belt will guide Bahamas in World", from Florida Today. Ferguson passes WP:GNG. BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:53, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per BeanieFan11. Scorpions1325 (talk) 13:10, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:01, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:38, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Beanie, checked myself and it seems that there is enough of WP:GNG being applied for an article to not be deleted. Kline | let me clear my throat! | (contribs) 20:09, 19 September 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 Muhammad Ali. Content can be merged into other articles if an editor is inclined to do so. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:53, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Veronica Porché Ali

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

Doesn't meet notability, which is WP:NOTINHERITED Nswix (talk) 02:39, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Nswix (talk) 02:39, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:12, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge content across the articles for her 3 relatives - Indefensible (talk) 17:58, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. If you are seeking a Merge, please state what the Merge target is. Closers shouldn't have to guess.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:36, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It would be to Muhammad Ali, Carl Anderson (singer), and Laila Ali. Right now this is a nice connecting article between those 3, but I agree that she does not seem to meet notability on her own. - Indefensible (talk) 04:14, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've never closed an AFD to Merge to more than one article. I think I'd leave that to some other closer. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:32, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete outright on account of subject distinctly lacking sufficient independent notability, an attribute that cannot be inherited yet is necessary for a Wikipedia article. Whatever little can be salvaged, i.e. is appropriately sourced, could be merged away, though it appears that our subject's already present in the suggested three lemmas. -The Gnome (talk) 14:09, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Merge (officially) into Muhammad Ali but of course reference her as necessary in the articles of other close kin.Stefen Tower_{s among the rest!} ^{Gab • Gruntwerk} 23:31, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:52, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

St Kilda SC

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

None of the sources establish notability (WP:GNG). Couldn't find any online either. ––– GMH MELBOURNE TALK 01:33, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports and Australia. ––– GMH MELBOURNE TALK 01:33, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:39, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 13:30, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 13:38, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - @GiantSnowman:, I found surces lik [113], [114], and [115] among more sources. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 17:28, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
the first source is good, the others less so... Giant Snowman 17:41, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Semi-professional football club playing in state league competition in Victoria. Simione001 (talk) 22:02, 19 September 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.

Ringwood City SC

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure)‎ ––– GMH MELBOURNE TALK 01:21, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

None of the sources establish notability (WP:GNG). Couldn't find any online either. ––– GMH MELBOURNE TALK 01:28, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports and Australia. ––– GMH MELBOURNE TALK 01:28, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Semi-professional football club the has been around for over 50 years and has played in the top tier of football in Victoria. Simione001 (talk) 02:47, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:42, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 13:30, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Simione. Giant Snowman 13:37, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article appears to should WP:BASIC in my opinion. Govvy (talk) 13:53, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Govvy: WP:BASIC is in relation to biographies. ––– GMH MELBOURNE TALK 14:27, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per above. Many sources like [116], [117], [118], [119], [120]. Clearly notbale historical team in Australia. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 17:21, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Das, clearly notable and passes WP:GNG shown by above sources. Kline | let me clear my throat! | (contribs) 20:06, 19 September 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.

[1] "नारायणपुर पहुंची लोकगायिका देवी ने कहा:अब अंगिका भाषा में=www.naugachia.com". Retrieved 2018-03-13.

[2] "अंग जनपद का प्रसिद्ध लोक पर्व मनसा विषहरी पूजा नवगछिया शहर में धूमधाम से शुरू=www.gs-news.in". Retrieved 2022-08-18.

[1]

[2]